African nations ‘to use Starmer’s Chagos surrender deal as model’ for forcing Britain and other colonial powers into huge slavery reparations
African states could use Keir Starmer’s Chagos Islands ‘surrender’ as a plan to demand slavery reparations from the UK and other former colonial states, potentially worth trillions of pounds
The former colonies plan to use the Prime Minister’s respect for international law against Britain and countries including France and Belgium when they come to sue for compensation.
The African Union, which represents all 55 countries on the continent, called for ‘meaningful compensation’ from European powers for the ‘systemic injustice’ that persists across the region.
He pledged to cooperate with Caribbean countries to obtain compensation; some insisted they owed trillions of dollars.
They are now trying to copy the legal ruling of the International Criminal Court in The Hague that Sir Keir used to justify paying billions of dollars to Mauritius to take over an archipelago, including the air base at Diego Garcia.
a source He told the Telegraph: ‘The United Kingdom is very vocal about its commitment to international law in this case.
‘This is something the continent really appreciates. We think this can also be standardized.
‘If you accept [the Chagos opinion]Therefore, what international law says regarding the recognition of the transatlantic slave trade as a crime against humanity should also be accepted.’
The former imperial colonies plan to use the Prime Minister’s respect for international law against Britain when they come to advance their cause.
They are now trying to copy Sir Keir’s legal ruling from the International Criminal Court in the Hague to justify paying Mauritius billions of dollars to take over an archipelago, including an air base in Diego Garcia.
Ghana has been tasked with leading on this issue, with foreign minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa telling the African Union summit: ‘By standing together at the United Nations, we are signaling to the world that Africa will no longer allow the extent of its historical suffering to be minimised.’
The African Union agreed at a summit in February that a UN resolution to be tabled on March 25 would seek to officially recognize the transatlantic slave trade as a “grave crime against humanity”.
Ghana tasked with leading the issue with its foreign minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa said the ruling would ‘seek compensation, including the return of looted objects’.
He said at the summit: ‘By coming together at the United Nations, we are signaling to the world that Africa will no longer allow the extent of its historical suffering to be minimized.
‘We seek not only recognition but also a global legal framework that will pave the way for healing, accountability, reparations and restorative justice.’
The move raises the possibility that Britain, which controlled a quarter of Africa at the height of its empire, could face new allegations over the slave trade and colonialism.
Britain abolished the slave trade in the early 18th century and subsequently played a pivotal role in dismantling the practice worldwide.
Reparations are now framed more broadly, not just in terms of slavery, but also in terms of the return of cultural artifacts, reforms to global economic systems, and compensation for the effects of climate change.
Leaders argue that the industrialized nations of the ‘Global North’ bear historical responsibility for environmental degradation.
Other colonial powers that may face pressure include France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and Germany; all of these shared Africa in the late 19th century.
Sir Keir is facing a surge in anger over his decision to hand over the Indian Ocean archipelago to Mauritius, which is seen as an ally of China.
Last week, Donald Trump dealt a further blow to the agreement as he railed against Sir Keir’s initial decision to use Diego Garcia for Iranian attacks that Mauritius opposed.
Mauritius Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam raised the possibility of legal action if the UK does not proceed with the agreement.
However, the UK government is understood to believe that there is no basis in international law to claim compensation if the agreement is not ratified.
