Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-31-Speech-3-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070131.15.3-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I also welcome this opportunity to exchange views on the issue of the death penalty and on the means to promote the universal abolition of this odious practice.
This has certainly been illustrated most recently by the Italian proposal for a universal moratorium on the death penalty at the UN General Assembly. Without prejudging the final outcome of this process of reflection, I wish to share three observations made by abolitionist actors on the moratorium which have struck me as relevant for feeding today’s discussion.
While representing a key element in the EU’s strategy towards universal abolition, leading NGOs have stressed that a moratorium is not a panacea. They claim it is by essence fragile, reversible and must be followed by abolition in law. They refer to the example of Kyrgyzstan, where the regularly extended moratorium on executions has not prevented the number of prisoners on death row from increasing. I think we need moratoria that hold firm.
Secondly, some NGOs underline the fact that the moratorium is one abolitionist tool among others. I agree that, in this context, the promotion of the Second Optional Protocol providing for abolition, the support for legal counselling for death row convicts and other efforts have to be included in our toolbox. Hence, we should avoid the current discussion on the moratorium to eclipse the fact that abolition is a multi-faceted process.
Lastly, when bringing the issue back to the UN General Assembly, we need to be cautious as to the possible outcome. It is paramount to secure a positive result. We need to be alive, however, to the risk of an ambiguous or even a counterproductive outcome – and the Council Presidency has alluded to it – given international divisions on this subject. Failing in such an effort could have negative consequences which will be difficult to repair. Therefore, we need to assess the situation and possible scenarios thoroughly before moving.
In conclusion, I wish to underline the importance of maintaining a common EU approach towards the universal abolition of the death penalty. The Commission will spare no efforts to work with the Presidency and Parliament to this end.
As you know, the abolition of the death penalty worldwide represents a key objective of the external human rights policy of the European Union, and I am personally committed to seeing the EU continue to play a lead role, as we have just heard, in this global effort. Since all of us here agree on the ultimate goal of our action in this field, namely universal abolition, I wish to provide some thoughts on this process of abolition and on the means to reach our common goal.
Firstly, let us not forget that the experience of abolition on the European continent has been a slow, often tortuous and protracted process, which has been, for most of our Member States, driven by a combination of strong political leadership and a mature level of development of human rights protection, the rule of law and democratic institutions. With some notable exceptions, including the United States of America and Japan, the global map of abolitionist countries also closely follows that of democratic pluralism. Visionary leadership and political courage are key to abolishing the death penalty. These efforts often need to be bolstered by a dynamic and open nationwide debate to ensure that the ultimate political decision to abolish the death penalty in a country is also a permanent one.
In the Philippines, and to some extent Kyrgyzstan, the recent abolition of the death penalty was precisely the result both of remarkable courage on the part of the political leadership and a profound nationwide debate, which witnessed wide participation from civil society actors – which has been mentioned – and institutions. In the United States of America, there are also some encouraging trends in some states, like New Jersey and Maryland.
On the other hand, it is not excluded that a country falls back into the practice of death penalty as we, unfortunately, have witnessed in Bahrain and need to fear in Peru. And in many other countries our appeals to abolish the death penalty have fallen on deaf ears until now.
The execution of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen has now sparked a renewed debate on the death penalty. The horrific videos of his undignified end upset even some supporters of the death penalty. But let us not forget that every year thousands are executed, most of whom are certainly somewhat better people than Saddam and many are even innocent. Their deaths should outrage us even more!
While evidently the abolition of the death penalty in any country is, to quote Robert Badinter, ‘a victory of humanity over itself’, one must remain realistic as to the influence of external actors, such as the European Union, in this process, because this process remains first and foremost a domestic one.
This is not to say that the European Union will sit on the fence. On the contrary, the EU has been and will remain at the very forefront of international efforts, notably at the United Nations, as was mentioned, to fight the death penalty. Last December, the EU presented a Declaration on the Death Penalty at the UN General Assembly, which received the support of a record 85 states. In line with our guidelines on the death penalty, the European Union has carried out numerous demarches on individual death penalty cases, including in countries such as the United States of America, Iran and Indonesia, and will continue to do so in the future. The EU is also the leading source of funding for abolitionist projects run by civil society, and over the past ten years, we have spent over EUR 15 million supporting such projects around the world.
The European Parliament and civil society actors have traditionally played a crucial role in both supporting the abolitionist efforts of the European Union and in stimulating the debate on the means to enhance our policy. It is of prime importance to listen carefully to those voices when discussing possible initiatives in various international forums, as the Council is currently doing."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples