Reparations: apology a start

As King Charles III jetted off to the 28th Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in St. John’s, Antigua and Barbuda, Britain appears ready to consider saying sorry. But paying for what it is sorry about remains another matter. Britain’s Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s recent declaration of an openness to a formal apology for chattel slavery in the Caribbean marks a significant diplomatic advance. But his continued rejection of reparations on behalf of his government exposes the distance between acknowledging an injustice and accepting responsibility for repairing it. As Caribbean leaders assemble for the Commonwealth summit in Antigua and Barbuda, that distance will define the negotiations.
The CARICOM Reparations Commission deserves credit for bringing the argument this far. Established in 2013 under Sir Hilary Beckles, it has helped turn a demand routinely dismissed as historical grievance into a sustained regional campaign. CARICOM’s revised reparations programme, approved in July, encompasses health, education, cultural recovery, Indigenous development, debt cancellation and monetary compensation. This is a programme for rebuilding societies, rather than merely distributing cheques. CARICOM, however, has noted they were unable to secure unanimous agreement from all Commonwealth members to advance structured foreign-minister talks on historical slavery harms. We have to continue lobbying on the sidelines.
The central argument of the revised 10-Point Plan for Reparatory Justice is compelling. The British state legislated for slavery, protected the plantation economy and compensated enslavers when emancipation deprived them of their human “property”. The people whose labour had generated the wealth received no corresponding compensation. Britain recognised an obligation to the owners while leaving the “owned” to finance their own freedom.
The major objection touted that today’s Britons personally enslaved nobody misses the point since states inherit obligations as well as assets. A country cannot celebrate centuries of accumulated institutional wealth while declaring the liabilities attached to its acquisition extinguished by the deaths of the original beneficiaries.
Jamaica has now added a potentially consequential legal dimension. Its petition, referred by Charles III to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, asks whether slavery as practised in Jamaica was lawful, whether it violated international obligations and whether Britain owes a reparatory remedy. There is considerable irony in asking an institution associated with imperial authority to examine the empire’s unpaid account but it is Britain that has insisted through the centuries of colonization that the procedure is as consequential as the substance.
Nevertheless, expectations require discipline since an advisory opinion is not an enforceable compensation award. Establishing legal responsibility, defining remedies and securing implementation remain separate hurdles. A favourable opinion, however, could strengthen Caribbean bargaining power without opening the British Treasury automatically.
But we also need to do some stocktaking for not every contemporary Caribbean failure arise from slavery. Our governments remain accountable for corruption, waste and poor policy and we they should commit themselves to the proposition that reparations will be dealt with through transparent administration, measurable benefits and public scrutiny. Those requirements will strengthen the reparations claim by making repair credible.
What, then, can this summit that is now underway realistically deliver? A comprehensive financial settlement looks highly unlikely while Britain expressly rejects reparations. A formal apology is more plausible, although openness to considering one is still short of issuing it. The most useful attainable advance would be negotiations with an agreed agenda, named representatives and deadlines. PM Burnham has indicated openness to structured dialogue regarding a formal state apology and debt-relief assistance.
Our CARICOM leaders should welcome movement without permitting an apology to become a receipt marked “paid in full”. Health and education funds, technology partnerships and debt measures could offer practical routes forward. But ordinary development assistance must not simply acquire a reparations label, and assistance must reach vulnerable Caribbean states routinely excluded by income classifications.
The Commission’s achievement is that Britain increasingly has been forced to answer the question and it is now the leaders’ task to ensure that the conversation that will be launched in Antigua produces obligations. Our ancestors supplied enough unpaid labour and their descendants should not be offered an indefinitely unpaid promise.

Source: Guyana Times