It is finally happening. After 13 years of negotiations and delays, the UN General Assembly will vote this month on the proposal for a universal moratorium on the death penalty. A large majority of the UN adopted the proposal on Nov. 15, despite attempts by some member states to obstruct, amend or bury it. Fortunately, in the end, the opponents were forced to fight a will stronger than their own: the will of those who -- after the abolition of slavery and torture -- want to mark another turning point for civilization.
But will this month's vote be a mere formality? Experience teaches us to be prudent. I have not opened my bottle of Spumante yet.
To be honest, I am not sure that all of the world's governments have accepted the inevitable, or that even the most inflexible will now agree to the moratorium. But I continue to have faith that the assembly will know, as always, how to meet this challenge.
We are all aware that even if the vote succeeds, the UN resolution will not be binding, and that establishing and enforcing a moratorium is only a necessary mid-way step toward full abolition.
I believe the UN should push for an immediate de facto suspension, without waiting for the debates to begin on legal reforms in the respective countries.
I hope that this approach will allow a wide consensus in the assembly, and that any last minute change of heart will fail.
One big lesson I learned during the struggle to create the International Criminal Court (ICC), and now during the battle for a moratorium on the death penalty, is that it is often better to aim for a realistic result rather than a perfect one.
Before the international community established the ICC, there were two ad hoc tribunals -- one for the former Yugoslavia and one for Rwanda.? Their work paved the way for the ICC.
Some EU countries wanted to push for complete abolition of the death penalty right away. I understand their position. I would have wanted the same thing myself. But had we followed that route, we would most likely have failed.
There is an important lesson in this for the EU at a time when it is seeking to become a global actor: we must reach an internal consensus while always bearing in mind what the external ramifications of our decision might be. On the moratorium, we remained pragmatic and built a strong European foreign policy. And it was an advantage in the UN negotiations to have a common Europeans position and to have spoken with a single voice.
A second lesson that I learned is also useful for the EU, which finds itself in a world in which new powers are emerging and where all actors from Manila to Algiers, from Doha to Libreville, must deal with the challenges of globalization and interdependence on a daily basis. That lesson is that Europe has more friends than it has enemies in the world.
These friends deserve respect and attention. If Italy and the EU had not understood the need to work with non-European countries, and make them feel that they were responsible and fully-fledged protagonists, the efforts to establish the ICC and be so close to declare a universal moratorium on the death penalty would have failed.
I know that this is not exactly a new lesson, but it is what I have in mind when I think of efficient multilateralism. Not only does it work, but, above all, in some cases, it is the only way of moving forward.
Finally, a third lesson -- relevant to the fight against the death penalty and, indeed, to winning any political battle -- is perseverance, which I think is a mix of pig-headedness and the ability to maintain one's position. Without perseverance, there can be no progress.
All this is a success, not only for anti-death penalty radicals, for the "Hands off Cain" association, Italy and for the EU and its friends in the world. It is much more: it is a success for all those who believe that it is still possible to improve our world -- and ultimately the human condition -- every day.
Emma Bonino is Italian minister for Europe and international trade and a founding member of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).
Copyright: Project Syndicate/ECFR
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
The Central Election Commission (CEC) on Friday announced that recall motions targeting 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安) have been approved, and that a recall vote would take place on July 26. Of the recall motions against 35 KMT legislators, 31 were reviewed by the CEC after they exceeded the second-phase signature thresholds. Twenty-four were approved, five were asked to submit additional signatures to make up for invalid ones and two are still being reviewed. The mass recall vote targeting so many lawmakers at once is unprecedented in Taiwan’s political history. If the KMT loses more
RSS