It Is Our Sovereign Right To Hang People Sunday, Nov 18 2007 

Moratorium Vote Leaves Deep Divisions by Anuradha Kher

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 16 (IPS) - It was a victorious day for the anti-death penalty movement on Thursday, as the Third Committee of the U.N. General Assembly passed a symbolic resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on capital punishment.

Ninety-nine countries voted in favour of the resolution, 52 voted against and there were 33 abstentions. Eight countries were altogether absent from the meeting — the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Peru, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia and Tunisia.

The United States, Singapore and China joined many developing countries, notably from the Islamic world, in voting against the resolution, while abstainers included Bhutan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo and Cuba.

Months of meetings, campaigns and conferences intended to push the moratorium at the U.N. General Assembly culminated in this week’s vote, where conflicting views on the legality and effectiveness of capital punishment made for a tense atmosphere.

“The issue arouses a lot of strong feelings and that’s what we saw among delegates at the meeting,” Yvonne Terlingen, the Amnesty International’s representative at the United Nations, told IPS.

The draft resolution, which was co-sponsored by the European Union bloc and 60 other countries, still needs to be submitted to the 192-member General Assembly for a vote. If approved, it would be non-binding, but would carry moral weight. Diplomats said that the GA was widely expected to endorse the decision, possibly next month.

“We are happy with the substantive majority of countries who voted for the resolution. It was more than what we had expected,” Terlingen said. “We believe this will encourage many more countries to abolish capital punishment or at least review their laws regarding it.”

Eventually, that is what the anti-death penalty movement hopes for. One of the sponsors of the resolution and a major anti-death penalty advocate, the European Union, echoed this sentiment.

“This is a good day for human rights and the European goal of achieving the abolition of the death penalty all over the world. Based on this broad coalition, we will continue our efforts to reach this objective in the interest of humanity,” said the EU commissioner for external relations, Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

In an emotional statement after the resolution was passed, Italy’s Ambassador to the U.N., Marcello Spatafora said, “I strongly hope that, in approving this resolution, we will be starting a process in which we will be all working together, we will be all walking together along the same path, with equal dignity, with full mutual respect.”

But the vote tally that Terlingen and others on the anti-death penalty side view as a substantive majority and broad coalition, Singapore and others interpret as signaling no clear consensus on the matter.

“The vote on the resolution made clear that there is no international consensus on the death penalty. Almost half the membership of the U.N. did not vote in favour of the resolution. Many delegations were obviously uncomfortable with it. This is a criminal justice, not a human rights issue,” Vanu Gopala Menon, Singapore’s ambassador to the United Nations, told IPS.

He said that the main sponsors have only succeeded in exacerbating the divisions and polarising the membership by trying to impose their views on the rest of the world.

“Singapore will not change its criminal justice system in response to this vote. It is our sovereign right to decide based on our own criminal justice system,” he added.

Over the two days of debate, countries opposed to the resolution, including Barbados and Syria, argued that it smacked of moral righteousness on the part of proponents and that it touched on issues of national sovereignty.

But Terlingen said that “the resolution was being backed not only by the EU but also by a large number of countries in Africa, South America and many others from the South.”

In an effort to make their point of view heard, countries such as Singapore, the U.S., Egypt and Barbados proposed 14 written and four oral amendments to the resolution - including the right to life of unborn children - were introduced. In the months leading to the vote, anti-death penalty activists feared that these amendments would jeopardise the resolution, but to their surprise, all of them were defeated in debates preceding the vote.

For once, the United States and Iran were on the same side of an issue. “The U.S. recognises that the supporters of this resolution hold principled positions on the issue of the death penalty. Nonetheless, it is important to recognise that international law does not prohibit capital punishment,” Robert S. Hagen, deputy representative to the U.N. Economic and Social Council, said in his statement at the meeting.

He also said that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifically recognises the right of countries to impose the death penalty for the most serious crimes carried out with appropriate safeguards and observance of due process.

In the United States, there is currently a de facto moratorium on capital punishment as the country’s highest court reviews the legality of lethal injections as a method of execution.

According to Amnesty Intentional, more than 90 percent of executions last year took place in China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and the U.S. But it said that the number of recorded executions has decreased from 2,148 in 2005 to 1,591 the following year.

A growing number of countries are abolishing the death penalty - 133 countries have done so in practice or in law.

Two proposed death penalty moratoriums previously reached the floor of the general assembly: in 1994 and 1999. The former was defeated by eight votes and the latter withdrawn at the last minute.

Open Call For A Bloggers’ Meeting Sunday, Nov 18 2007 

Source: Yawning Bread

Background:

A government-linked body has embarked on a review of the regulatory framework over the internet. While the focus of the review seems to be “what to regulate and how to regulate”, there is a sense from those currently being consulted that the aim of this exercise is not liberalisation.

