Reparations 4- State reactions
 
1. In Sept 2001, the UN convened its Third Conference on Racism, Xenophobia and Related Injustices in Durban, South Africa. (The first two were held in 1978 and 1983.)
Government leaders attended and hundreds of NGOs participated.
Former colonised states hailed it as a rare opportunity to bring up European 'crimes against humanity' committed through colonial invasions, genocides against indigenous peoples, land grab, slave labour, etc. Themes like 'No reconciliation without reparations', 'The right to return or reclaim our lands' were put forward.

2. But the poor countries did not get far. The executors & beneficiaries of the colonial project showed little contrition or compromise. Britain refused to accept that transatlantic slavery was a crime against humanity, on the grounds that trafficking in humans was legal at the time. The EU agreed. Delegates from Britain, Belgium and France pushed a declaration that "only some aspects of colonialism were damaging". Britain said the compensation for slavery was out of the question: "we are not prepared to link development with past history." President Thabo Mbeki who was visiting Britain before the Conference was warned not to link any apology with  reparation claims.
The US was prepared to recognise all slavery as a crime against humanity but threatened to withdraw funding if compensation was on the agenda.
In short, monstrous crimes had been committed over centuries but the Christian powers responsible were unrepentant and not prepared to make restitution.

3. How have attitudes changed today, especially in the context of the 200th Anniversary of the Slave Trade abolition? On 25 March 06, the Home Office and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) brought out a pamphlet “Reflecting on the past and looking to the future: the 2007 bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire”.
 
The quarterly, Race & Class (April 2006), noted “The pamphlet gives a brief history of slavery and the abolition movement; reflects on how the past has affected the present; discusses contemporary inequalities and what the government is doing to tackle them... "
R & C went on: "The contentious issue of reparations is noticeable by its absence. Remembering just how much some sections of White society profited from the enslavement of Black people and how resistant to relinquishing these privileges those sections were, does not fit the government's celebratory, multicultural script."

4. Memorial to commemorate the Anniversary
According to The Memorial Committee for the Anniversary, DCMS has agreed on a permanent site for a memorial at Hyde Park, London but will not finance the costs of erecting the memorial, estimated at £1.25 m. Extraordinary. Here was an opportunity for a token gesture at reparations but the government remains unyielding.
 
On the other hand, the government not only agreed on a Memorial for the 52 victims of the London bombings (7 July 2005) at Hyde Park but is also prepared to foot the bill up to £1m for the memorial. The differential treatment sends a clear message that black deaths (even in huge numbers) rate low with the government.
This view was recently confirmed by the Home Office. The Black Information Network (Blink, 16 Feb 07) reported that Imtiaz Amin, the uncle of Zahid Mubarek (who was clubbed to death by a racist inmate at Feltham Young Offender Institute), said he was shocked that the Home Office ranked the killing lower than failure to catch burglars. The memo, published on the Home Office website, also rates the murder of Stephen Lawrence as low impact. Failure to catch burglars or deal adequately with common assault was ranked as a higher impact crime.