UN Resolution Affirms the Gravest Crime Against Humanity

One hundred and twenty-three nations agreed that kidnapping, brutalizing, and enslaving millions of Africans over three centuries was wrong; three disagreed.

Yesterday's UN resolution was both a victory and a disappointment for humanity. One hundred and twenty-three nations voted in favor of condemning the Atlantic slave trade, three voted against, and 53 abstained. The disappointment is a continuation of a centuries-long refusal to admit the obvious. The victory is an overwhelming indictment of a horrific crime against humanity.

This was not a hard choice, and those who quibble over minutiae continue to wear their racism squarely on their foreheads—like Charles Manson’s tattoo. Kidnapping people, brutalizing and enslaving them, and trafficking them across an ocean as chattel property is among the most thoroughly documented atrocities in the historical record. Scholars have debated its mechanisms, economics, geography, and mortality rates. What they have not seriously debated, is whether it was wrong. That 56 nations in 2026 still cannot bring themselves to say so in a non-binding resolution is itself a historical data point worth recording.

Abstention is cowardice dressed as neutrality. Voting against this simple resolution is more toxic: intentionally perpetuating the lie that American wealth and power came only from ingenuity and enterprise, untouched by three centuries of stolen Black labor. The United States voted no, despite building its economy, financial systems, and much of its early industry on the exploited, uncompensated labor of enslaved Black people. The historical literature is not ambiguous. Clearly, the politics still are.

Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa’ is Ghana’s Minister for Foreign Affairs. Following is his address to the international press after the vote.

TRANSCRIPT:

The racialized chattel enslavement of Africans is the gravest crime against humanity. With the adoption of this resolution, Resolution A/80/48, we have not simply passed a text. We have affirmed a truth. We have chosen remembrance over silence, dignity over erasure, and shared humanity over division. We have advanced the cause of justice, and we have done that so emphatically.

Those who voted in favor: 123 member states of the United Nations. 52 abstained, and only three voted against. This is an emphatic victory for justice, and our ancestors, Africans, and all people of African descent are today honored that our humanity and our dignity have been restored.

African group expresses gratitude to supporting member states

Let me, on behalf of the African group, express our profound appreciation to all member states who supported this resolution. We wish to thank those who engaged in this consideration in a spirit of dialogue, reflection, and good faith. We acknowledge that views differed during this process, and we note the positions taken by delegations that were not in a position to support the resolution at this time.

The adoption of this text is not an arrival at a destination, but rather a major step in our ongoing journey and collective conversation for reparatory justice. We remain committed to continued engagement with all member states in the shared spirit of cooperation.

Ghana's president initiated this landmark resolution

Yesterday, His Excellency the President of the Republic of Ghana, who initiated this landmark resolution, talked about the importance of language—how it shapes our understanding of the past and our vision for the future. Today, through this resolution, the world has spoken with clarity and truth. We have affirmed that the trafficking of enslaved Africans and their racialized chattel enslavement is the gravest crime against humanity—a crime whose scale, structure, and enduring consequences demand recognition at the highest level of our shared global conscience, so that we can move forward in healing and in preventing such a crime from ever happening again.

This resolution is not about apportioning blame across generations or nations. It is not about reopening old wounds. It is about ensuring that those wounds are neither forgotten nor denied. It is about creating space for truth, for education, and for a more honest global conversation that allows us to move forward together with greater understanding.

History is complex, but some moments stand apart

History, as we know, is rarely simple. It is layered, it is complex, and at times uncomfortable. This resolution does not deny that complexity. It does not ignore the many dimensions of historical experience. Rather, it recognizes that even within complexity, there are moments in history that stand apart—moments defined by their scale, their systemization, and their impact on humanity. To acknowledge this is not to diminish any other history. It is to deepen our collective moral awareness.

What we have achieved today helps all of us in our renewed commitment: to remembrance, so that future generations inherit truth, not silence; to education, so that history is taught with honesty and integrity; to dialogue, so that differences in perspective become opportunities for understanding; and to cooperation, so that we address the enduring legacies of history in ways that unite rather than divide. The resolution also opens the door for continued global engagement on reparatory justice—not as a narrow or transactional concept, but as a broader framework for healing, restoration, and partnership.

Resolution calls for action within member states

It also calls for further actions within our respective states. We therefore urge every member state to consider carefully the actions it must take to ensure inclusive and good faith dialogue on reparatory justice. The work of justice does not end with remembrance. The racialized systems that adversely shaped our world must yield to a system that does not distinguish between our common humanity and which seeks the interests of all peoples in a fair, just, and equitable manner.

Let me conclude with this reflection. We cannot change history, but we can change how we remember it—and in doing so, we can change what we carry forward. Today, the world has chosen to remember with purpose, justice, and equity. Let that purpose guide us toward a future that is more just, more inclusive, and more profoundly human.

Minister thanks Ghana's president for visionary leadership

I would like to thank our negotiating team, staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the staff of our mission in New York, in Geneva, and in Addis Ababa. And I would like to thank especially our president, His Excellency John Dramani Mahama, for his vision, his dynamism, his effectiveness—which the UN Secretary-General acknowledged today in their bilateral engagement—and for his humanity. His guidance has been absolutely phenomenal in bringing us to this historic moment. Ghana, Africa, and all people of African descent, and indeed all people of the world with good conscience, will eternally be grateful to President Mahama for his leadership at this defining hour in global history.

I thank you very much for your indulgence, and I shall now take your questions.

