The Commonwealth – whose 56 nations are meeting in the Pacific island nation of Samoa – looks set to defy Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer by putting slavery reparations on the agenda. The leaders of some Caribbean countries insist it is ‘only a matter of time’ until Britain bows to demands of handing over billions of pounds in compensation. Reports suggest they are pushing for a clear agreement on plans for reparatory justice and want to publish this in the all-important final communique of the summit.
Such a move would lay bare the growing divisions at the gathering. It would also amount to a damaging public setback for Starmer, who has insisted that compensation for the transatlantic slave trade is not on the table for discussions. A Downing Street spokesman earlier this week could not have been more categorical: ‘The government’s position on this has not changed – we do not pay reparations.’ The government made plain that an official apology was not on the cards either.
A formal apology would open the floodgates to unlimited financial demands
Starmer said this week that he wants to discuss current challenges with Commonwealth leaders, especially climate change, rather than the past. This has turned out to be wishful thinking on his part. All three candidates vying to be the next secretary general of the Commonwealth – succeeding Baroness Scotland – have called for reparations to countries that were affected by slavery and colonialism. Caricom, a group of 15 Caribbean nations, has called for talks to explore measures that might be taken. In short, quite a few of the other leaders gathered in Samoa want nothing more than to focus on the past – regardless of the consequences.
Diplomatic sources have told the BBC that officials from some countries were negotiating an agreement to conduct further research and begin a ‘meaningful conversation’ on the issue of reparations, usually defined as payments paid by a country for damage or losses caused to other countries or their people. In fact, some suggest the eventual bill should be even greater than the billions so far proposed. A report published last year by the University of West Indies – backed by Patrick Robinson, a judge who sits on the International Court of Justice – concluded that the UK owed more than £18 trillion in reparations for its role in slavery in 14 Caribbean countries.
The draft communique that is causing such diplomatic bother reportedly says: ‘Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice… agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity.’ It goes on to say that the heads of government would play ‘an active role in bringing about such incisive conversations addressing these harms’.
Philip Davis, Prime Minister of the Bahamas, said he would try to have a ‘frank’ conversation with Starmer. He insists it is not just about an apology: ‘It’s not about money, it’s about an appreciation and embracing and understanding of what our ancestors went through, that has left a scourge on our race, culturally, mentally, and physically.’
No one is disputing the abhorrent effects of the slave trade. The problem – whatever Davis and others might claim – is that it does unfortunately come down to arguments about money in the end. A formal apology would open the floodgates to unlimited financial demands, which is why the British government cannot countenance any such form of words. Its position is identical to that of the previous Conservative administration.
Downing Street’s public stance – that reparatory justice is not on the agenda – has made some Caribbean countries more determined than ever to have this debate come what may. Much depends now on what happens in the coming days, with the text of the final communique yet to be hammered out.
On Saturday, there will be a six-hour leaders’ retreat with no aides, leaving them to discuss the issues freely in private. There appears to be little agreement so far, in public at least. This summit is proving to be a test of Starmer’s mettle. He cannot afford – literally and metaphorically – to lose the argument.