Enough talk, time for action, CARICOM official says on slavery reparations
"Enough talk, time for concrete results," said Hilary Brown on Tuesday, representative of the CARICOM Reparations Commission, at the fourth session of the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent in New York.
Calls for reparations are longstanding but have been gaining momentum worldwide, particularly among CARICOM and the African Union. Backlash against it has also been growing.
CARICOM has a reparations plan, which, among other demands, calls for technology transfers and investments to tackle health crises and illiteracy. The AU is developing its own plan.
CARICOM and the AU have in recent years joined forces in the fight for reparations, and Brown said that partnership put the movement at a "defining moment" as they can use one voice to demand action.
Brown said together they could advance the reparations agenda at the UN and other intergovernmental bodies, co-sponsor a joint UN resolution on reparations and advocate for a high-level political forum on the issue.
"CARICOM is ready to take this agenda to the next level, and we welcome the partnership of the AU and other coalitions that share the vision and conviction necessary to ensure that Europe is held to account," Brown said.
Many of Europe's leaders have opposed even talking about reparations.
At least 12.5 million Africans were kidnapped, forcibly transported by European ships and sold into slavery from the 15th to the 19th centuries.
Opponents of reparations argue, among other things, that contemporary states and institutions should not be held responsible for their past.
But advocates say action is needed to address the legacies, such as systemic and structural racism, and say that contemporary states still benefit from the wealth generated by hundreds of years of exploitation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
UN case will determine who is entitled to call an indy referendum
However, Campbell seems to be under the illusion that either Westminster or the United Nations (UN) will grant us independence when in reality neither will for different reasons. In the case of Westminster, they lose territory, people, revenue and power, so they will never grant us the right to hold another referendum or grant us independence even if the polls were at 100% in favour. As such, we need a way forward to hold a legal referendum that Westminster can't do anything about. READ MORE: Every plan to achieve indy must be subject to the test of practicality With the UN, they act as a final court in international matters of decolonisation. As with any court, it is up to the petitioner to prove the case and by the same standard, for others to disprove the case. That can take a few years to reach a final decision. If we win, it doesn't mean that we automatically get independence, it means that the legal position of who can call an independence referendum changes from Westminster to Holyrood and it also means that the majority of UN members will back our claim if we become independent. It also means that whomever is in power in Holyrood at any time can call an independence referendum at a time of their choosing. In other words, Westminster can't veto a future referendum or tell us how many years we have to wait before the next one, and we can hold as many as we need to get the majority we need. I would say that's to our benefit. Yes, Campbell is correct in that we need to do a lot more to shift figures towards a large majority, but is it wasting the time of the UN to appeal to them for help when we have been at stalemate for the last 11 years and can't find a way forward, and the Westminster position is that we are subservient to them? After all, independence is the ultimate goal and that's a long-term solution and not a chant during a march with some flag-waving thrown in as well, no matter how enjoyable the marches are. READ MORE: Octopus Energy steps in as SNP members call to pause Scottish renewable projects One problem we have at present is the laws around electioneering outwith an official referendum/election. That effectively prevents open debate of all the issues from both sides, and we know that the Unionists don't want to debate the matter anyway. If you can't openly debate the issue, then you can't persuade the electorate to come over to the side of independence, and you can't persuade them that your points are valid. As it stands, if certain facts and figures have not been published in the red-top newspapers or by the BBC, then Unionists don't want to know them and claim that we are making them up. It was that open debate in 2014 that made a lot of people move from No to Yes. We need to be careful how we take the independence movement forward. Campbell isn't the first to advocate a more forceful protest and I've done so in the past myself so I'm not totally against the idea. However, I'm 70 years old with just a basic pension. The poll tax and bridge tolls were a long time ago now, it's time for us older ones to hand over the baton to the more active and just as willing Scots who want independence. Alexander Potts Kilmarnock IN his letter 'One election outcome in 2026 could open up multiple routes to indy' (Aug 18), Alistair Potter writes: 'The first-past-the-post plural voting system awards the majority of seats to the largest minority. Scotland uses the identical voting system in the constituencies, and then uses a list system to allocate seats on a proportional basis, which also serves the dual purpose of preventing a party that has done well in the constituencies from winning an even bigger disproportionate share of seats.' The plurality formula (known