Don’t get your hopes up as yet!

Dec 25, 2022 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – I find it hard to wrap my mind around the contention being made locally that the Netherlands did not include Guyana in its apology for the Dutch’s role in the history of slavery. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In his recent statement, Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutee,  said, “ I apologise for the past actions of the Dutch State: to enslaved people in the past, everywhere in the world who suffered as a consequence of those actions, as well as to their daughters and sons, and to all their descendants, up to the present day.”

The fact that Guyana’s name was not mentioned in the apology does not mean that the apology does not apply to Guyana. The Dutch Empire spanned colonies in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. It included, at one time or the other, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Belgium, South Africa and Malaysia, none of which were mentioned in the formal apology.

The statement by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands concedes that slavery was a crime against humanity. However, the Caribbean should become too hopeful. Dutch Law does not allow for the prosecution in Dutch courts of crimes against humanity which took place prior to 2003, even though crimes against humanity are not subject, under international law, to any statute of limitations.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) also takes action against individuals and not states. Therefore the mere admission that the Netherlands was complicit in a crime against humanity would not open the doors to prosecution before the ICC.

Secondly, the Dutch statement offers an apology for that country’s role in slavery. This apology is quite distinct from other countries such as the United Kingdom and Denmark which have apologized for its role in the slave trade, and for France which had deemed slavery as a crime against humanity. The Dutch statement goes further than those of the other states because in it the Netherlands accepts responsibility for its actions.

The Dutch’s apology and the admission that slavery as a crime against humanity is believed to have stemmed from an advisory Board report. The report had made a number of recommendations including establishing a research institute into slavery, creating greater awareness of slavery, especially within educational institutions, and establishing a national facility (presumably a museum) to raise the visibility of slavery.  

The statement issued by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands however says nothing about financial or economic restitution or reparations.  It should be noted that the Caribbean Reparations Commission (CRC) had made the issue of an apology distinct from that of reparations even though the United Nations defines an apology as a form of reparation. The type of reparations that the CRC wants  goes beyond a mere apology.

Notwithstanding, there is some significance in the Dutch statement. For one, it appears to have met the criteria of a full and formal apology which was one of the demands of the Caribbean Community. The apology acknowledges a crime and assumes responsibility.  In his statement the Dutch Prime Minister said, “… the Dutch State, in all its manifestations through history, bears responsibility for the terrible suffering inflicted on enslaved people and their descendants. So we cannot ignore the effects of the past on the present.”

By conceding that the Netherlands cannot ignore the effects of slavery on the present, opens the door to the possibility of future actions on restitution. The Chairman of the Caribbean Reparations Commission has said that the apology and the acknowledgement that slavery was a crime against humanity, moves the reparative justice movement into a new phase.

Presumably this phase is now about intensifying the struggle for reparations. In this regard, it is not helpful when there is no general consensus within the Caribbean as to the precise form this should take and its quantum.

It is widely accepted that those responsible for the crime of slavery should be called upon to pay restitution.  But locally we have had a suggestion made that the State of Guyana should offer reparations to African-Guyanese.  It is vitally necessary that the Caribbean crystallizes its demands for reparations into concrete proposals.

What is needed is consensus as to the specific forms and quantum that reparations should take. Merely calling for engagement on the issue does a great disservice to the idea that we have arrived at new phase of the reparatory justice movement.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of this newspaper and its affiliates.)

---

---