Bruce Golding, Leader of the Opposition, addressing Parliament on May 4, 2006. Golding last Friday argued that despite strong arguments for slavery reparations, there were numerous challenges to the lobby. - File

Earl Moxam, Senior Gleaner Writer

The three-week-long parliamentary debate on reparations for slavery ended last Tuesday, with the featured speaker, Opposition Leader, Bruce Golding.

The essence of his presentation was that the pursuit of reparations was the morally correct thing to do, but that making the case, under international law, was fraught with major, if not insurmountable, difficulties.

It was a scholarly presentation by the Opposition Leader, reflective of substantial research on the many angles to the issue, but also full of pathos, reawakening the unspeakable horror of this historic blot on human existence.

He laid it out from the beginning: "No one would dare deny, no argument can rationalise and nothing that has since been done can ameliorate the barbarity visited on our forebears in Africa when they were lured, ensnared, kidnapped, overpowered, sold and exchanged like livestock, crammed in overcrowded slave ships and shipped off to faraway lands to work like beasts of burden on sugar, tobacco and cotton plantations."

Brutal experience

Against that background, he asserted: "The brutal experience of slavery and the devastating and lasting effect it has had on succeeding generations of people and on scores of nation states can never be forgotten, must never be dismissed or trivialised as 'the way of the times', and can never be forgiven unless its savagery and reprehensibility are acknowledged and forgiveness sought."

And, he reiterated one of the strongest arguments for the reparations demand: that slavery not only enriched the individual planters but played "a pivotal role in the industrialisation of Europe and the rapid expansion of cross-Atlantic trade."

But, having laid the groundwork for reparations with the moral and economic arguments, Mr. Golding reminded his parliamentary colleagues that such arguments, as incontrovertible as they might be, could come to naught if the legal case is not made.

Among the legal hurdles to overcome, he said, was the argument that slavery was not illegal at the time, that there is today no recognised body of international law through which remedy can be sought, and that there is no treaty or convention which has been breached.

To counter these arguments, he said, the claimants would have to resort to "established precedent and new directions in application of international law brought about by international conventions". But even here, he warned, there would be great difficulties.

One such, he cited, was the bias against legislative retroactivity. Nevertheless, he said that retroactive application of sanctions was already established as acceptable in principle, highlighting the post-World War II Nuremberg war crimes tribunal.

Regarding precedents for reparations, Mr. Golding listed several:

Germany (1952): Israel for resettlement of Jews (88 billion deutsche marks).

Jews in East Germany after reparations (20 billion deutsche marks).

Austria (1990): Holocaust survivors (US$25 million).

Japan (1965): South Korea for military occupation (1910-1945).

United States (1988): Japanese Americans illegally imprisoned during WWII.

Iraq (1991): Kuwait for invasion (prior to Gulf War).

But, as he pointed out, in all of the cases cited, reparations took place within the lifetime of those who committed the crime, whereas the claim for slavery is being made centuries afterwards.

Furthermore, he said, the claims cited were tied to actual victims and immediate relatives, and in the most recent case of Iraq, to specific losses.

Admittedly tenuous

Nevertheless, he suggested that there may be some (admittedly tenuous) options for pursuing the claim: through the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial arm of the United Nations, or through the establishment of a special tribunal of the U.N.

Here again, he warned, there would be some significant hurdles to overcome. Not least of these, he said, was the fact that this would be a trial of states, not individuals, and that the states themselves would have to agree to submit to the process. Hardly likely!

Finally, he cautioned, if the claim for reparations is to succeed, it must win consensus here in Jamaica, throughout the Caribbean, including the Caribbean Community, and on the African continent. That broad consensus was not yet a reality, he argued.

Among all the points raised by the Opposition Leader, perhaps the most uncomfortable related to the role that Africans played in the capture and sale of other Africans into slavery. He said while this must not be used to rebut the claim against the Europeans, it was a deeply regrettable fact that had to be confronted as well.

Back to the future, Mr. Golding cautioned his colleagues and the country not to allow the history of slavery to undermine the nation's confidence, self-worth, and vision of its own potential.

"While we carry the burden of the legacy of slavery, we must not to allow it to darken our vision, or limit our horizons. We must inspire our people to stop feeling sorry for ourselves!" he concluded.