By Emma Bonino
ROME, Feb 26 2016 (IPS)

Exclusion of Greece from the European free travel zone established by the Schengen Agreement is pending. The European Commission has ruled that the Athens government has “seriously neglected its obligations to control its own borders,” and if the deficiencies are not corrected within three months, the other member states of the Schengen area may exclude it from the agreement.

In 2015, some 850,000 people seeking asylum and work in northern European countries passed through Greece, and the influx is continuing.

Emma Bonino

However, excluding Greece from the Schengen area would be useless, as well as harmful to other countries such as Italy. The solution to the migrant crisis does not lie in isolated measures like this one, but in a community-wide policy that is long-term and broad in scope.

But the European Union continues to tackle its problems in isolation and without a comprehensive vision, as in the case of Greece.

Expelling Greece from the Schengen area makes no sense in the first place, because the country has no terrestrial borders with the Schengen area and so its land borders already operate as non-Schengen.

The effective isolation of Greece would result in migrants being concentrated in the country. They would try to travel onwards by sea or to reach Italy through Albania.

Doubts raised about free circulation in the Schengen area are not only affecting Greece. Austria, for example, has recently imposed controls on its border with Italy.

Therefore, with or without Greece, the Schengen Agreement is in danger. For Italy, the potential economic cost has been estimated at 6.5 billion euros a year.

Over and above the economic aspect – which is no small matter – one of the pillars of the European Union is being brought into question. The migrant crisis is a serious humanitarian problem, but it is being dealt with as if it were a political problem. That is to say, the mood of the electorate is given preeminence, instead of attempts being made to manage the problem.

The only exception appears to be German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is firmly maintaining her position of openness to migration, in spite of the facts that elections in her country are approaching, and therefore her leadership is on the line.

This is how real leaders behave. Merkel is the only government leader in Europe with a political vision. She is examining and analysing reality, instead of being carried away by the hysteria that would have us believe that waves of immigrants are preparing to flood the European Union to commit rape and many other crimes.

The truth is different. We must not forget that between 2008 and 2014, even in the worst stages of the financial crisis, the European Union granted 2.5 million residence permits every year. The majority of the public mistakenly thinks that these were mostly for Syrians and Iraqis.

The largest group was in fact Ukrainians, followed by U.S. citizens, Chinese and Indians. The United Kingdom, which takes a hard line on migrants, nevertheless admitted 568,000 in 2014 alone, according to Eurostat, which also indicates that the country receiving the greatest number of work permits was Poland.

Recalling these facts helps to destroy the stereotype of an invasion of Europe. There is no such thing: the European Union is capable of receiving immigrants and in fact is doing so. Furthermore, it needs an influx of immigrants to compensate for its demographic deficit.

However, a stingy and shortsighted policy presents the image of a continent of over 500 million people with the highest levels of wellbeing and life expectancy behaving as if it were threatened by the arrival of one million refugees and immigrants.

If Europeans are incapable of facing real facts and addressing them with an appropriate community policy, how will they cope in the year 2050, when Nigeria alone will have as many people as the euro zone and the total African population will reach four billion?

Translated by Valerie Dee

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino
ROME, Dec 31 2015 (IPS)

The appalling crisis ravaging the Middle East and striking terror around the world is a clear challenge to the West, but responses are uncoordinated. This is due on the one hand to divergent analyses of the situation, and on the other to conflicting interests.

Emma Bonino

The West has historic alliances with the Gulf area, but apparently nothing has been learned from the 3,000 deaths caused by the attack on the Twin Towers in New York. Turkey plays by its own rules, while Russia does not hesitate to resort to any means to recover its position on the global stage, and is only now showing concern about the so-called foreign combatants that Turkey is allowing into Syria. In truth, there is very little common ground.

Consequently, all reactions are inadequate, including the bombing of territory occupied by the Islamic State – whether motivated by emotion or based on reason with an eye to the next elections – by countries like France or the United Kingdom, which wants to demonstrate in this way to the rest of Europe that it is an indispensable part of the EU. Bombings take place, only to be followed by public recognition that aerial strikes are insufficient because there are no more targets to be hit from the sky without guidance from troops on the ground.

