A Case for Reparations

Opinion

Apr 9

Until a few decades ago, reparations was an issue that people preferred to avoid. It was not until 2005 that the international standards for reparation rights were established in the UN General Assembly Resolution 60/147. The United Nations define reparations as compensation for historical crimes which States are under legal obligation to provide. This is often confused with development aid.

“While Development is a right for all, reparation is a right for a specific subset of people: those who have been subject to human rights violations,” said Ruben Carranza, director at the International Centre for Transitional Justice

Human Rights professor Jeremy Sarkin, also writes that reparation programs have three major functions:

help those affected to prosper; officially recognize past harm; and impede more abuses and greater indifference in the future.

Political Challenges and Economic Caveats

With the pandemic suddenly bulldozing the norm, we wound up questioning whether life before this is even worth missing. Enduring injustices are laid bare and still in the thrall of unaccounted historical violations.

Affected populations, whose assets were siphoned into their former colonizers’ economy, are overwhelmed with the ever-growing wealth gaps, significant health problems caused by forced labor, and higher mental health risks. The timely issue of reparations is obviously hitting a nerve in the United States, but this phenomenon is developing globally, with many cases being brought before international and domestic jurisdiction. For instance, Aboriginal Australians recently won two cases for the loss of ancestral lands and stolen wages.

Justice, at its core, is about giving what is due to the other. The challenge lies in identifying what exactly that is: what’s legal often isn’t just, and the fulfillment of a need may prompt more injustice. Thus it is important to consider local attitudes.

How can you make up for lives lost?

In translating someone’s suffering, reparations can often fall short of expectations. And while compensation is better than its absence, pervasive conditions, like poverty or racism, can dissolve its meaningful impact. Seeking reparations can also inadvertently result in further harm when someone has to recount traumatizing events. In The Inferno, when Dante meets Count Ugolino and asks what happened, he replies, “You ask me to renew a grief so desperate that the very thought of speaking it tears my heart in two.”

The most common reason why some resist such confrontations is that the process can be painful for both parties. Disability justice activist Mia Mingus explained in a talk on transformative justice how difficult obtaining justice can be without retraumatizing victims. Too often, anger substitutes grieving by promising agency; there is a powerful desire to “gnaw” perpetrators.

Furthermore, when events are framed to present an incomplete narrative this can exacerbate harm through misunderstanding. Survey data recently found that the Dutch and British view their colonial past as a source of pride rather than shame. Academia, even mainstream International Relations, tend to downplay acts with numbing statistics and the use of a sanitized language.

Many scholars believe that reparations don’t need to be reduced to a cheque. The Washington Post wrote how most reparation efforts found success on a local level in the United States, making fair rights accessible, securing justice for victims of bias-motivated violence, and ultimately, constructing a stronger trust system. A key legal requirement is to ensure that the victims partake in the process and many ongoing reparation movements are living up to this principle.

What is at stake if left unaddressed?

Not many know the full extent of how far the past can hijack our future. Findings of the Institute for Economics & Peace express that peace — or the lack of it — significantly affects opportunity, health, education, and the economy. Thus, ignoring lingering problems and feuds aren’t just paid by the affected groups. It has a cost for everyone.

In cases of overt violence, even those who aren’t involved in the matter are prone to take sides, creating more rifts. These days, you’re not alone if your close ties are caving under the weight of today’s issues. How we address this hinges on our ability to relate to each other, for doing so will give us a better chance at breaking cyclical violence and avoid turning into what we hate.

A thoughtful move at a time

While it would appear as though a global will is required to address the consequences of the past, individuals are not powerless.

“We need both the grand gesture and the smaller day-to-day things that people can do in their individual lives,” said writer Roxanne Gay.

It’s tedious work because it’s not just going to end on Friday. Whether we are aware of it or not, we benefit from injustices. But as we increasingly engage in these conversations, guilt and shame are abandoned. And when we look at our past, we can proudly tell each other, “Look how far we have come.”

As heirs to history, we are just as answerable to these open wounds as those who let them fester. In discussing the potential for reparation, reaching a final peace that is acceptable to everyone involved should remain the ultimate goal.

We’ll get there. Nothing is ever permanent. Until then, as James Baldwin said,