I write with a deep sense of anger. Not the kind that clouds judgment, but the kind that comes from witnessing repeated hypocrisy dressed up as principle.
Once again, the global North has revealed its moral inconsistency, its selective memory, and its discomfort with truth, all under the convenient language of law and diplomacy.
Ghana’s resolution at the United Nations was not an emotional outburst. It was a deliberate moral intervention grounded in history, truth, and justice. By calling on the world to recognize the transatlantic trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialized chattel slavery as the gravest crime against humanity, and by demanding serious engagement with reparatory justice, Ghana forced the international community to confront a truth it has long tried to soften, delay, or ignore.
Meanwhile, the response from some quarters has been telling. On March 25, 2026, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the resolution by an overwhelming majority. Still, the United States, Israel, and Argentina voted against it, while many others chose to abstain. The United States justified its opposition by arguing that crimes against humanity cannot and should not be ranked, and that reparations raise complex legal questions, especially for acts that predate modern international law. At face value, this may sound like a principled legal stance. In reality, it is neither principled nor convincing.
To begin with, the claim that crimes cannot be ranked collapses under the weight of both law and logic. Every legal system in the world ranks crimes. That is why theft is not punished like murder, and murder is not punished like genocide. Even international criminal law distinguishes between different categories of atrocity based on scale, intent, brutality, and long-term consequences. Sentencing, historical judgment, and collective memory all rely on such distinctions. To suddenly insist that crimes against humanity must exist on a flat moral plane is not legal sophistication. It is avoidance.
Once that argument is set aside, the real question becomes unavoidable. What happens when we honestly assess the transatlantic slave trade using those very criteria? The answer is uncomfortable but clear. The transatlantic slave trade was not a single event. It was a centuries-long, highly organized global system that forcibly displaced over twelve million Africans, commodified human beings into inheritable property, and entrenched a racial ideology that continues to shape the modern world. It was financed, insured, and protected by powerful states and commercial interests. It was not incidental. It was structural.
More importantly, its consequences did not end with abolition. They evolved. The system laid the economic foundations of modern global capitalism, restructured entire continents, and produced enduring patterns of inequality that remain visible today in wealth distribution, political power, and social hierarchy. In this sense, the transatlantic slave trade was not only destructive in its time. It was generative of long-term global imbalance. No other historical atrocity combines this scale, duration, economic exploitation, racialization, and intergenerational consequence in quite the same way.
It is at this point that critics often introduce the Holocaust as a counterweight, suggesting that recognizing the transatlantic slave trade in this way diminishes its singular horror. That argument fails. The Holocaust remains one of the most systematic and brutal campaigns of extermination in human history, resulting in the murder of approximately six million Jews within a relatively short period between 1933 and 1945. Its intent and execution must never be minimized. But acknowledging that truth does not require intellectual paralysis or moral exclusivity.
A mature moral framework requires comparative clarity, not selective silence. Even beyond the Holocaust, history records other catastrophic episodes, such as the Rwandan Genocide, where roughly eight hundred thousand people were killed in about one hundred days. That tragedy demonstrates the terrifying speed and intensity of organized human violence. Yet intensity alone cannot be the sole measure of historical gravity. Duration, systemization, economic purpose, and lasting global impact must also be considered.
When these factors are assessed together, the distinct nature of the transatlantic slave trade becomes undeniable. It was slower but wider, less concentrated in time but far more prolonged, and uniquely structured to reproduce itself across generations. It did not merely kill. It transformed human beings into commodities, dismantled civilizations, and permanently reordered the global system. Its afterlife continues to shape the lived realities of millions today. That is what makes Ghana’s claim not only defensible but necessary.
Against this backdrop, the positions taken by some of the opposing states reveal a deeper inconsistency. When a state such as Israel, established in 1948 and deeply shaped by the historical memory of the Holocaust, resists such recognition, it raises a fundamental question about the universality of justice. Recognition of one historical injustice cannot become the basis for denying another. Justice, if it is to mean anything, must be consistent. Likewise, Argentina’s position is troubling given its own historical record of racial erasure and violence against populations of African descent. And for those who abstained under the language of diplomacy, the reality is clear. What is presented as neutrality is often a reflection of discomfort with accountability.
The debate over reparations further exposes this reluctance. Critics argue that reparations are too complex to calculate, that responsibility is too diffuse, and that African participation in the trade complicates any claim. Yet these arguments do not withstand scrutiny. While local intermediaries existed, they did not design, finance, globalize, or sustain the transoceanic system. The primary architects and beneficiaries were European powers and their economic extensions. More importantly, complexity has never prevented action where there was political will. Germany developed compensation frameworks and paid reparations in connection with the Holocaust. The principle has already been accepted. What is lacking now is not legal possibility, but moral courage.
Ultimately, Ghana’s resolution forces a long overdue reckoning. This is not about competing tragedies or diminishing the suffering of any people. It is about naming a historical reality with clarity and honesty. There has never been a system in human history that has produced such a prolonged, global, and structurally embedded pattern of human suffering as the transatlantic slave trade.
To recognize that is not to rewrite history. It is to finally tell the truth, and as we move forward, we in Africa must watch with an eagle eye. We must rethink our alignments, rethink our dependencies, and rethink our place in a world that continues to deny us full historical justice. If we must partner, then let it be with those whose histories are not written on our backs. Let us align deliberately with the Global South, including China, whose paths have not been built on our enslavement or the mockery of our very existence. Because in the end, dignity is not something to be negotiated, and justice is not something to be applied selectively.
By Dr. Manasseh Mawufemor Mintah
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Source: www.myjoyonline.com