Demands for Britain to pay reparations for its historical involvement in the transatlantic slave trade are "ludicrous" and amount to "blackmail," according to Professor Doug Stokes. Writing for the Daily Mail, Stokes argues that ending the slave trade cost Britain significantly more than it ever profited from the practice.
Stokes challenges the notion that Britain's current prosperity is founded on slavery. He points to a report by the Brattle Group for the University of the West Indies, which estimated potential reparations at £19.7 trillion, a figure he deems "beyond the realms of fantasy." This amount, he notes, is equivalent to 14 times the UK's total government budget or more than £280,000 for every British citizen.
The argument that the UK's wealth was built on slavery is a "simplistic" view that ignores the complex realities of economic development. Stokes suggests that while some British merchants profited, the nation as a whole experienced only a limited economic boost, primarily in regions like Manchester due to the cotton mills. He cites economic historian Joel Mokyr, who posited that Britain would have undergone its Industrial Revolution even without slavery, albeit with inconveniences like drinking bitter tea.
Furthermore, Stokes highlights that other European nations, such as Portugal, which transported more enslaved Africans than Britain, are not similarly wealthy, questioning the direct link between slave trade involvement and national prosperity. He also points out that the African continent was not a peaceful Eden prior to the transatlantic trade, citing endemic tribal warfare, genocide, and existing slavery within African states like Dahomey and Sokoto, as well as the Ottoman Empire's long-running slaveholding operations.
Britain's role, Stokes contends, was unique. Slavery was never legal on the British Isles, and the nation led the international effort to abolish the trade. Following the outlawing of the trade in 1807, the Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron was established to intercept slave ships. This suppression effort, Stokes notes, cost Britain an estimated 1.8% of its national income for 60 years, a substantial economic undertaking. During this period, approximately 1,600 ships were intercepted, liberating over 150,000 Africans, though an estimated 1,600 naval personnel died in service, primarily from disease.
Stokes criticizes figures like Andy Burnham, who appear open to the idea of a formal apology and compensation, suggesting it stems from an "atonement complex." He also criticizes the hypocrisy of some nations demanding reparations while continuing to practice modern forms of slavery. Citing the Global Estimates of Modern Slavery report, Stokes notes that countries like Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, which are members of the Commonwealth and demand reparations, account for a significant portion of the world's estimated 50 million enslaved people today, including millions in forced labor and forced marriages.
To address the issue, Stokes proposes that the Treasury should publish the full costs incurred by Britain in suppressing the slave trade. He also advocates for a more comprehensive education on the history of slavery's abolition in British schools and museums. Finally, he urges the government to challenge nations that currently practice domestic slavery, suggesting that if reparations are to be paid, they should be from those countries rather than Britain, which actively worked to end the trade at significant cost.