Slavery Vote EXPOSES West's True Intentions | Evarist Bartolo

## EU abstentions and reparations The recent United Nations resolution on slavery and reparations did more than restate moral condemnation of a brutal past: it peeled back the veneer of Western apology and exposed a geopolitical posture that remains deeply resistant to accountability. The roll call — a handful of outright no votes and more than fifty abstentions, including essentially all EU member states — read less like a measured legal stance than a defensive bloc protecting structural privileges. Abstention in this context is not neutral. It signals a reluctance to accept the political, economic, and symbolic consequences that flow from even modest calls for reparation and restitution. The conversation highlighted how abstention by the EU functions as collective self-preservation. For many member states, the vote was less about the moral question of slavery and more about the slippery slope of legal and financial obligations: acknowledging historic injustice might open avenues for claims, change diplomatic postures, and force reinterpretations of current economic relations with former colonies. This is particularly striking when contrasted with the voting behavior of formerly colonized states and rising powers, which supported the resolution in large numbers. The abstentions therefore reveal that the politics of reckoning are not merely historical; they are bound up with contemporary access to resources, development models, and the architecture of global trade and finance. A striking theme in the discussion was the selectivity of Western memory. While Western societies celebrate abolition anniversaries and insert moral reflections into public education, they remain unwilling to transform those reflections into policies that would rebalance structural inequalities: reparations through debt relief, redirected investment, technology transfer, and the return of cultural artifacts. The debate over where compensation would go — to individuals, to state coffers, to collective development funds — was used as a pretext for inaction. Yet Caribbean and African proposals are not naïve; they envision reparative measures aimed at systemic uplift, not private payouts. The European block’s refusal to engage suggests that the question of reparations is less a matter of logistics than of political will. ## Guterres and legal excuses Antonio Guterres’s public framing — that the wealth of many Western nations was built on stolen lives and stolen labor — served as a moral and factual anchor in the conversation. His words underscore an inconvenient truth for the West: acknowledging historical exploitation is not merely rhetorical, it challenges the legitimacy of contemporary inequalities. Yet Western delegations leaned on a set of legalistic arguments to downplay or sidestep responsibility, arguing that historical practices were, by the standards of the time, legal or that addressing them now would create unmanageable legal precedents. The conversation pushed back on this legalist dodge. Historical legality is an inadequate shield when systems of law themselves encoded hierarchy and exclusion. Even within the legal frameworks of the past, African captives were subjected to distinctively cruel treatment that violated contemporaneous moral norms. Further, the legal status of an act in its time cannot erase the long-term consequences that persist: patterns of underdevelopment, debt dependency, and resource extraction that continue to favor former colonial powers. Thus Guterres’s emphasis on stolen labor is not theatrical moralizing; it is an argument that historical injustice has direct causal links to present-day disparities. Another legal argument deployed by Western abstainers — that the UN General Assembly cannot create binding obligations through such resolutions — misreads the role of global norms. General Assembly resolutions often catalyze normative shifts that later transform into customary international law or influence domestic policy. The refusal to participate in that normative process is itself a political act, intended to stall the reframing of global justice. In short, legalistic excuses are used instrumentally to preserve the status quo rather than to engage in a genuine debate about remedy and restitution. ## UN majority and world shift The UN vote reveals a tectonic shift in international alignments: much of the Global South, together with rising powers, is willing to assert a different set of priorities and norms. Where once Western states could reliably frame the global agenda, there is now a clearer willingness among formerly colonized and non-aligned states to set terms that reflect their historical experience and contemporary aspirations. The passing of the slavery-reparations resolution with a sizeable majority signals more than sympathy; it demonstrates political agency and the capacity to marshal collective voice at the United Nations. This growing