The fact is that while the impossibility of achieving victory by air attacks alone is repeated like a mantra, the bombings continue. At the same time, every Arab medium complains daily that these are acts of war waged, once again, by the West against the Arab world.

Doubtless for this reason, the British government has not only increased its military budget but also given the BBC more funding for Arabic language services. The battle in hand is above all a cultural one; arguments are needed over the medium and long term, in addition to attempts at overcoming the contradictions.

The first step is to admit that there is no magical solution; only partial and complex solutions exist. The first measure must be to oblige Sunni Muslims, the Gulf monarchies and the Muslim Brotherhood – the sources of funds and material support for Islamic State combatants – to assume responsibility for their roles. Secondly, we in Europe must take serious measures to address our own shortcomings, by reinforcing our security.

EU counter-terrorism coordinator Gilles de Kerchove recently appealed for an agreement to unify the intelligence services of European countries, to no avail. European governments do not want a common intelligence service, they do not want a common defence system, and they do not want a common foreign policy. Some are only willing to commit their air forces to the fray.

In the meantime, we lurch from one emergency to another, managing only to agree on improvised, temporary measures. For instance, now we have forgotten all about the immigrants, as if they had ceased to exist. Vision is lacking, not only for the long term but even for the medium term.

Now European governments are focused on Syria, leaving aside the conflicts in Libya and Yemen, and are not giving needed help to our Mediterranean neighbours threatened by serious crises: Tunisia, Morocco and Jordan. Lately, oil facilities in the Islamic State are being bombed and the tanker trucks used for black market oil exports are being attacked. As is well known, during the first Gulf War bombing of oil wells brought about an ecological disaster and history is repeating itself in the territories occupied by the Islamic State. Meanwhile the attacks on ground transport are blocking supplies of provisions to Syria, where food is already scarce.

For its part, Italy has done well in choosing not to participate in military interventions that risk being counterproductive and that no one believes are effective, as shown by other scenarios from Afghanistan to the Lebanon. But this does not exempt Italy from making greater efforts toward a common European intelligence service and a broader and more efficacious immigration policy.

In a nutshell: the European Union should formulate and apply its own foreign policy in line with its own interests and reality, and dispense with the policies of the United States, Russia, or other powers.

Translated by Valerie Dee

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino
ROME, Jul 24 2015 (IPS)

“A serious political and social crisis will sweep through the euro countries if they do not decide to strengthen the integration of their economies. The euro zone crisis did not begin with the Greek crisis, but was manifested much earlier, when a monetary union was created without economic and fiscal union in the context of a financial sector drugged on debt and speculation.”

Emma Bonino

These words, which are completely relevant today, were written by a group of federalists, including Romano Prodi, Giuliano Amato, Jacques Attali, Daniel Cohn-Bendit and this author, in May 2012.

Those with a federalist vision are not surprised that the crisis in Greece has dragged on for so many years, because they know that a really integrated Europe with a truly central bank would have been able to solve it in a relatively short time and at much lower cost.

In this region of 500 million people, another example of the inability to solve European problems was the recent great challenge of distributing 60,000 refugees among the 28 member countries of the European Union. Leaders spent all night exchanging insults without reaching a solution.

Unless the federalist programme – namely, the gradual conversion of the present European Union into the United States of Europe – is adopted, the region will not really be able to solve crises like those of Greece and migration.

It can be stated that European federalism – which would complete Europe’s unity and integration – is now more necessary than ever because it is the appropriate vehicle for overcoming regional crises and starting a new phase of growth, without which Europe will be left behind and subordinated not only to the United States but also to the major emerging powers.“Unless the federalist programme – namely, the gradual conversion of the present European Union into the United States of Europe – is adopted, the region will not really be able to solve crises like those of Greece and migration”

Furthermore, its serious and growing social problems – such as poverty, inequality and high unemployment especially among young people – will not be solved.

Within the federalist framework there is, at present, only the euro, while all the other institutions or sectoral policies (like defence, foreign policy, and so on) are lacking.

