Commonwealth leaders have been surprised at Labour’s position – and campaigners have even called the PM’s stance ‘offensive’

Keir Starmer attends a reception at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Samoa on Thursday. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/Reuters

It was meant to be a historic moment for the UK: the first time a sitting prime minister has visited a Pacific island nation. But the focus instead has been on the anger and deep frustration sparked by Keir Starmer’s blunt refusal to discuss the issue of reparations.

No 10 confirmed the government would not issue an apology for the UK’s role in slavery in the run-up to Commonwealth heads of government meeting (Chogm). And while travelling to the conference, Starmer told reporters he wants to “look forward” rather than have “very long endless discussions about reparations on the past”.

The government’s current position puts it out of step with a number of UK institutions, such as the Church of England, the University of Glasgow and Lloyds Bank – as well as the Guardian – who, in recent years, have not only issued formal apologies but announced proposals for reparatory justice.

The insistence on focusing on “current future-facing challenges” such as climate resilience and debt restructuring went down like a lead balloon with legal experts, campaigners and the Caribbean Community (Caricom). Many felt it showed a deep ignorance of what the campaign for reparative justice actually is.

Others bristled at the top-down approach to announce what will and will not be discussed at the meeting – and what they describe as an attempt to shut down meaningful discussions.

The furore displays a gap in race and equality policymaking in No 10, which confirmed in its daily press briefing that Starmer does not have a specific race adviser.

Prof Robert Beckford, a theologian and an adviser on reparations, accused Starmer’s government of displaying a “cultural ignorance” about reparative justice. He said: “It’s essential to understand the nuances between reparations, which is legal, and reparatory justice, which is moral.

“The latter of which is what the Caricom is advocating for. This understanding, I believe, is key to a holistic approach to reparations. It’s crucial to understand that in many cultures the past and present are deeply intertwined.”

Beckford added that “Starmer’s misreading of this cultural context may have led to a display of cultural ignorance”.

Jacqueline McKenzie, a human rights lawyer at Leigh Day, went further and described Starmer’s comments as “offensive” to the Commonwealth community.

McKenzie, who is leading a team conducting investigations into slavery reparations claims, said: “The UK government cannot ignore the calls of Caricom leaders for reparations for much longer. To say the period of enslavement was in the past, implying that this was too long ago to matter now, is quite offensive.

“The future of those countries and peoples affected very much depend on atonement.”

Olivette Otele, the UK’s first black female professor of history, said parliament was instrumental in getting plantation owners compensated for the loss of their so-called property, and that included the cost of enslaved people. “The least the current government could do is acknowledge that traumatic past, its legacies and endeavour to work towards repair and healing. The first step towards this is an apology.”

For others, Labour’s position has come as a surprise. David Lammy is the UK’s foreign secretary, has Caribbean heritage and invoked his enslaved ancestors when he attacked the “imperialism” of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, at the UN. Though Lammy repeatedly backed calls for reparations as a backbench MP and in the shadow cabinet, the foreign secretary has remained silent on the issue this week.

Frederick Mitchell, the Bahamas foreign minister, has picked up on this, telling the BBC: “It seems unusual to us because you have the Labour party in power. This, we thought, was something the Conservative party in the UK would be the progenitor of and Labour would certainly change its position on this, particularly since you have an Afro-British man as the foreign secretary; to put him in a position where he is advancing on a position where there are no reparations and no discussions of reparations.”