So far, those being consulted appears to be the elite - the “experts”.

There is a need for ordinary bloggers - and filmmakers who intend to put video material on the internet - to get together and organise a submission to the relevant bodies, putting across the perspective of practitioners.

This call for a bloggers’ meeting should interest those who often discuss politics and society in their work.

Date, time and venue:

Tuesday, 4 December 2007, 7 - 9 pm
At the Substation, Classroom 2. Armenian Street

This first meeting is meant for brainstorming the key issues; then to organise into teams to draft various parts of the intended submission. The teams have one week (till the second meeting) to work on their respective parts.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007, 7 - 9 pm
At the Substation, Classroom 2. Armenian Street

The second meeting is for the various drafts to be brought together and stitched/reconciled into a joint submission.

What to expect:

* Participants should be open about their identity; you may not remain anonymous.
* You should already be operating a blog, or producing content that is meant for uploading (e.g. videos, writing regularly for someone else’s blog)
* We should be able to accommodate up to 20 - 25 persons; we do not need a large crowd as that would be unwieldy.
* The meeting, once begun, will be “closed door” i.e. not open to reporting. No journalists allowed.
* Please get something to eat before the meeting starts; bring your own drink.

Background reading:

Participants are requested to familiarise themselves with the legal and regulatory background beforehand. We do not intend to waste time at the meetings just recapitulating the background.

Suggested reading (do a websearch):

1. Broadcasting Act
2. Media Development Authority of Singapore Act
3. Internet Code of Conduct
4. Internet Class Licence Scheme
5. Films Act
6. Parliamentary Elections Act
7. Election Advertising Regulations
8. Penal Code, Sections 298, 298A, etc
9. Penal Code, Sections 499, 505, etc
10. Sedition Act

Please help spread the open call for this meeting.

Myanmar Set To Sign ASEAN Rights Charter Sunday, Nov 18 2007 

For the junta, manipulating the UN and sporadically giving false hopes to the international community buys it time while it moves to legitimize its hold on political power through a new charter…..When the smoke has cleared, it will most likely be business as usual in Myanmar. Another UN envoy or rapporteur may have come, full of optimism at first, and frustrated by the junta’s intransigence in the end - Bertil Lintner

Myanmar Set To Sign ASEAN Rights Charter

By Geert De Clercq

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Military-ruled Myanmar is set to sign an ASEAN charter on democracy and human rights next week, ASEAN secretary-general Ong Keng Yong said on Saturday.

Photo by Reuters
Activists wearing masks depicting ASEAN leaders protest outside the Singapore embassy in Bangkok November 16, 2007. Photo: REUTERS/Stringer

Myanmar Prime Minister Thein Sein is due to attend the Association of South East Asian Nations summit, the first appearance by a top junta member at an international forum since the regime’s crackdown on pro-democracy protests in September.

“All 10 states will sign,” Ong told Reuters in an interview.

The charter - to be signed on Tuesday - will give the 40-year-old grouping legal status and spells out lofty goals for democracy and human rights.

“Myanmar has not fought to take out words like ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’. They are not against putting these down as an aspiration, but they ask for more time,” Ong said.

On Friday, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to urge ASEAN to suspend Myanmar until the regime shows respect for human rights.

“We cannot resolve this problem with sanctions or a hardline position,” said Ong, who is nearing the end of a five-year term.

“If you have a troubled child in the family, you can’t send it away to the mental house or sanatorium. I think our leaders’ instinct will be to see how ASEAN can help Myanmar.”

Ong, 53, said Thein Sein will brief ASEAN leaders during a working dinner on Monday, in which he will review the military regime’s “roadmap to democracy” as Myanmar has done at every ASEAN summit since 2004.

“Whatever the Myanmar leadership reports this year, it cannot be like what happened in previous years. The world is outraged after the shooting of monks by soldiers,” Ong said.

ASEAN leaders are set to sign the new charter, a blueprint for an ASEAN Economic Community and a declaration on climate change and the environment, but diplomats expect the summit to be dominated by the Myanmar issue.

On Wednesday, United Nations Myanmar envoy Ibrahim Gambari is due to brief the leaders of the East Asia Summit - the 10 ASEAN states plus China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand - about his visit to Myanmar this month.

In a letter to Ong published on Friday, Human Rights Watch called on ASEAN to establish specific deadlines to implement a binding regional human rights mechanism under its charter.

But Ong said it was too early for that.

“ASEAN has made a start by subscribing to human rights,” he said. A rights body would be the next step, he said.

ASEAN’s 10 members are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

(Editing by Robert Woodward)