Is Starmer Right to Deny Commonwealth Calls for Reparations?

Photo Courtesy: Number 10 via Flickr

Tony Blair’s 2006 speech marking the bicentenary of the Abolition Act was met with disappointment. Whilst he expressed ‘deep sorrow and regret’ for Britain’s role in the slave trade, he fell short of issuing a formal apology, urging people to ‘look to the future.’ Last week, Keir Starmer showed that his government has not moved on from this. He rejected demands from Commonwealth countries to discuss reparations, citing the ‘long, endless discussions’ about the past that could ensue. Both leaders failed to fully condemn the actions of the empire because, whilst they expressed regret, they did not issue a formal apology. 

Starmer’s reluctance to provide financial reparations could be rationalised by the current state of the UK economy and the cost of living crisis; the provision of financial reparations is neither politically or economically viable at this point in time. Whilst it is possible to understand Starmer’s reluctance to provide financial support due to practical implications, it is harder to justify his failure to apologise. We can perhaps explain it by considering two factors: the wider reluctance of colonial powers to accept their past, and the financial implications of a formal apology. 

Britain is far from the only country to circumvent meaningful reparation talks. Belgium acknowledged  the ‘painful episodes’ of its colonial history in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but refused to issue an official apology or engage in reparation talks. Other countries such as Portugal, Spain, France and the US have taken a similar approach. 

This reluctance to apologise can be explained by the idea that responsibility owned through an apology necessitates immediate financial compensation. However, as Catherine Hall notes, it is important to distinguish between repairing destruction incurred by other powers and financial compensation. By separating moral responsibility and financial compensation, we begin to build stepping stones towards repairing the damage both domestically and internationally. 

Acknowledging the moral implications of slavery in British history does not negate the need for fiscal compensation, however. Britain transported ‘an estimated 3.2 million people,’ with beneficiaries including businesses, consumers, workers and landowners. With the implementation of the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act came compensation to former slave owners, and the methods through which these payments were made meant ‘the residue of these payments was not cleared until 2015.’ Two centuries on from its abolition, slavery and empire continue to affect the development of Britain today. If we are to look to the future, as Starmer urges us to, we must consider how the slave trade continues to impact Britain and its former colonies long after its abolition.

Apologising for and acknowledging the effects of slavery is only the first step. A formal apology will not close the door on the past but hopefully open up new conversations about how to move forward and repair the damage. We can see some cases where, although not perfect, countries have made progress in financial compensation. For example, New Zealand responded to Maori demands by returning historical lands and establishing a financial reparations scheme. Though there is a long way to go, it shows that a formal apology can facilitate international debates regarding reparations and political support.