By Sir Timothy Garden
Calls for apologies by countries for the sins of their ancestors are on the increase. The return of Germany into the fold of civilised nations was undoubtedly helped by their public recognition of responsibility for the Holocaust. Reparations to the Jewish survivors of the Nazi genocide has made it possible for Germany to work with Israel, and the rest of the world community as a force for good. In South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been an effective mechanism for the healing of the wounds of the apartheid years. Individual expressions of regret by those who abuse human rights have been more effective than revenge measures by the new government. The difficulties in relationships between Japan and its neighbours, particularly with China, are often blamed on the Japanese unwillingness to apologise and show their regret for war crimes during World War 2. Yet events in Durban over the last week have raised the question of how far these official apologies for historic injustices can go.
The World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance must have needed a long series of complex international discussions just to come up with its wordy title. What should have been a United Nations conference to promote tolerance both between and within countries was dogged for the whole week by fierce intolerance and disagreement. The title might have been drawn in order to avoid disputes over what constituted racism, but the net effect was to allow every single interest group to claim that they were the objects of repression. The Muslim community sought to categorise Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as racially motivated. Gay rights movements wanted to bring criticism of Arab repression of homosexuals into the conclusions. The United States was so against any possibility of Israel coming in for criticism that they kept Colin Powell from attending in Durban. This was a pity as he, with Condoleeza Rice, is a good illustration of how far racial tolerance and opportunity has moved in the USA. It would be encouraging if there were any hope that President Bush was learning that refusing to debate with the rest of the world hurts American interests. The final conclusion of the conference was certainly affected by African irritation with the lack of senior US representation.
While Israel was an important side show at the conference, the real debate which hit the British press was over the question of whether apologies by the white nations should be made for their historical involvement in the trading of African slaves. There is already a growing movement among black Americans to gain reparations for the economic benefits derived from exploitation of their slave ancestors. They question why there has been compensation for slave labour under Nazi Germany, but not for slavery in the pre-1865 American States. The proposal at the Durban conference seemed much simpler. A general expression of regret by the former colonial powers seemed at one stage to be on the cards. Yet admitting regret in these times of multi-billion lawsuits can be an expensive piece of diplomacy. Just as the insurance company always advises drivers never to say sorry after a car accident, so the FCO legal experts will have been watching the liability implications carefully. In any event, such a narrow interpretation of responsibility for slavery is patently unjust. In the days when slavery was legal, the trade involved African slavers as well as European traders and American owners. Arab nations conducted their own slave trade – and have been somewhat slower at eliminating it. Indeed, it would be possible to construct a declaration congratulating both Britain and the US on their respective roles in outlawing slavery. Britain banned the slave trade in 1807, and the Royal Navy was the main agency in bringing it to a halt. America fought a bloody civil war over slavery, and the winners abolished it.
While slavery has been banned throughout the world, there are many millions who continue to work for no pay because of debt bondage, child labour, criminal conviction, or threats of violence. These are slaves under the UN definition and are found predominantly in Africa and Asia. It might have been more helpful if the nations of the world had concentrated their efforts in Durban on providing hope to these desperate people. Providing more business for high paid lawyers to argue compensation for US citizens of one colour against those of another will do little to promote racial harmony. Even so, it appeared that the EU was going to be prepared to sign up to some form of expression of regret for past sins in the final statement from Durban. Happily the robust position held by the UK held the day. The final statement rightly recognises that the slave trade was a tragedy in the history of humanity, but does not allocate blame. Importantly, it focuses on modern day slavery as a crime against humanity. British diplomacy seems to have achieved a very sensible outcome for what was always a high risk international conference.
Perhaps it is time to have a "statute of limitations" for official expressions of sorrow for past injustices. Royal visits are soured by debates over whether the Queen should apologise for decisions taken by her ancient ancestors. Japanese Prime Ministers agonise over the symbolism of visits to war graves. Twenty first century youngsters are expected to atone for the inhumanity of their long dead colonial ancestors towards indigenous peoples. All can understand the importance of bringing to justice the perpetrators of crimes against humanity, even when they are old men and the time long past. However, the next generation is not expected to take on their individual guilt, and so we should perhaps draw a line under the collective guilt of countries for actions that pre-date the founding of the United Nations in 1945. There are enough problems of today without spending time arguing about those of a previous era.