as FPTP or relative majority method) requires that to be elected a candidate only has to achieve a simple majority of votes (the largest amount of votes). READ MORE: SNP must not act as bystanders in run-up to next year's election List seats for the Scottish Parliament elections are allocated to the party or individual which has the highest regional figure at an allocation, after any recalculation has been made as a result of the previous allocation, NOT on a proportional basis. The effect of voting on the list for 'any indy party that is NOT the SNP' would be that the democratic legitimacy ends with the allocation of the first list seat because of the d'Hondt method being used in CONJUNCTION with FPTP. The sum of successful list allocation quotients for that party would be more than 400% greater than the actual votes received. The combination of the numbers of constituency seats won and list seats allocated (62 + 35) would be extremely disproportionate to the share of the vote (for the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections that would have meant 75% of the seats with only very slightly more than 50% of the vote). Scottish saying: Facts are chiels that winna ding – facts cannot lie. Michael Follon Glenrothes IT is refreshing to have a candidate for the Scottish Greens leadership stressing an environmental issue, in this case climate change ('I may be electoral risk but Greens need to focus on climate leadership', Aug 19). It makes a change from gender and other distractions. Remember, the Greens evolved from the Ecology Party, whose very name stressed environmental priority. Recognising the imminence of global population overshoot, they had a policy commitment to a birth rate well below the replacement rate (2.1 kids per woman). Some 25 years ago, however, that was airbrushed out of the 'Policy Reference Document' at a time when the gender brigade were taking over the party. READ MORE: Scottish Greens need to 'broaden appeal' outside middle class voters Sir David Attenborough has said there is no environmental problem which would not be eased through a lower population. Will the Greens take his message on board, especially now that even Scotland is in population overshoot as measured by our bio-capacity? George Morton Rosyth
Economist
2 hours ago
- Economist
Security 'guarantees' for Ukraine are dangerously hazy
As he hosted European leaders in the White House on August 18th, and fresh from a meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, Donald Trump declared that peace in Ukraine was at hand—but not quite yet, for it had been trickier than he anticipated. 'I thought this was going to be one of the easier ones,' he declared. 'They're very complex.'
South Wales Guardian
3 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Nato defence chiefs hold virtual meeting on Ukraine security guarantees
Italian admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of Nato's Military Committee, said that 32 defence chiefs from across the alliance would hold a video conference as a US-led diplomatic push seeks to end the fighting. US general Alexus Grynkewich, Nato's supreme allied commander in Europe, will take part in the talks, Mr Dragone said on social platform X. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov chided efforts to work on security arrangements in Ukraine without Moscow's involvement. 'We cannot agree with the fact that it is now proposed to resolve collective security issues without the Russian Federation. This will not work,' Mr Lavrov said, according to state news agency RIA Novosti. Russia will 'ensure (its) legitimate interests firmly and harshly', Mr Lavrov added at a news conference in Moscow with Jordanian foreign minister Ayman al-Safadi. US president Donald Trump met last Friday with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska, and on Monday hosted Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and prominent European leaders at the White House. Neither meeting delivered concrete progress. Mr Trump is trying to steer Mr Putin and Mr Zelensky towards a settlement more than three years after Russia invaded its neighbour, but there are major obstacles. They include Ukraine's demands for Western-backed military assurances to ensure Russia will not mount another invasion in coming years. 'We need strong security guarantees to ensure a truly secure and lasting peace,' Mr Zelensky said in a Telegram post on Wednesday after Russian missile and drone strikes hit six regions of Ukraine overnight. Last night, a drone strike on Okhtyrka in the Sumy region injured 14 people. A family with wounded children – 5 months, 4 years, and 6 years old – sought assistance after the attack. In Kostiantynivka, Donetsk region, a glide bomb strike damaged five apartment buildings, and at… — Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) August 20, 2025 Kyiv's European allies are looking to set up a force that could backstop any peace agreement, and a coalition of 30 countries, including European nations, Japan and Australia, have signed up to support the initiative. Military chiefs are figuring out how that security force might work. The role that the US might play in is unclear. Mr Trump has ruled out sending US troops to help defend Ukraine against Russia. Russia has repeatedly said that it would not accept Nato troops in Ukraine. Attacks on civilian areas in Sumy and Odesa overnight into Wednesday injured 15 people, including a family with three small children, Ukrainian authorities said. Mr Zelensky said the strikes 'only confirm the need for pressure on Moscow, the need to introduce new sanctions and tariffs until diplomacy works to its full potential'.
