Milei administration’s UN vote against slavery reparations exposes deep institutional roots

Argentina voted against a United Nations General Assembly resolution recognising the transatlantic slave trade and chattel slavery as the gravest crime against humanity, aligning itself with the United States and Israel. Spearheaded by Ghana and backed by 123 member states, the resolution called for concrete steps towards reparations. While most former European colonial powers abstained, Argentina’s opposition, under President Javier Milei, signals a distinct alignment with governments that reject the material implications of historical justice.

The vote reflects a state tradition that has historically equated whiteness with civilisation, a narrative embedded in Article 25 of the 1853 Constitution. This clause instructed the state to actively promote European immigration, framing it as a vehicle for progress. This constitutional principle has survived every reform, including the 1949 social constitution and the 1994 democratic update, consolidating a national identity that has marginalised Indigenous and Afro-descendant populations.

The current administration has deepened this historical trajectory through the dismantling of key institutional structures. The closure of the National Institute Against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism (INADI) eliminated the Commission for the Historical Recognition of the Afro-Argentine Community. This commission had been identified by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as an important advance in recognising a population that comprised roughly a third of the population in the early 19th century.

Analysts note that the decision to oppose reparations disrupts a regime of symbolic recognition that many Western institutions have adopted. By rejecting the resolution, the Milei government has aligned with a political bloc articulated around the leadership of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. This convergence suggests a shared defence of historical hierarchies, viewing demands for reparations not as an expansion of justice, but as a challenge to the foundations of the current international order.

The vote underscores a persistent form of racial denial within the Argentine state. Despite a social reality composed largely of racialised majorities, the state continues to operate through a narrative that elevates whiteness as the universal representation of the nation. This approach transforms a history of exclusion into a demographic inevitability, rendering visible segments of the population invisible in official discourse and policy.

The rejection of the UN resolution highlights the tension between symbolic gestures of recognition and the material demands for reparations. While many nations have acknowledged historical crimes through memory, Argentina’s stance, reinforced by the dismantling of INADI, indicates a refusal to engage with the contemporary distribution of wealth and power that reparations seek to address. This position places Argentina in a minority bloc that defends the status quo of historical hierarchies.