The United Nations and the Politics of Historical Guilt

by Ram ben Ze’ev

The United Nations and the Politics of Historical Guilt

The United Nations General Assembly has adopted a resolution declaring the transatlantic slave trade to be the “gravest crime against humanity.” While the horrors of slavery are undeniable and no moral person today would defend such a practice, the resolution itself reveals more about the modern political agenda of the United Nations than it does about historical reality.

Before the vote, the United States representative, Ambassador Dan Negrea, correctly pointed out that the resolution was “highly problematic in countless respects.” His remarks deserve careful attention, because they highlight two issues that are often ignored when such declarations are made: historical accuracy and the proper role of the United Nations.

First, the historical narrative presented in modern political discourse is frequently incomplete and misleading. The popular portrayal of the slave trade today often reduces the story to a simple racial binary: white Europeans enslaving black Africans. Reality, however, was far more complex. Slavery was a global institution that existed across civilisations for thousands of years. Africans enslaved other Africans. Arab slave traders transported millions across North Africa and the Middle East. European traders purchased captives from African rulers and merchants who profited from the trade. In other parts of the world, slavery existed independently in Asia, the Islamic world, and even within African societies themselves. This is not to minimise the brutality of the transatlantic slave trade. It was a cruel and destructive system that caused immense suffering. But the historical record shows clearly that responsibility for the slave trade was shared across many societies and peoples. To frame the issue today as though it were a simple case of one race victimising another is historically dishonest and serves political narratives rather than truth.

Second, Ambassador Negrea raised an equally important point about the purpose of the United Nations. The UN was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War to maintain international peace and security. It was not created to adjudicate historical grievances centuries after the fact, nor to generate symbolic resolutions that carry financial and political implications for modern states.

The American representative also reminded the Assembly of an essential legal principle: actions that were not illegal under international law at the time they occurred cannot retroactively be declared unlawful in order to create modern legal obligations. Whatever moral judgement we apply to past events, international law cannot function if it is constantly rewritten to punish societies for historical practices that were once universally accepted.

Indeed, slavery was not only legal for most of human history; it was widespread and often encouraged by governments and economic systems around the world. It was only in the modern era that nations began to abolish it, largely through the efforts of moral reformers, religious movements, and political leaders who sought to end a practice that had existed since antiquity.

This is precisely why the United Nations should approach such issues with caution. When the Assembly declares one historical atrocity to be the “gravest crime against humanity,” it inevitably invites comparisons with other crimes. The twentieth century alone witnessed horrors on an unprecedented scale, including the systematic murder of six million Jews during the Shoah.

That genocide was not a distant historical practice accepted by the world at the time. It was a deliberate, industrialised extermination carried out in defiance of moral law and basic human civilisation. Yet the United Nations now appears willing to elevate one historical event above all others while simultaneously politicising the past to advance contemporary ideological agendas.

No one should attempt to lessen the suffering caused by slavery. But neither should the world’s principal international body distort history or rank human tragedies in ways that serve modern political campaigns.

The United Nations was established to prevent war and preserve peace between nations. When it strays from that mission and instead becomes a platform for symbolic condemnations of distant history, it risks diminishing both its credibility and its purpose.

If the UN wishes to honour the victims of history, it should begin by telling the truth about it.

###

Bill White (Ram ben Ze'ev) is CEO of WireNews Limited, Mayside Partners Limited, MEADHANAN Agency, Kestrel Assets Limited, SpudsToGo Limited and Executive Director of Hebrew Synagogue