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
French firm DCI-DESCO in April won a bid to upgrade Taiwan’s Lafayette frigates, which has strained ties between China and France. In 1991, France sold Taiwan six Lafayette frigates and in 1992 sold it 60 Mirage 2000 fighter jets. To prevent arms sales between the nations, China negotiated an agreement with France and in 1994 in a joint statement, France promised that there would be no future arms sales to Taiwan. From China’s point of view, the DCI-DESCO deal constitutes a breach of the agreement, but the French stance is that it is not selling Taiwan new weapons, but instead providing a
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in her inaugural address on May 20 firmly said: “We will not accept the Beijing authorities’ use of ‘one country, two systems’ to downgrade Taiwan and undermine the cross-strait status quo.” The Chinese government was not too happy, and later that day, an opinion piece on the Web site of China’s state broadcaster China Central Television said: “While Tsai’s first inaugural address four years ago was read by Beijing as an ‘unfinished answer sheet,’ the one she presented this time was even more below-par.” Speaking to the China Review News Agency, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies vice president
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to wreak havoc worldwide. Despite countries being under pressure economically and from the novel coronavirus, China’s National People’s Congress last month passed national security legislation for Hong Kong, a decision that has shocked the world. Let there be no doubt: This move is the beginning of the end of China’s plans for “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Proposed amendments to extradition laws last year ignited massive protests in Hong Kong, with millions of participants, shocking the world and making confrontation between government forces and those who opposed the change a permanent part of Hong
Protecting domestic workers Ms Heidi Chang’s (張姮燕) article (“Employers need protections too,” May 24, page 6) made the case that “migrant workers’” rights had improved in Taiwan, but employers’ rights had not, going so far as to complain that all employers are treated equally under the law — as though this was not how the law was supposed to work. The truth is that the rights of foreign blue-collar workers have still not caught up with the rights their employers have always enjoyed. This segment of the foreign community in Taiwan is more likely than other groups to encounter abuse. Recently, a care