The claim sounds plausible because the precedents it cites are real. Germany did pay reparations to Israel and to individual survivors. The United States did compensate Japanese Americans. Britain did reach a settlement with Kenyan torture victims. These are not invented examples. They demonstrate that states are capable of accepting financial responsibility for historical wrongs, that the principle of reparatory justice has been applied in practice, and that the objection that reparations are theoretically impossible is factually wrong.
The moral logic also has force. If you accept that one historical wrong creates a reparatory obligation, consistency would seem to require accepting the same principle for comparable wrongs. The argument from consistency is a serious one that deserves engagement rather than dismissal.
The growing international consensus around reparatory justice, reflected in UN resolutions and the Accra Proclamation, also lends the claim institutional weight. It is not merely a demand from Caribbean politicians: it has increasing multilateral support.
