Ireland, Britain’s First Colony: Are Former Colonies Entitled to Reparations?

Introduction
The question of reparations for colonialism has re-emerged in international politics, particularly after the 2024 Commonwealth Conference in Samoa, where world leaders acknowledged calls for discussions on restorative justice (Mason 2024a). While the UK government has made clear it does not favour reparations, pressure has mounted as other states, such as the Netherlands and Germany, have issued apologies or provided compensation for colonial wrongs (Boffey 2022; Nyaungwa 2024). This paper examines the legitimacy of reparations claims by situating Ireland as a case study within the broader debate. Often regarded as “England’s first colony” (Trinity College Dublin 2023), Ireland’s experience highlights the unresolved legacies of British imperialism, including famine, cultural suppression, and contested sovereignty.

Colonial Injustices in Ireland
Ireland’s colonial experience reveals patterns of domination characteristic of British imperialism elsewhere. The Irish Famine (1845–1852), exacerbated by British export-driven policies, resulted in over a million deaths and two million forced migrations (Elkins 2022: 82-83). The cultural impact was equally devastating. Irish Gaelic, once spoken by millions, declined sharply under colonial rule due to education policies privileging English and restrictions on Irish in public life, leaving fewer than 80,000 fluent speakers today (RTE 2024; McGee 2018: 27). UNESCO now lists the language as endangered (UNESCO 2021). Beyond famine and cultural erosion, Ireland’s economic role was that of a subordinate cog in Britain’s pursuit of global commercial supremacy, treated as a colony in all but name (Egerton 1897: 3; Rolston et al. 2018: 343).

Colonial repression also extended to political violence. British troops, under Winston Churchill’s orders, suppressed the Irish rebellion in 1920 with the infamous “Black and Tans” (O’Dowd 2024). These actions reinforced the perception of Ireland as a colonised territory rather than an equal partner in the Union. Sinn Fein has long argued that the return of Northern Ireland represents the most direct form of reparations, framing it as both a legal and moral imperative (Sinn Fein 2009; 2024).

Comparative Precedents
The case for reparations is not without precedent. Germany has provided over €1.1 billion to Namibia for colonial-era atrocities (Nyaungwa 2024). Belgium’s King Philippe expressed “deepest regrets” for exploitation in Congo, and France has returned artefacts to Algeria while acknowledging colonial crimes (Nyemba 2022; Camut 2023). The Netherlands went further, with King Willem-Alexander issuing an apology in Indonesia (Royal House NL 2020). These examples demonstrate a spectrum of reparations: from symbolic apologies to financial compensation and cultural restitution. The UK, however, has remained resistant, fearing that acknowledgement in one case could create a precedent obligating it to respond to claims across its vast former empire.

Legal Framework
International human rights law provides some avenues for reparations claims. The UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) and subsequent covenants affirm the right to self-determination and non-discrimination (McWhinney 1960; UN 1967). UNESCO’s framework on cultural restitution supports claims for the return of artefacts taken under colonial occupation (UNESCO 2024). The 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples strengthens arguments for the restoration of control over land and resources (UN 2007). Ireland could thus pursue claims relating to cultural artefacts or even sovereignty over Northern Ireland.

Past litigation demonstrates mixed results. Kenyan victims of colonial violence successfully sued the British government, receiving £19.9 billion in compensation in 2013, alongside a memorial in Nairobi (Hague 2013; Moffett 2016: 146). However, the UK government stressed this settlement was exceptional and established no precedent. This defensive framing reflects Britain’s broader strategy: to recognise past wrongs without accepting binding legal accountability.

Academic and Political Discourse
Scholarly opinion on reparations remains divided. Advocates such as Olusoga (2016; 2023) and Andrews (2017; 2024) argue reparations are essential to redress exploitation and redistribute wealth. Rolston et al. (2018: 342) stress that reparations, whether financial, symbolic, or psychological, are vital for reconciliation. Harris (1993: 1777) echoes this by framing reparations as compensation for theft of land, labour, and identity. In contrast, Ferguson (2003; 2006) and Roberts (2006a; 2012b) defend the British Empire as a force for modernisation, arguing reparations would be impractical and unfair to contemporary society.

Irish voices highlight the country’s neglect in the reparations debate. Mezzacappa (2023) notes Ireland is often excluded from discussions, despite enduring famine and cultural suppression. Sinn Fein has linked reparations to unification, citing international law to frame Britain’s continued presence in Northern Ireland as incompatible with decolonisation (Sinn Fein 2009). Even the Democratic Unionist Party, usually opposed to Sinn Fein, has acknowledged the need for compensation for victims of colonial-era violence (Donaldson 2017). Despite such pressures, the UK government has consistently rebuffed calls, with PMs from Rishi Sunak to Keir Starmer rejecting both economic and symbolic reparations, urging instead a “future-facing” focus (Mason 2024a; 2024b; Starmer 2024; Ogbonna 2024).

The Irish Case in Context
Ireland’s claims differ from those of other former colonies in significant ways. Unlike distant colonies, Ireland’s colonial history remains embedded within the UK’s current territorial configuration. Calls for a united Ireland directly challenge British sovereignty, making the issue of reparations politically explosive. Moreover, Ireland’s cultural losses, such as its language, traditions, and artefacts, remain ongoing. The Troubles and their legacy further complicate the debate, with the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 shielding perpetrators from accountability, a move now challenged by the Irish government at the European Court of Human Rights (Amnesty 2023).

