Starmer sidesteps reparations debate ahead of Commonwealth summit

Keir Starmer arrived at the Commonwealth summit in Samoa this week with a clear message: he would rather talk about climate change and trade than slavery reparations. In remarks to reporters traveling with him, the British prime minister said he wanted to "look forward" instead of engaging in what he called "very long endless discussions about reparations on the past." He acknowledged that slavery was abhorrent, but argued that Commonwealth nations—most of them former British colonies—faced more pressing challenges in the present moment. "I'd rather roll up my sleeves and work with them on the current future-facing challenges than spend a lot of time on the past," he said.

The timing of Starmer's comments put him directly at odds with Caricom, a coalition of fifteen Caribbean nations that had signaled its intention to press both the prime minister and Foreign Secretary David Lammy on reparations during the summit. The pressure was not unexpected. In 2018, when Lammy was a backbench Labour MP, he had called for reparations to be paid to Caribbean nations. Now in government, however, Labour has taken a different position, ruling out any apology for Britain's role in the transatlantic slave trade. Starmer's framing of the summit's purpose—growth and trade between Commonwealth members—reflected this shift in emphasis. The government announced a new UK trade centre of expertise based in the Foreign Office, designed to help developing nations compete in global markets and connect them with British businesses. Six Commonwealth members—Bangladesh, Guyana, India, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Uganda—are projected to rank among the world's ten fastest-growing economies by 2027. The combined GDP of the Commonwealth is expected to exceed $19.5 trillion within three years.

The prime minister's dismissal of the reparations conversation drew swift criticism from historians, campaigners, and Caribbean leaders who argued that he had fundamentally misunderstood what they were asking for. Eric Phillips, chair of the Guyana Reparations Committee, said he did not understand the relevance of the Commonwealth if Starmer intended to take what he called a "cruel approach." Phillips argued that slavery had underpinned the capitalism that now drives the climate crisis, and he suggested a new principle for nations seeking reparations: "No reparations, no trade." He framed Britain's eagerness to trade with Commonwealth countries as opportunistic, a consequence of economic damage from Brexit.

Other voices in the debate emphasized that reparations were not merely historical accounting. Liliane Umubyeyi, director of African Futures Lab, pointed out that leaders like Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley had been clear that reparations demands address contemporary inequality, not just past wrongs. Professor Verene A Shepherd, who directs the Centre for Reparation Research at the University of the West Indies and serves on the UN committee on the elimination of racial discrimination, described Starmer's remarks as dismissive. She said his comments "will not make the campaign go away" and expressed hope that those affected by British colonialism would make their position clear to him at the summit. Diane Abbott, a veteran Labour MP, called the prime minister's stance disappointing, noting that descendants of enslaved people "live with the consequences of the transatlantic slave trade in the here and now."

What emerged from the exchange was a fundamental disagreement about what the Commonwealth summit should address and what Britain owes to nations it once ruled. Starmer's framing positioned reparations as backward-looking and economically inefficient—a distraction from the practical work of trade and climate cooperation. His critics countered that the two were inseparable: that Britain's historical extraction of wealth and resources had created the very inequalities that now shape global trade relationships and environmental vulnerability. The prime minister's comments, made before the summit had even begun, suggested that Britain would not be moving toward acknowledging or addressing those historical claims, regardless of what Caribbean and African leaders brought to the table.