Death penalty threatens to split world body
Thalif DEEN
The 192-member U.N. General Assembly is expected to vote, perhaps
by early or mid-November, on one of the most divisive political
issues before the world body: a moratorium on the death penalty.
The 27-member European Union (EU), backed by virtually every
single major international human rights organisation, will introduce
a draft resolution on the death penalty which is expected to split
the General Assembly right down the middle.
The EU is confident it will have a majority on its side of the
aisle — perhaps helping adopt the resolution, which is not legally
binding, by a narrow margin.
But there is also strong opposition to the resolution by the
Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), the League of Arab States,
and also by China and some of the Caribbean and Asian countries,
where capital punishment is still in statute books. Singapore, which
has been a consistently vocal proponent of the death penalty, thinks
the EU resolution will be “divisive.”
Ambassador Vanu Gopala Menon of Singapore says that when the EU
tables the draft resolution, it will be resisted by many countries
which have the death penalty on their statutes and which are of the
view that this is not a human rights issue but one dealing with law
and order.
“Under these circumstances, it is best for the EU not to try to
push ahead with their draft,” Menon told IPS. He argued such a
resolution will only “sour the atmosphere” in the Third Committee
(which will discuss and vote on the resolution before it goes to the
General Assembly) and “cause unnecessary divisiveness in the house.”
“It is not clear to me what the EU hopes to gain with this
resolution. It may give them a sense of moral satisfaction but it is
not going to change the positions of countries that maintain that
the death penalty serves to deter serious crimes,” he added.
“This attempt by the EU to impose its values will also be seen in
a very poor light by many countries,” Menon warned.
An EU official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS that
the draft is being “co-authored” by 36 member states, including the
27 EU members. But the number of countries “co-sponsoring” the draft
resolution, he said, would be around 70.
Asked if the EU is confident of obtaining a majority among the
192 member states, he said “it is hard to predict” because the draft
is still being discussed and is yet to be finalized.
An Arab diplomat, who is opposed to the EU resolution, said he
had heard that some of the non-EU states are “not very comfortable”
with the existing draft and have asked for amendments, thereby
delaying the tabling of the resolution.
But within the EU, there is a split as to whether it should
accommodate some of the amendments proposed by non-EU sponsors.
“There are also rumours of arm-twisting and cheque-book diplomacy
to win support for the resolution from developing nations,” the
Middle Eastern diplomat said. Since the draft is still being
debated, the EU has not officially released it, leading to further
speculation.
Addressing the conference on “Europe Against the Death Penalty”
in Lisbon in early October, the European Commission President Jose
Manuel Barroso laid down the official line: “The European Union is
unreservedly opposed to the use of capital punishment under all
circumstances and has consistently called for the worldwide
abolition of this punishment.”
“The death penalty is against human dignity. We want to give
visibility to the efforts of the many non-governmental organizations
and individuals who strive, day after day, towards the abolition of
the death penalty,” he added.
According to the EU, a growing number of countries are abolishing
the death penalty: 133 countries have done so in practice or in law.
The European Commission also admits it has funded around 30
anti-death penalty projects worldwide since 1994, with an overall
budget of about 15 million euros.
In a pre-emptive strike — and before the draft resolution is to
be introduced in the Third Committee — Ambassador Menon of Singapore
set the ball rolling Tuesday when he raised the issue of death
penalty during a discussion on “promotion and protection of human
rights.”
“My delegation is extremely disappointed, but hardly surprised,
that the European Union has once again decided to introduce a
resolution on the death penalty.” He said delegations will recall
that the last time the EU tried to foist such a resolution on the
Committee was in 1999.
“Delegations may also recall how divisive this experience was.
The sponsors of this draft resolution are certainly entitled to
their views on the death penalty,” Menon added. Singapore
understands and respects the position of countries which oppose the
death penalty as a matter of principle, he added.
“That is their prerogative. It appears, however, that these
countries are incapable of extending the same courtesy to countries
that have chosen to retain the death penalty”.
He said: “My delegation would like to remind this committee that
capital punishment is not prohibited under international law. Yet it
is clear that the sponsors of this draft resolution have decided
that there can only be one view on capital punishment, and that only
one set of choices should be respected.”
For a large number of countries, including Singapore, the
application of the death penalty is first and foremost a criminal
justice issue, not a human rights issue, he argued.
“It is an important component of the administration of law and
our justice system, and is imposed only for the most serious crimes
and serves as a deterrent. We have proper legal safeguards in place
to prevent any miscarriage of justice.”
“Every state has the sovereign right to choose its own political,
economic, social and legal systems based on what is in their own
best interests,” he said.