Excluding such large items of public spending as health care and social security, there are however other government functions which, according to the theory of fiscal federalism (the principle of subsidiarity and common sense), should be allocated to a higher level, that of the European central government.

Among them are, in particular: defence and security, diplomacy and foreign policy (including development and humanitarian aid), border control, large research and development projects, and social and regional redistribution.

Defence and foreign policy are perhaps considered the ultimate bastions of state sovereignty and so are still taboo. However, the progressive loss of influence in international affairs among even the most important European countries is increasingly evident.

To take, for instance, the defence sector: as Nick Witney, former chief executive of the European Defence Agency, has noted: “most European armies are still geared towards all-out warfare on the inner-German border rather than keeping the peace in Chad or supporting security and development in Afghanistan.

“This failure to modernise means that much of the 200 billion euros that Europe spends on defence each year is simply wasted,” and “the EU’s individual Member States, even France and Britain, have lost and will never regain the ability to finance all the necessary new capabilities by themselves.”

It should be noted that precisely because the mission of European military forces has changed so radically, it is nowadays much easier, in principle, to create new armed forces from scratch (personnel, armaments, doctrines and all) instead of persisting in the futile attempt to reconvert existing forces to new missions, while at the same time seeking to improve cooperation between them.

Why should it be possible to create a new currency and a new central bank from scratch, and not a new army?

Common defence spending by the 28 European Union countries amounts to 1.55 percent of European GDP. Hence, a hypothetical E.U. defence budget of one percent of GDP appears relatively modest.

However, it translates into nearly 130 billion euros, which would automatically make the E.U. armed forces an effective military organisation, surpassed only by that of the United States, and with resources three to five times greater than those available to powers like Russia, China or Japan.

It would also mean saving an estimated 60 to 70 billion euros, or more than half a percentage point of European GDP, compared with the present situation.

Transferring certain government functions from national to European level should not give rise to a net increase in public spending in the whole of the European Union, and could well lead to a net decrease because of economies of scale.

Taking the example of defence, for the same outlay a single organisation is certainly more efficient than 28 separate ones. Moreover, as demonstrated by experiences with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) during the Cold War, efforts to coordinate independent military forces always produced disappointing results and parasitic reliance on the wealthier providers of this common good. (END/COLUMNIST SERVICE)

Translated by Valerie Dee/Edited by Phil Harris    

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service. 

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino
ROME, Feb 27 2015 (IPS)

When I am asked whether Europe is still a relevant “protagonist” in the modern world, I always answer that there is no doubt about it. For a long time now, the continent has been shaken by financial crises, internal security strategy crises – including wars – and instability within its borders, which definitely make it a protagonist in world affairs. 

If the question asked were about what the leading role of the European Union actually is, it is enough to take a look at a few days’ entries in German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s diary.

Emma Bonino

On Thursday Feb. 5 she was in Moscow with French President François Hollande for negotiations on the Ukraine crisis with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the following day she met Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko for talks in Kiev. At the weekend she was back in Munich, where she argued publicly for resistance against increasing pressure from the United States to arm the Ukrainian forces.

On Monday Feb. 9 Merkel was in Washington, where she obtained – at least temporarily – U.S. President Barack Obama’s agreement to her stand against providing arms to Ukraine, in order to maintain a favourable climate for the negotiations that were about to be held in Minsk.

Next she went to Minsk to participate in three exhausting days of talks including a 17-hour debate with the presidents of Russia and Ukraine, which led to a proposal of truce in Ukraine, presented on Thursday Feb. 12 to an informal meeting of E.U. heads of state in Brussels.

This brief overview, and the reports and images disseminated in the media, clearly show that Angela Merkel personifies the global role of Europe and puts other European heads of state and institutions in the shade.

Other protagonists on the international stage, like Obama and Putin, show a similar perception when they make important agreements with the German Chancellor.

In my federalist vision of Europe, it would be just perfect if Merkel were the president of the United States of Europe. Unfortunately, that is not the case.“I am convinced that Berlin is aware that Germany is called on to shoulder strategic responsibilities that go beyond its status as an economic superpower”

I do not want to dwell on the oversimplified dilemma that has been exercising think tanks for years: Are we moving towards a Europeanised Germany, or towards a Germanised Europe?