assertiveness is visible in other arenas too: support for nuclear prohibition treaties, challenges to longstanding security arrangements, and coalition-building in finance and trade. The conversation emphasized that the General Assembly’s moral authority matters because it shapes discourse and shifts expectations. When two-thirds of the world’s states attach their names to a condemnation and a call for reparative action, they create a durable normative pressure. That pressure affects not only diplomatic rhetoric but also the calculations of development finance institutions, bilateral aid policies, and the politics of cultural restitution. It is also worth noting that the new majority is pragmatic, not merely symbolic. Caribbean nations, for instance, have developed concrete frameworks for what reparative action might entail: debt restructuring, sizable investments in health and education, and institutional support for climate resilience. The willingness to convert moral claims into policy proposals strengthens the movement’s credibility and makes abstention by Western powers look less like prudence and more like a political choice to deflect responsibility. ## Dominance decline and artifacts 00:29: 09 Debt traps and new alliances The conversation turned from symbolic votes to the mechanics of economic dominance. Contemporary structures — debt instruments, extractive contracts, preferential trade terms — function as modern continuations of historical patterns, ensuring a steady transfer of value from resource-rich but capital-poor countries to wealthy creditors and corporations. The panel underscored that these are not accidental mismatches; they are engineered systems. Where colonial-era coercion relied on force and juridical subordination, today’s mechanisms use finance, conditionality, and market design to yield comparable results. A key point raised was how former colonial powers often prefer to maintain influence through debt and investment arrangements that preserve asymmetry without the overt optics of empire. This is visible in bilateral loans, tied aid, and conditional investment that anchor client states in cycles of dependency. The abstention on reparations is therefore coherent with a broader strategy: avoid setting precedents that could trigger systemic liability or force renegotiations of existing economic relationships. But this architecture is under strain. New alliances — between African states and alternative sources of finance and technology, or between Caribbean countries and international coalitions pressing for equity — are creating space for renegotiation. Debt relief campaigns, currency swap arrangements, and South-South cooperation are not mere stopgaps; they are building blocks for a different global economy in which historical grievance informs modern bargaining. Cultural restitution, another element of the resolution, also matters. Returning artifacts is not just symbolic repair; it undermines a narrative of cultural superiority and strengthens claims for b

Insane Slavery Vote EXPOSES West's True Intentions | Evarist Bartolo If you think the West regrets either slavery or its colonial past, think again. The most recent vote at the UN shows clearly that the Political West has learned NOTHING from its sins and looks forward to doing it again. I'm joined today by former Maltese foreign minister Evarist Bartolo to discuss the UN vote on slavery reparations, Western abstentions and opposition, the link between slavery, colonialism, and present power, compensation for slave owners, Haiti, Africa-Europe ties, rising pressure from the global majority, and the wider fight over dominance, debt, war, and solidarity. Links: Evarist Bartolo website: https://evaristbartolo.mt Evarist Bartolo on Facebook: https://www. facebook.com/evarist.bartolo/ Times of Malta: https://timesofmalta.com Neutrality Studies substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com (Opt in for Academic Section from your profile settings: https://pascallottaz.substack.com/s/academic) Merch: https://neutralitystudies-shop.fourthwall.com Donation: https://neutralitystudies.com/donate Timestamps: 00:00:00 Introduction and UN vote 00: 01:50 Slavery and colonial power 00:10:01 EU abstentions and reparations 00:15:17 Guterres and legal excuses 00:21:27 UN majority and world shift 00:25:48 Dominance decline and artifacts 00:29: 09 Debt traps and new alliances 00:32:54 Iran war and Western decline 00:39:48 Social solidarity and closing #Pascal Welcome back, everybody, to Neutrality Studies. My name is Pascal Lottaz, and I am joined again today by our good friend and colleague, Everest Partolo, a former foreign minister of the beautiful island nation of Malta. Everest, welcome back. Welcome. Thanks. Thanks for this, Pascal. A Sunday— Easter Sunday—talk as we speak on the 5th of April today. And we said we’re going to use the occasion to discuss something actually very unpleasant, which is that last week we had a UN resolution that was