The British government’s position on slavery reparations has been a masterclass in political cowardice masquerading as diplomatic sensitivity. It has expressed regret without apology. It has engaged with the debate without committing to anything. It has deployed carefully engineered language designed to satisfy no one and offend no one, while avoiding the one thing that would actually resolve the debate: a clear, principled, well-argued statement of the government’s actual legal and moral position.
That statement would not be complicated to make. The legal case for reparations is weak. The mechanism for payment is legally problematic. The historical picture is considerably more complex than the campaign presents. A government confident in its position could say all of this clearly and offer genuine alternatives that would do more good for Caribbean people than any reparations payment to their governments.
Instead, successive British governments have produced what might be called the non-apology apology: careful expressions of sorrow that avoid the specific language of apology because their lawyers have advised that apology implies liability, combined with gestures of engagement that imply the issue has merit without committing to anything. This serves no one’s interests except the political interests of the ministers producing it.