But I am convinced that Berlin is aware that Germany is called on to shoulder strategic responsibilities that go beyond its status as an economic superpower. This view is reinforced by the certainty that the proposal to reform the United Nations Security Council by granting Berlin a permanent seat is not going to happen in the foreseeable future.

And if, at some date far in the future, such a reform of the Security Council is approved, the Council’s powers may by then have been reduced.

I believe this because in the last few months, while the events that are public knowledge were happening in Syria, in Iraq, with respect to the Islamic State, in Ukraine, in Sudan, Libya and Nigeria, the Security Council was conspicuous by its absence.

Furthermore, it is a disappointing surprise to witness the almost non-existent resilience of the institutions created by the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007, which reformed the European Union. At the time they were praised as a new departure in the framework of international law and as the consolidation of a united European foreign policy.

While we watched the serious conflict in Ukraine on our continent, many of us asked ourselves what the top E.U. authorities, who had been elected transnationally for the first time, were doing: E.U. President Jean-Claude Juncker, European Council President Donald Tusk and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini.

What credibility can possibly remain for structures that are systematically side-lined when conflicts become red-hot?

The problem does not lie in the persons who perform these functions. Such an analysis would be too superficial.

It is rather a question of ascertaining whether European institutions are sufficiently robust to resist what many call a return to the Westphalian system, that is, to the treaties of 1648 that demarcated a new order in Europe founded on the nation-state as the basis of international relations.

Outside Europe, this tendency has been developing for some time. The role of global power is increasingly taken over by “mega states”: the United States, Russia, China, India, and soon to include Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia.

The European Union has difficulty matching up to these as a valid counterpart.

I am afraid that this tendency may lead to the definitive crisis of the European federalist project. However, we federalists must resist the trend and reflect on the best way to face the situation.

Since 2008, the economic and political measures taken by EU member countries have aimed at “renationalising” their interests, with the exception of actions implemented by Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank.

Consequently, Europe has abandoned the pursuit of a common foreign policy and has reverted to inter-governmental practices that prioritise national interests.

The dilemma is clear: either the European Union is a global power and is recognised as such, or Europe will be represented by others in crucial debates.

In this context, what is emerging is that Germany is increasingly taking on a new role.

This process began with the bizarre designation in 2006 of a group of countries to negotiate with Iran, known as 3+3, or more commonly, outside Europe, as 5+1: the five permanent members of the Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France) plus Germany.

Since then Berlin has taken on a leading role, not only in the European context but also in many international affairs, often on behalf of the European Union.

To sum up: the European Union works jointly to the extent that this is possible. After that there is a level at which decisions – and responsibilities – are taken by those with the power to do so. That is the scheme practised in today’s Europe. It is time for other Europeans to sit up and take notice. (END/IPS COLUMNIST SERVICE)

Translated by Valerie Dee/ Edited by Phil Harris   

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino
ROME, Nov 17 2014 (IPS)

In just a few days, a meeting is scheduled that will be decisive for the security of the Middle East and of the whole world.

Nov. 24 is the deadline for final negotiations between high representatives of six world powers and Iran seeking to reach a comprehensive agreement on the development of the Iranian nuclear programme.

Emma Bonino

The six powers include three European countries (Germany, United Kingdom and France) as well as China, the United States and Russia. This negotiating group is known in Europe as E3+3.

The interim agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme signed in November 2013 delivered the E3+3’s most substantial guarantees to date, instituting rigorous supervision of the Iranian nuclear programme while limiting and reducing its production of enriched uranium. Since then progress has been made at several talks and the deadline for their conclusion has been set for Nov. 24.

It is hoped that agreement will be reached on the remaining difficult issues and that the foundations for a final agreement will be laid. If this does not happen, it is feared that further postponement may provide more opportunities for those opposed to diplomatic means to derail the process.