passed. I’ll try to show it here—just a second—here we go. This one here, a UN resolution that urged reparations for slavery and historical wrongs, basically a resolution saying that slavery was wrong and should be condemned. And the good news is that the General Assembly resolution passed. The bad news is that the way it passed is really a disgrace. There were three votes against this resolution condemning slavery in the past—Argentina, Israel, and the United States. Those three voted outright against it. Then we had about 52 states that abstained. And if you look at them, it basically reads like a who’s who of the former colonizing states, or the white colonizers—basically all of Western Europe. Countries that voted for it include China, Russia, and the entire formerly colonized world. So it’s another one of these huge hypocrisies of the West at the moment. But yes, Everest, what’s your take on this resolution? -- 1 of 12 -- #Evarist Bartolo I agree with you, Pascal. It reads a bit like an X-ray—an X-ray of the geopolitical reality of today— showing us quite a lot, not about the past, I would say, but about the present. Because, as you said, among the 52 states that abstained, the core are all 27 member states of the European Union. I'm ashamed to say that even tiny Malta, which had its own past of thousands of Maltese dragged into slavery—you know, we were also involved in the slave trade. Malta was one of the main slave markets in the Mediterranean, competing with Algiers and Istanbul. And although this resolution spoke about the Atlantic trade, the transatlantic trade—Portugal, Spain, the UK, France, the Netherlands—they were the main beneficiaries of that slave trade, because we cannot see it in isolation. It’s not a standalone issue. You have to see it in the way it’s entangled with colonialism and with the industrialization of the West, because it all comes together. Slavery, apart from being a very cruel side of human nature—where you actually say that you consider another human being not as a fellow human being but as your property, to do whatever you like with that property—apart from that, I mean, it’s really an immoral attitude. It’s also an economic reality. Slavery was a big money earner, both in terms of cheap forced labor and in actually selling the slaves. If a slave owner bought a slave for 20 euros, they could sell them for over 300 euros. So it was a terrible reality. But what is more terrible is that, after these centuries—after a century and a half since slavery was abolished, and that’s why the vote was taken on the 25th of March, because it coincides with the vote in the British Parliament to abolish slavery—we still, the West, the colonizers, still cannot bring themselves, I would say, not only to confront the past, but also to confront the present relationship they have with Africa. We’re going to concentrate on Africa, because they still refuse to build an equal relationship with it. They still do not consider Africa an equal partner, but are still extracting resources—mainly primary commodities, energy, and other raw materials—from there. So it’s a vote not only about the past; unfortunately, it’s very much also a vote about the present. Not to mention, Pascal, modern slavery, because that’s also a reality. #Pascal And it’s a reality that we like to ignore, but also this reality that, you know, the slave trade and the violence that the Europeans and the North Americans inflicted on these other continents is still something that, you know, the Europeans, on the one hand, say, “Oh, it was regrettable that it happened.” On the other hand, they’re saying, “No, no, no, it’s long over, and we’ve learned our lesson.” But then they didn’t vote for this. Maybe let me just, you know, enrage you and me a little bit more. Let’s read this passage. The UN, very carefully in this article they put up here, actually quoted several people who spoke, of course, in the General Assembly before the adoption of the resolution. -- 2 of 12 -- And they’re quoting—just quoting and letting it stand there—the U.S. representative, Ambassador Dan Negrea, saying that the text was highly problematic in countless respects. He regretted that Washington must once again remind this body that the United Nations exists to maintain international peace and security, and was not founded to advance narrow, specific interests and agendas, to establish niche international days, or to create new costly meetings and reporting mandates. Niche—like niche, like tiny little particular interests. A tiny little particular interest of, what, two-thirds of the world? Or like three-quarters of the world wanting to have recognized hundreds of years of absolute brutality done to them. They call that a tiny little narrow interest. Isn’t it fantastic? #Evarist Bartolo It's incredible. It's very cynical—very cynical—because when you see what happened in those 400 years, even if we’re going to focus now only on African slavery, we’re talking about at least 