Country that still has slaves votes against condemning slavery
this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
95 points (85.7% liked)
World News
40033 readers
876 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
The statement wasn't about "condemning slavery", it was "Declaration of the Trafficking of Enslaved Africans and Racialized Chattel Enslavement of Africans as the Gravest Crime Against Humanity".
The EU voted against it because:
"First, the use of superlatives in the context of crimes against humanity is not legally accurate, such as the use of "gravest" in the title and throughout the text, which implies a hierarchy among atrocity crimes, when no legal hierarchy between crimes against humanity exists. It risks undermining the harm suffered by all victims of these crimes and lacks legal clarity crucial for ensuring accountability. We firmly reject introducing ambiguity in this respect."
"Second, the selective inclusion of lengthy, historical, and contentious references to regional jurisprudence and selective and unbalanced interpretation of historical events - such as in Preambular Paragraphs 21 and 23 - is at odds with accepted UN practice, as well as the stated universal and forward looking objective of this initiative. It risks creating divisions when unity is both necessary and achievable. The role of the General Assembly is not to substitute itself to the academic debate amongst historians."
"Third, we are also concerned by certain legal references and assertions that are either inaccurate or inconsistent with international law. This includes suggestions of a retroactive application of international rules which was non-existent at the time and claims for reparations, which is incompatible with established principles of international law. The principle of non-retroactivity, a fundamental cornerstone of the international legal order, must be strictly upheld. References to claims for reparations also lack a sound legal basis. Any framework for reparatory justice must be grounded in existing multilateral instruments. "
Pretending that not voting "yes" was refusing to condemn slavery is extremely disingenuous.
They also forgot to add that they were the main beneficiaries of the Atlantic slave trade. I'm sure that it must be a coincidence.
These are all incredibly weak justifications wrapped in legalese, that's really just a thin posturing as to their position, which is white/western supremacy, and refusing to hold themselves accountable for hundreds of years of ongoing theft. The EU also refuses to vote for the condemnation of nazism using the same type of legalistic justifications.
I don't have time to go through each of their sentences, but someone easily could ala the style of Marx's critique of the gotha programme, because there's hidden meanings and psychology behind almost every sentence that requires a paragraph.
Classic European rules lawyering to smugly dip out of doing something they never wanted to do anyway. They could have written the resolution themselves, to their exact specifications, and they would still find a convenient technical reason to avoid making any kind of stand against imperialism, past or present.
Slavers will always make excuses for not condemning slavery.
All of a sudden, Europe now cares about international law?
Sounds to me like the EU is just saying "all lives matter" in legal jargon. Tripping over pedantics because they don't want to be seen as responsible for their predecessors actions even though they hold plenty of southern hemisphere countries regularly responsible for actions not committed by their current govt.
If only they actually meant that. Seems they forgot that they use nothing but superlatives when it comes to crimes they now politicially benefit from, like holocaust. Should I provide quotes? But yes Afd makes the same argument for holocaust, go figure.
52 abstentions.
Today I am embarrassed and ashamed to be Australian.
I hope in day black folks in the US get reparations.
I wouldn't hold my breath. While I fully support it if it ever happens, I doubt the US will ever even acknowledge the harm it caused.
The US that's reinstalling statues of conquistadors and slavers?
As a Canadian, I'm disappointed our government abstained.
West refuses
The hell it did. My country refused nothing.
Mexico? Panama? Belize? Guatemala? Brasil? Peru?
Just keep naming countries. Aside from two among like 30, the "West" condemned slavery; because of course.
"The western world" in politics doesn't usually refer to geography, but to the high income euro-amerikkkan countries who benefitted from hundreds of years of theft (much from the countries you mentioned), who based themselves on individualism, private property, and capitalism, and prided themselves on their opposition to the collectivist policies of eastern countries.
This is why Cuba for example is not considered part of the western world, yet japan and south korea are.
Marxists also generally use the term "global south" or "the periphery" to refer to lower-income / exploited via unequal exchange, even though there are some "middle" / lower income countries in the global north also. It gets confusing I know.
Calling something the “gravest crime” seems kind of strange. So genocide is better? Mass rape? Why compare?
The Transatlantic slave trade lasted for centuries and included both genocide and rape and way more
Yeah but Hitler did a pretty good speedrun too.
He did a lot, and still wasn't on the same scale.
I don't understand the goal of making a superlative statement. Any government not run by ghouls would condemn slavery.
Inbe4 " my least favorite government would totally not condemn slavery as a concept lolololol"
