Slave trade: Does UK prime minister have a consensus?

I look for patterns in the actions and utterances of political leaders to decide who they are. What I have observed so far of the actions and utterances of the new UK Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, has left me asking questions. First, he indicates he’s a leader who wants to please everyone. I’ve stated here that strong national leaders don’t please everyone; rather, they do what’s best for the nation and leave the rest for history to judge. Lately, the prime minister made comments on the transatlantic slave trade that appeared to be another effort to please everyone, or at least voice what he believed were the thoughts of everyone. On this matter, did he really express the view of everyone in the UK?  Meanwhile, I observe profound internal inconsistencies in his submission.

In an opinion piece published ahead of the recent Commonwealth meeting, the UK leader writes thus concerning the transatlantic slave trade: “Some have called for financial reparations for the slave trade…I do not think that British people today can be held liable for historical wrongs, however heinous, that happened in a different age under different laws and in which they played no personal part.” Nonetheless, Burnham says he’s “offering a structured dialogue” with those affected by the trade. He also says listening to calls for a formal apology will form part of the structured dialogue. I’m baffled that the “held liable” comment comes from a UK leader, and the rest of this piece explains why. First, Burnham wants to dialogue but says his people can’t be held liable. So, what’s the dialogue about, since he’s said ahead of time what his nation will and will not do?

The prime minister says he’s not averse to tendering a formal apology.  What’s the apology about, since his nation can’t be held liable for the issues that warrant the apology? At the Commonwealth meeting, Burnham told a journalist that he wanted any dialogue to be about trade, collaborations, new ideas, adding emphatically that this would benefit the UK. This shows that only the things the PM likes and which will profit his nation are what he wants to dialogue on. More than this, did he consider that the idea of discussing new ideas during the dialogue might just come up with new and innovative ideas about reparation as well? He’s concluded upfront that any dialogue on reparation is only about financial reparation, and nothing else.  Something here exposes the mindset of the PM that he’s not keen on any talks about the slave trade and reparation; as such, his planned apology comes across as forced and perfunctory rather than voluntary and heartfelt.

In addition, his emphasis on “however heinous” the historical wrongs, his people cannot be held liable, tells how little the UK leader understands this matter. The weight of what’s at stake here doesn’t get to him. It’s there in the “however heinous” remark, which I think is unnecessary, insensitive, and dismissive. I don’t think he fully comprehends what nations that are victims of the slave trade are talking about. I checked my knowledge of British history for the past one thousand years to find any past instances in which the UK demanded reparations from another nation. I don’t recall any on the scale of the transatlantic slave trade, which included the movement of millions of Africans from their native land. Should we then conclude that the leadership of a nation that never suffered what Africa suffered can’t grasp the extent of the trauma to those who continue to bear the brunt of the transatlantic slave trade? Any national leader has the right to express their view, but to do so in the manner Burnham does regarding the transatlantic slave trade debate? No doubt, his comments pleased some listeners at home as he intended. But he’s lost friends among leaders abroad who may already be waiting for the next PM to come along, since he’s displayed all his cards at a single sitting in this matter. No leader does that in a diplomatic setting.

Note that the PM’s “held liable” and “however heinous” comments aren’t the language of diplomacy. Political leaders talking on the international stage should be subtle on open-ended, almost never-ending debates like the transatlantic slave trade, such that they can retain fellow leaders on their side. They should take it easy on topics or demands for which no one is forcing them. This debate around transatlantic slave trade isn’t about anyone boxing anyone in the ring. Leaders, in their utterances, should always leave the door of diplomatic engagements open, because continuous conversation is part of what makes such engagements fun. It facilitates bonding across divides. It helps the Commonwealth feel closer. Saying to Commonwealth leaders that British people can’t be held liable, however heinous the transatlantic slave trade is, doesn’t come anywhere near. It’s an off-putting diplomatic remark, and it makes me wonder whether any British official with a background in diplomacy saw the PM’s piece before it was published. The paragraph with the “held liable” comment jumps at me. The “however heinous” addition is even more so considering that Burnham’s line of thought up to that point, as well as in subsequent paragraphs, says enough about his mindset.

• UK appoints ex-intelligence chief as first climate security envoy
• UK moves to ban goods linked to illegal deforestation
• UK councillor convicted over call to ‘melt’ Nigerians

Now, there’s a way one writes that makes the reader understand what one doesn’t write. As a journalist, award-winning playwright, prose writer, and judge at literary events, I enjoy presentations or writings that attribute to readers some level of intelligence, writing that lets the reader work out what the writer is saying but doesn’t say. That’s polished writing, and it leaves me with positive vibes, nuances, a decidedly positive taste, and an unending admiration for the writer. Should Burnham have added that “held liable” and “however heinous” remark when we can arrive at the same conclusion from the tone and direction of his opinion piece? Considering that we heard such comments about not being “held liable” commonly made long before Burnham arrived at Number 10, that paragraph seems inserted; it comes across to me like picking up comments made by some in pubs and placing them in an opinion piece where the sublime is expected.

Does the PM add those remarks because he thinks they aggregate the UK’s national view on this matter? We should minus from the PM’s view those British citizens who’re of Commonwealth origin, and who would naturally support reparations. Minus private citizens in the UK who have personally carried out some reparation on behalf of their forebears involved in the transatlantic slave trade; those ones felt accountable for the action of their forebears so they did something about it in Africa. Also, minus voices of other UK citizens who have joined in the call for reparation. Minus some senior members of the Church of England who admit historical wrongs and have set aside funds in a reparation package, albeit to be expended in England, and one begins to see that the PM’s opinion that his people can’t be held liable isn’t a consensus. There’re those who applaud him for the “held liable” comment. It’s important he knows, too, there’re those who don’t agree with him, which is what this piece us about.

Here’s the backdrop to this matter. I explained it at length in the past, so this is brief.  The transatlantic slave trade involved the movement of some 12 million enslaved Africans sold as plantation workers and as domestic workers. Britain and Portugal led in the sale of Africans to work on plantations in North and South America. Both European nations were responsible for about 70 percent of all Africans exported. According to the UK national archives, Britain alone transported 3.1 million Africans to British colonies in the Caribbean, the Americas and other countries. Their labour produced goods that built wealth in Europe. In 1787, British abolitionists began campaigning against slavery, and in 1807, Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act. It’s interesting that the British PM outlined in his opinion piece how his compatriots played a role in abolishing the transatlantic slave trade; this way he promoted the perspective of his own people.

As for the perspective of the victims of the slave trade across the Commonwealth, it’s clear he has little understanding of this highly emotive matter, as his “however heinous” remark shows. I think Burnham energetically made those disagreeable comments believing they would be the last word in this debate. They wouldn’t. This matter predates him. He, too, will leave the debate around historical wrongs behind when he leaves office, just as his predecessors did. Having observed the body language of some in government, as well as the Church of England which carried out reparation in England for its role in the slave trade, I stated on this page in the recent past that this matter would be revisited in the future. I suggest Burnham should concentrate on carefully playing his hands, just as his predecessors did, and leave this matter for future determination. From this point onward, he should adopt more diplomatic language that can retain for him any political friends he has left in the Commonwealth. Since he’s displayed all his cards when he shouldn’t, there’s no doubt much of the Commonwealth is looking ahead into the future already.