The Africa Exception: A Call for Reparations
The recent acknowledgment of slavery as a crime against humanity by France has sparked a long-overdue conversation about reparations for the descendants of enslaved Africans. This shift in perspective is significant, but it also highlights a deeper issue: the Africa exception in global reparations.
Historically, reparations have been a taboo topic when it comes to Black peoples and nations. The French government's recognition of the slave trade's impact is a step forward, but it remains a symbolic gesture without concrete action. The question of what reparations would entail and how they would be implemented is still largely unanswered.
The author argues that the Africa exception is not just a moral failure but a structural issue within the international legal system. Since the 1928 Chorzów factory case, reparations have been granted to sovereign states but not to Black people and nations. This is because the legal system fails to recognize former 'property' as sovereign, despite the ongoing impact of slavery and colonialism on Black sovereignty.
The case of Haiti and France exemplifies this exception. When the Haitian president demanded $21 billion in restitution for the 1825 indemnity, it was met with a US and France-backed coup, effectively denying Black sovereignty. The author emphasizes that the Africa exception is not unique to France and Haiti; it is a pattern in Western reparations history.
In 1833, Britain paid £20 million to enslavers for their 'lost assets' while denying liability to Mau Mau torture survivors. Germany's settlement with Namibia over the 1904-08 genocide was labeled 'development aid.' These examples show that Western countries have paid reparations to non-Black people and recognized sovereign nations, but not to the descendants of enslaved Africans.
The author delves into the historical context, citing the AU Framework for Reparations and the principle of 'a crime does not rot.' This principle was dismissed by the EU as 'regional jurisprudence,' but the author argues that international law is shaped by history. The birth of modern sovereignty and the racial capitalist system, according to the AU Framework, can be traced back to the 1441 capture of Africans by the Portuguese.
The author highlights the role of racialized chattel enslavement in reducing Black people to property, and the impact of partus sequitur ventrem, which made enslavement hereditary through Black women's wombs. This system positioned Black people as the ultimate non-sovereigns, and the author argues that race is sovereignty.
The Africa exception, as the author explains, demonstrates that reparations are not just a moral imperative but a geopolitical issue. France's announcement of reparations without payment is a strategic move to avoid economic costs as African demands for sovereignty grow. The author suggests that Africa's critical mineral resources, essential for the West's green transition and AI infrastructure, could be leveraged to demand reparations.
Furthermore, the author mentions the role of institutions like the AU, Caricom, and Celac in fostering south-south trade and financial coordination. Without reparations, these institutions' efforts may be undermined. The author concludes by advocating for a shift from moral persuasion to geopolitical cost imposition, where the cost of refusal is higher than the cost of reparation.
In summary, the Africa exception highlights the complex interplay between history, law, and geopolitics in the pursuit of reparations. It calls for a reevaluation of the international legal system and a more comprehensive approach to addressing the legacy of slavery and colonialism.
