ST. PETERSBURG, RUSSIAN FEDERATION

25 JUNE 2026

Chairman,
Distinguished Members of the Standing Committee,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

When Kwame Nkrumah declared that political independence would be meaningless without economic independence, he was not making a narrow observation about newly liberated African states. He was identifying what would become one of the enduring questions of the modern international system. More than six decades later, that question remains unresolved. Across much of the developing world, nations exercise political sovereignty yet continue to operate within economic structures they did not create, financial systems they do not control and institutional arrangements over which they exercise limited influence. Independence answered the question of who would govern. It did not necessarily answer the question of who would shape the conditions under which nations develop, trade, industrialise and prosper.

This reality explains why discussions about neocolonialism continue to resonate long after the end of formal colonial rule. The issue is not nostalgia for the past, nor is it an attempt to relitigate history. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that power has become more sophisticated in the way it operates. Colonialism was visible. It governed openly and justified itself explicitly. Modern forms of influence are often embedded within financial markets, trade regimes, technology ownership, development finance, intellectual property systems and international institutions whose decisions can shape the destinies of societies far beyond their borders. Whether one chooses to describe these realities as neocolonialism or by some other term, they raise a legitimate question about the nature of sovereignty in a deeply interconnected world. To what extent can nations be considered fully sovereign if many of the most important determinants of their economic future remain substantially beyond their influence?

Africa’s experience gives particular weight to this discussion. The continent entered the modern age under circumstances unlike those of any other region. For centuries, human beings, raw materials and wealth left Africa on a scale that contributed significantly to the development of other societies while constraining the development of our own. That history is not disputed. What remains disputed is whether its consequences continue to matter. Yet one of the most remarkable assumptions in modern international affairs is that history matters when explaining the success of nations but suddenly becomes irrelevant when explaining inequality between them. We readily acknowledge that institutions are built over generations, that wealth accumulates over generations and that strategic advantages are inherited across generations. Having accepted these realities, it becomes difficult to argue that the consequences of dispossession, exclusion and extraction simply disappeared with the passage of time.

It is from this perspective that Ghana has approached the question of reparatory justice. Our engagement with the issue is not rooted in sentiment, nor is it an attempt to assign guilt to present generations for the actions of previous ones. It reflects a conviction that meaningful conversations about development, fairness and international cooperation cannot be separated from the historical processes that helped shape the present. It was with this understanding that Ghana and the African Union convened the Accra Reparations Conference in 2023 and adopted the Accra Proclamation on Reparations.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and gentlemen, that process gathered further momentum in March this year when the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/80/250, introduced by Ghana on behalf of the African Group and supported by 123 Member States. For the first time, the international community formally recognised at that level that the trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialised chattel enslavement are not merely historical subjects but matters whose consequences continue to warrant international attention.

Only days ago, Ghana hosted the High-Level Consultative Conference on the Next Steps to the Landmark United Nations Resolution, bringing together African states, Caribbean nations, scholars, legal experts and international institutions to examine questions of restitution, development finance, debt justice, institutional reform and practical pathways toward reparatory justice. The appointment of President John Dramani Mahama as the African Union Champion on Reparations reflects a growing determination across the continent to ensure that these issues are no longer confined to academic debate or moral appeals, but are firmly situated within mainstream international diplomacy and policy.

The significance of these developments extends beyond reparations themselves. They compel us to confront a broader question about the nature of legitimacy in international affairs. Every durable international order rests not only on power but on the belief that its institutions are fair and that its rules command broad confidence. Yet legitimacy becomes difficult to sustain when historical injustices are acknowledged while their enduring consequences are treated as irrelevant. The debate before us therefore extends far beyond compensation. It concerns whether the international community possesses sufficient confidence to examine honestly the foundations upon which the modern order was built and sufficient imagination to address inequalities whose origins are deeply historical but whose effects remain unmistakably contemporary.

One lesson that emerges repeatedly from history is that power is not exercised only through armies, territory or markets. It is also exercised through rules. The nations and institutions that write the rules of finance, trade, technology, intellectual property, investment and development finance possess a form of influence that often exceeds traditional measures of power. This is why questions of representation within international institutions remain important. The issue is not simply whether developing countries are present when decisions are made. The issue is whether they participate meaningfully in shaping the rules by which those decisions are made. A world in which some nations consistently write the rules while others are expected merely to comply with them cannot indefinitely claim to embody genuine equality among sovereign states.

At the same time, history, important as it is, cannot become an explanation for everything. Africa must be careful not to substitute historical understanding for strategic action. Ghana’s own experience offers a useful reminder. We were among the first countries on the continent to attain independence. We have experienced periods of instability and periods of democratic consolidation. We have undertaken reforms, strengthened institutions and maintained peaceful transfers of power. Yet our experience demonstrates that political stability, while indispensable, does not automatically transform a country’s position within the global economy. Independence creates possibilities; it does not automatically create prosperity. The same lesson applies to the continent as a whole. Africa possesses strategic minerals, vast agricultural resources and one of the youngest populations in human history, but possession of resources has never been the same as possession of power. The societies that shape the future are not necessarily those that own resources. They are those that transform resources into industry, knowledge, technology and influence.

There is another reason why these questions have become increasingly urgent. The world is entering a period of renewed competition for resources, influence and strategic advantage. Across Africa, there is growing international interest in critical minerals, energy resources, digital infrastructure, transport corridors and emerging markets. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. Every nation pursues its interests. The question is whether Africa will participate in this new phase of global competition as an equal partner or merely as a source of inputs for the ambitions of others. History does not repeat itself exactly, but it often returns in familiar forms. The challenge before Africa is to ensure that the twenty-first century does not become another chapter in which the continent supplies strategic resources while others capture the greater share of the value they create.

This challenge is becoming even more significant because the global economy is entering another period of profound transformation, driven by artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, digital infrastructure and the transition to cleaner energy systems. Many of the resources required for these developments are found in Africa. The question is whether the continent will once again participate primarily as a supplier of raw materials or whether it will become an active participant in the industries, technologies and value chains that define the future. The answer will depend less on what others do and more on the choices we make ourselves: the quality of our institutions, the sophistication of our economies, the strength of our educational systems and our willingness to think strategically about the long term.

For this reason, the struggle against neocolonialism cannot ultimately be won through rhetoric alone. It will be won through competent governance, industrial capacity, technological capability, effective regional integration and the ability of states to negotiate from positions of confidence rather than dependency. It will be won when countries create value rather than merely export it, when they become producers of technology rather than consumers of it and when they possess the institutional strength necessary to translate sovereignty from a constitutional principle into an economic reality.

The Republic of Ghana believes firmly in cooperation among nations. We do not believe that the answer to domination is isolation, nor do we seek to replace one dependency with another. The objective is not to divide the world into rival camps. The objective is to contribute to an international order in which partnership genuinely means partnership, where sovereignty is respected regardless of a nation’s size and where development is not constrained by permanent hierarchies inherited from history. Such an order would not diminish any nation. On the contrary, it would strengthen the legitimacy, stability and resilience of the international system itself.

More than six decades ago, Ghana’s first President Dr. Kwame Nkrumah warned that political independence without economic independence would be incomplete. Time has not diminished the relevance of that observation. If anything, the changing nature of power has made it even more relevant. Much of the developing world secured political independence during the twentieth century. The unfinished task before us is to ensure that sovereignty is matched by capability and that freedom is matched by a common prosperity for our nations. Whether we succeed in that endeavour will determine not only the future of Africa, but also the character of the international order that future generations inherit.