On March 25, 2026, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted resolution A/RES/80/250, recognizing that the transatlantic slave trade was the gravest crime against humanity, citing its brutality and ongoing anti-Black racism in the West.

UNGA Resolution A/RES/80/250

Ghana and the African Union (AU) co-steered this resolution, which received 123 votes in favour. Three countries (the US, Israel, and Argentina) voted against it. There were 52 abstentions, mainly from Western Europe, despite these countries initiating and benefiting from the transatlantic slave trade for over 400 years. The resolution could have marked a moment of global convergence in support of human rights as it gave the West a chance to support basic rights in a situation unlikely to yield economic gain.

The US, UK, and France, among others, have often invoked human rights as justification to invade resource-rich countries like Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. However, approving the UNGA resolution about slavery would have meant supporting human rights even at a small cost to their economic and political gains obtained from slavery. Instead, by voting against or abstaining, the West shows it invokes human rights mainly for economic or political gains. This case prompts reflection on why some societies cling to past injustices even when a symbolic correction is possible.

Profiles in Folly

The West’s reluctance to join the world in recognizing the transatlantic slave trade as a grave human rights violation can be understood by reviewing Alan Axelrod’s “Profiles in Folly,” a book that attempts to diagnose human decisions across history, especially those that seem nonsensical. Axelrod, a Ph.D. holder from the University of Iowa, is a historian whose work revolves around borrowing lessons from historical events and applying them in leadership roles to avert avoidable failures.

His work demonstrates that the greatest failures in history did not result from ignorance but rather from hubris, a lack of foresight, and a failure to appreciate uncomfortable truths. Notably, voices from the West know that slavery was evil but are unwilling to accept this uncomfortable truth, as it threatens their source of economic and political advantage over the past centuries. This failure to recognize uncomfortable truth, by failing to support a non-binding, hence largely symbolic, resolution A/RES/80/250, is unwise when weighed against Axelrod’s view, as it undermines the parties’ credibility and influence.

Notably, countries opposed to or abstaining from the aforementioned resolution have illustrated an inhuman attitude by engaging in colonization, endless wars, and launching military and economic blockades against nations, killing millions. The US and Israel were the only countries that voted against the UN resolution A/RES/76/166 in 2021, which recognizes food as a human right and views hunger as a violation of human dignity. Also, Israel, backed by the West, has conducted a genocide in Gaza since 2023, showing a callous attitude.

While the Ghana-AU motion was inspired by the need to pursue Justice, Europe’s abstention and the US rejection show how the West is willing to hold on to the proceeds of its past crimes, which can have adverse consequences for the world.

What is at Stake?

As Axelrod observed, catastrophes across history often occur when leaders convince themselves that their poor decisions (including their consequences) would go unnoticed. Yet, these decisions made against a backdrop of hubris backfire, time and again. Many scholars, activists, and international bodies have declared the transatlantic slave trade a legally and morally indefensible matter. Documents and actions such as UNESCO’s (1994) Routes of Enslaved Peoples, a European Parliament Resolution (June 2020), US Congressional Apologies (2008 & 2009), and the UK’s Abolition of the Slave Trade Act (1807) show that Western nations agree that the transatlantic slave trade was illegal and immoral.

Therefore, the West’s refusal to adopt the aforementioned A/RES/80/250 does not result from ignorance of history but from unwillingness to relinquish a mindset that justifies gains obtained through violence against other groups. The West’s knowledge, when coupled with its unwillingness to institute reparations and other aspects of restorative justice, constitutes hubris and leaves the door wide open for actions such as Western-led wars, neocolonialism, and plunder into the future.

The resolution under review, as steered by Ghana and the AU, was meant to make the perpetrators of slavery confront aspects of their history, which can inspire a change of heart, making the historical offenders turn from their violent ways. However, the West seems poised to insist on holding onto behaviours that brought it economic and political advantage while greatly harming other groups. Its refusal to admit guilt or pay reparations demonstrates unrepentant and racist views, suggesting a continued propensity for future crimes such as wars, neocolonialism, and new forms of slavery for profit.

For instance, at the time of writing, the US leadership threatened to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age and seize its oil, displaying the West’s readiness to launch bombing campaigns for economic and military gain. In the recent past, Western Europe and the US destroyed a once-prosperous Libyan nation, leading to the emergence of an open slave trade for Africans in the 21st century. The West’s transatlantic slave trade impoverished Africa, taking millions of able-bodied people from the continent for over 400 years, which disrupted African societies and cultures.

Captured victims were stripped of their humanity, including their names, families, and cultures, and were used to enrich European slave markets before being forced into free labour, while some were eaten. The tragedy for African slaves in the West included gruelling work on plantations and abuses such as whipping, rape, and amputations. This exploitation continued for generations, and its effects persist today as racism and discrimination. To prevent such tragedies, a framework compelling Western nations to confront their past actions done in pursuit of profit may inspire caution and contribute to world peace.

Going Forward

As Axelrod shows in Profiles in Folly, there are many instances in history when leaders were presented with clear opportunities to correct past wrongs, but chose inaction, denial, or self-interest. The West’s behaviour during the March 2026 UNGA vote shows a recurrence of such behaviour, as they chose to shun global moral consensus to continue enjoying the proceeds of the slave trade and reserve an opportunity to repeat such ills in the future. As Axelrod shows, history not only records injustices but also presents opportunities for perpetrators to acknowledge and offer redress, opportunities that are often missed because perpetrators find much comfort in the proceeds of their injustices.

Simon Chege Ndiritu is a political observer and research analyst from Africa. Courtesy

https://journal-neo.su/2026/04/22/unga-resolution-recognizes-transatlantic-slave-trade-as-the-gravest-crime-against-humanity/