The comparison with India reinforces the argument for Irish claims. Like Ireland, India suffered famine and mass death under colonial rule, with its share of global GDP falling drastically due to British extraction (Tharoor 2017; Safi 2019). India has demanded the return of artefacts such as the Koh-i-Noor diamond, claims Britain has rejected (Bedi 2023). Ireland’s demands for cultural restitution from the British Museum mirror these efforts (Hogan 2024).

Conclusion
Ireland’s experience underscores the enduring legacies of colonialism in Europe itself. Framed as Britain’s “first colony,” it embodies many of the same injustices, such as famine, cultural suppression, and economic exploitation, that underpin reparations claims in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. Yet its proximity and entanglement with the UK render reparations uniquely contentious. Britain’s refusal to engage with reparations reflects not only economic concerns but also the political stakes of Irish unification. Nonetheless, the precedents set by other European states, the evolving discourse in international law, and persistent demands from Irish political actors suggest that calls for reparations will not fade. Even absent monetary compensation, acknowledgement, apology, and the return of cultural artefacts could constitute meaningful steps toward restorative justice.


Bibliography
Andrews, K. (2017). “The west’s wealth is based on slavery. Reparations should be paid”, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/28/slavery-reparations-west-wealth-equality-world-race. Consulted 10 December 2024.

Andrews, K. (2024). “The Knife is Still in Our Backs: Reparations Washing and the Limits of Reparatory Justice Campaigns”, Development and Change, 55(4): 628–650.

Amnesty (2023). “Irish Government challenge Troubles Act”, https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/irish-government-challenge-troubles-act-vital-victims-here-and-around-world. Consulted 10 December 2024.

Bedi, R. (2023). “India making ‘all efforts’ to get Koh-i-noor diamond back from Britain”, https://www.irishtimes.com/world/asia-pacific/2023/05/24/india-making-all-efforts-to-get-koh-i-noor-diamond-back-from-britain/. Consulted 11 December 2024.

Boffey, D. (2022). “Dutch State condoned extreme violence in Indonesian war inquiry concludes”, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/17/dutch-state-condoned-extreme-violence-in-indonesian-war-inquiry-concludes. Consulted on November 15 2024.

Camut, N. (2023). “Macron will not ask Algeria for ‘forgiveness’ over colonization”, https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-france-will-not-ask-algeria-for-forgiveness-over-colonisation/. Consulted 9 December 2024.

Donaldson, J. (2017). “Joint DUP-Sinn Fein approach could lead to abuse compensation”, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-40537421. Consulted 11 December 2024.

Elkins, C. (2022). Legacy of violence: A history of the British empire. Random House.

Egerton, E. (1897). A short History of British Colonial Policy. London: Routledge.

Ferguson, N. (2003). Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power.New York: Basic Books.

Ferguson, N. (2006). The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West. New York: Penguin Press.

Hague, W. (2013). “Statement to Parliament on settlement of Mau Mau claims”, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-to-parliament-on-settlement-of-mau-mau-claims. Consulted 9 December 2024.

Harris, I. (1993). “Whiteness as Property”, Harvard Law Review, 106(8): 1707-1791.

Hogan, P. (2024). Interviewed by Westmeath Independent, February 2024.

Mason, C. (2024a). “Time has come for reparations dialogue, Commonwealth heads agree”, BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c207m3m0xpjo. Consulted 10 November 2024.

Mason, C. (2024b). “We can’t change our history, on slave trade - PM”, BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c238lje181ko. Consulted 10 December 2024.

McGee, P. (2018). “Endangered languages: The case of Irish Gaelic”, Training Language and Culture, 2(4): 26-38.

McWhinney, E. (1960). Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. New York: UN.

Mezzacappa, K. (2023). “Why Ireland should not be overlooked for famine reparations from the UK”, https://www.newstalk.com/news/why-ireland-should-not-be-overlooked-for-famine-reparations-from-the-uk-1435645. Consulted 9 December 2024.

Moffett, L. (2016). “Reparations for ‘Guilty Victims’: Navigating Complex Identities of Victim–Perpetrators in Reparation Mechanisms”, International Journal of Transitional Justice, 10: 146–167.

Nyaungwa, N. (2024). “Namibian communities demand return of land in dispute over German genocide legacy”, https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/namibian-communities-demand-return-land-dispute-over-german-genocide-legacy-2024-03-07/. Consulted 9 December 2024.

Nyemba, B. (2022). “Belgian King reiterates regrets for colonial past in Congo but no apology”, https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/belgian-king-returns-mask-congo-symbolic-gesture-restitution-2022-06-08. Consulted 9 December 2024.

O’Dowd, N. (2024). “On This Day: Winston Churchill ordered Black and Tans into Ireland in 1920”, https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/winston-churchill-black-tans-ireland. Consulted 22 December 2024.

Ogbonna, N. (2024). “Slavery reparations not about transfer of cash, says Lammy”, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgkpy4634go. Consulted 10 December 2024. 

Olusoga, D. (2016). Black and British: A Forgotten History. London: Macmillan Education, 32: 5.

Olusoga, D. (2023). Interviewed by Adam Sherwin on inews, May 11.