50 million people. Why are we talking about 50 million people? In the resolution and the debate, they usually mention 12 million, 12.5 million people who actually made the passage from Africa, mostly to the Americas. But those 12 million people were the survivors of 50 million, because millions— millions—died just making the trek on land. They had to walk sometimes as far as a thousand miles. By the time they arrived to board the ships and cross over, many had already died in the desert. In fact, parts of the desert are still said to be white with the bones of those millions of enslaved people. Most of them were children, women, and healthy men, because before the journey even began, they were selected through very invasive, abusive procedures—checking everything, everywhere—to make sure the bodies they were going to ship were “healthy” bodies. They left behind villages of old people, sick people, and disabled people. To call this a narrow interest is really, really terrible. It’s truly terrible. #Pascal Hey, very brief intermission because I was recently banned from YouTube. And although I'm back, this could happen again anytime. So please consider subscribing not only here but also to my mailing list on Substack—that’s pascallottaz.substack.com. The link’s in the description below. And now, back to the video. It’s quite a sick mindset, right? But actually, the people who do this and say this—they understand, right? I mean, the fact that the Europeans were basically not able to vote against it but had to abstain tells us that, you know, they know that. Yes, it’s about their own will. Yeah. It’s quite interesting, though—you know, how does it happen? I mean, you were a former foreign minister of Malta. How does it happen that enough pressure is built up so that Malta doesn’t vote in favor of this? Because Malta is like the last state that would have to fear paying reparations, I suppose. #Evarist Bartolo -- 3 of 12 -- Exactly. #Pascal How does that happen? #Evarist Bartolo It's a block. It's a block. It's a block mentality, Pascal. From Brussels, the line would be, “Let’s stick together when we vote on this,” because there are countries that are worried about reparations. But even that, I think, is unfair and unjust. Not only are they not ready to apologize—and sometimes, formally, there’s a little bit of apology—but, I repeat, the attitude, the deeply ingrained attitude of considering Africans inferior is not something stuck in the past. If you look at the relationship the European Union has built with Africa today—in 2026, not the 16th, 17th, or 18th century—it’s completely lopsided, completely unequal, despite people like Juncker and Prodi saying we should build a partnership of equals and a comprehensive agreement. It’s not just about taking commodities or energy out of Africa for our convenience, but also about building equal relationships in industry, agriculture, banking services, education, and technology. None of this has happened. It’s still about going to Africa and taking from Africa what you need. So the fact that you’re not even ready to—because notice how prudent and, to a certain extent, almost apologetic the resolution is—all it asks is to consider, to reflect on what the slave trade meant and then, yes, to ask for reparations. It also talks about returning the objects that were taken from these colonies to the colonized. So I repeat, it shows a lot about the present and how difficult it is to build equal relations when the former colonizers still want to consider themselves superior to the rest. I think it's a kind of narcissistic, ethnocentric approach—this Western attitude, you know, that Western civilization is superior in every area. So don’t, you know, don’t make us admit that. Yes, there are obviously good things, quite a lot of good things, in Western civilization. But there are also terrible things that the West has to answer for and is still not ready to answer for. #Pascal Yeah, and also the idea that nothing is owed for this, right? That this wrong of the past is a wrong that should just stay in the past and shouldn’t have any influence on current relationships, while at the same time the mentality remains very much intact. #Evarist Bartolo But apart from remaining the same, Pascal, what’s very, very ironic is that when we talk about compensation—when the slave owners had to let go of their slaves because slavery started being -- 4 of 12 -- abolished—even if you just look at the UK, not even other countries, who was compensated? In that case, it wasn’t the enslaved people. The slave owners were given something like, I mean, we’re talking about 20 billion. Apparently, it runs up to 20 billion euros given to the slave owners because they lost their slaves. So when it comes to compensating the victims—no, no, no—that’s a problem. But those who benefited... #Pascal And there are even more egregious examples, right? I mean, the first and most successful slave revolt in history was in Haiti, where t