U.S. vote against resolution called a deliberate red herring

Q: Notable among those that voted against the resolution was the United States. Were you disappointed by that vote? And can you also comment on those that abstained—more than 50 nations. How do you feel about those?

A: I would like to comment on the reasons they gave. They sought to create the impression that the time for negotiations had been short. The President of Ghana served notice last year in September when he delivered his address at the 79th session of the General Assembly. Immediately thereafter, we put together a broad-based coalition including experts, academics, researchers, and historians from all regions of the world, and we commenced negotiations. In the history of the United Nations, this has been a resolution that has gone through so many rounds of consultations. The standard practice at the UN is that each consultation takes one and a half hours — we allocated three hours, twice the time, and had multiple rounds of negotiations. So, to us, it is clear that even if we gave them 50 years, they would say that the time is not enough. But we can no longer wait.

In September, we will be commemorating 100 years since the last slavery was abolished—100 years—and yet there has been no justice. A whole century. So we cannot keep waiting for those who do not want to reckon, who do not want to come to the table with urgency and with acknowledgment that this is a matter that can no longer be swept under the carpet. So we disagree with the notion that there was no time for negotiations.

Secondly, the claim they have made that we are seeking to create a hierarchy of crimes—we have stated clearly that it is not about hierarchy. We are only speaking to a historical fact. Never in the history of mankind have we had such a systemic crime, which took over three centuries—more than 300 years—with its consequences still lingering to this day, manifesting in racism and structural inequality. So we are talking about the contextual framing of what has happened, not about ranking crimes, and we made that very clear. So we are clear in our minds that some are just deliberately stonewalling and introducing red herrings.

But what is fundamental—which nobody can deny—is that more than 12.5 million people were forcibly removed from the continent. More than three million people died and were tossed into the transatlantic ocean, which is a mass grave site. And in our country Ghana, UNESCO has certified that we have the highest number of slave forts and castles. We are living witnesses on a daily basis. When we go into those castles and forts and we see the Door of No Return, we break down. My daughter Ndiva, on an excursion only last week, broke down and asked me, "Daddy, what did we do wrong? And why has there been no justice?" I had no answers for my 14-year-old daughter. So we live with these experiences on a daily basis, and we live with the structural consequences—and that is what this is about. All those other matters about ranking, about time, about more space for negotiations—we believe that they are just red herrings and not a demonstration of good faith so far as the pursuit of justice in this matter is concerned.

Resolution provides clear framework for who benefits from reparatory justice

Q: One of the key reasons raised by the United States—for which India also abstained—is the lack of clarity on who is the recipient of reparatory justice. What is your response to that?

A: That is surprising, because we have in this resolution talked about frameworks we should put in place that will take care of the consequences. We all know that the consequences of the transatlantic slave trade have been the lack of opportunity, discrimination, and the degradation of people of color. So we have said: let's have frameworks that will serve as endowment funds to support education, to support empowerment, to support skills training, and capital for entrepreneurs—and all of that. And we have made clear that African leaders or Caribbean leaders are not looking for money. It goes against our conscience to seek to profit from this. We don't want any payments made to us directly. We are talking about causes to deal with the structural inequalities, and we are also talking about the return of artifacts to the continent.

There are thousands of artifacts from Egypt all the way to the Ashanti Kingdom in Ghana. Those artifacts should not be returned piecemeal, as and when those who are in custody of those artifacts are in a good mood. So we have outlined what must be done and to whom these acts of redress should be addressed. So again, it is totally wrong for a claim to be made that there is no clarity about who benefits from reparatory justice.

Resolution sends a message that impunity will no longer be tolerated

Q: Congratulations on the overwhelming victory in the General Assembly. What message does this resolution send to other people outside Africa who are fighting for justice?

A: This resolution sends a very clear message that the international community will no longer tolerate impunity. That the international community stands for justice. That the international community and our multilateral system—no matter how long it takes—the day of reckoning will come. And so all of us as leaders should be mindful of our actions and our policies: that once we violate the rights of others, once we engage in impunity and acts of injustice, the day of reckoning will come. To me, that is a very, very profound message that the UN is sending to the world today.

Congressional Black Caucus and NAACP endorsed the resolution

Q: In this process, did you have any contact with African American leaders here in this country, especially in Congress?

A: Yes, we did. I personally met with the Congressional Black Caucus. I met with the NAACP. I met with the NAN, which is led by Reverend Al Sharpton. And I am delighted to note that following our meetings, they all publicly endorsed this draft resolution. The Congressional Black Caucus actually wrote to the U.S. ambassador here to make sure that he votes in favor of this resolution. I'm sure he's really in trouble with the Congressional Black Caucus—62 congressmen who urged him to vote positively, and he defied them. I don't want to be in his shoes today.

There was also a statement of endorsement yesterday from the NAACP, and I also note that a lot of Black members of parliament, particularly in the House of Commons—MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy has also done a phenomenal job in mobilizing the House of Commons in support of this resolution. So we've had a very broad-based coalition, and we thank them very much for the support and the pressure that they all brought to bear. That is what has culminated in this victory. So it's a collective victory, and collectively we must all take credit for this victory. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a great day.

That was Ghana's Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa. Ghana's President John Dramani Mahama scored a historic diplomatic victory as the United Nations General Assembly passed his motion on reparations for the transatlantic slave trade, with 123 members of the UN voting in favor. The motion, presented under Ghana's leadership on Wednesday, March 25, called for a renewed international commitment to reparative justice for African nations and the descendants of enslaved people.