This would be a serious reverse when so much progress has been made, creative technical solutions have been proposed, and an agreement is within reach that would peacefully and effectively address the concerns of the E3+3 about proliferation in regard to Iranian nuclear plans, as well as respect Iran’s legitimate aspirations to develop atomic energy for civilian use, and its sovereignty.“An agreement [on Iran’s nuclear programme] must also renew the West’s commitment to Iran by opening up new options in the pursuit of regional interests that partly coincide, at a time when Europeans are once more militarily engaged at Iran’s gates”

The European countries have invested vast resources to attain this stage of the negotiations, enforcing unprecedented economic sanctions against Iran as well as shouldering the consequences on the regional scale of maintaining Tehran in isolation.

Europe must use the little time it has left to encourage the negotiating parties to resolve the pending issues by making reasonable concessions, while at the same time avoiding matters that are not essential to a good accord. The Europeans should also work alongside the U.S. government to allay the fears of regional allies sceptical about the long-term strategic benefits of a definitive nuclear pact.

The cost of failure, in economic and security terms, is incalculable.

Failure would probably result in an unrestricted or timidly supervised Iranian nuclear programme, without robust verification to prevent its possible diversion for military purposes.

A negative outcome would foreseeably lead to intensification of sanctions and the isolation of Iran, which could in turn be a stronger incentive for Tehran to try to develop nuclear weapons. This would further undermine Western interests and create an increasingly explosive dead-end situation in military terms.

The costs to Iran of failure, in economic and security terms, are incalculable.

Some of those opposed to an agreement, who can be found in either negotiating party, may wish for consequences of this nature. But responsible leaders should not share this attitude.

If a definitive pact is forged, the E3+3 will establish the truly historic precedent of safeguarding global security through containment of Iran’s capability to develop nuclear weapons. 

A final agreement would also strengthen trust and create the necessary political space for the European Union to engage Iran again in human rights dialogue of the kind that took place in the past, which makes so much sense and is so badly needed now.

Crucially, an agreement must also renew the West’s commitment to Iran by opening up new options in the pursuit of regional interests that partly coincide, at a time when Europeans are once more militarily engaged at Iran’s gates and when cooperation on at least partially shared interests seems possible and necessary, without ignoring the many circumstances in which Iranian and Western interests continue to diverge.

Iran and the E3+3 are closer than ever to resolving the nuclear question.

Non-proliferation, global and regional security and the pacification of conflict hotspots in the Middle East, as well as the exemplary effect of multilateral diplomacy during these convulsed times, would without exception benefit significantly from a firm and fair agreement.

All the parties have the option of distancing themselves from a nuclear agreement, but if they do so it will be in the knowledge that the alternatives are far worse, and that they ought to pay heed to their own best strategic interests. They should all know, also, that there may never be another opportunity like this one to close a definitive nuclear deal. (END/IPS COLUMNIST SERVICE)

(Edited by Phil Harris)

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service. 

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino
ROME, May 30 2014 (IPS)

Since 2004, the Independent Commission on Turkey (ICT) has watched closely developments within Turkey and between Turkey and the European Union (EU). On April 7 the ITC launched its third report, Turkey in Europe: The Imperative for Change.

The report puts in a nutshell what to do for progress in EU-Turkey relations under present circumstances: “In the turbulent times we are living in, a stable, democratic and prosperous Turkey is ever more in the vital interest of the EU and Turkey. We call upon Turkey to resume its democratisation and reverse its shortcomings. In this context we are firmly convinced that re-launching of a credible accession process to the EU can buttress Turkey’s efforts to cure its internal rifts, and accelerate political reform.”“A stable, democratic and prosperous Turkey is ever more in the vital interest of the EU and Turkey. We call upon Turkey to resume its democratisation” – Independent Commission on Turkey

We observed how the vicious circle between Turkey and the EU that we sketched in 2009 deepened significantly Turkey’s mistrust and disaffection towards the EU grew, while the EU, absorbed by its internal crisis, largely neglected the accession process towards Turkey.

By 2013, we started seeing signs of a possible new beginning between Turkey and the EU. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to Brussels, and perhaps above all, the agreement between Turkey and the EU on readmission and a visa liberalisation dialogue, encouraged us to believe that in 2014 Turkey’s accession process could be revamped and put on a healthier footing.

Recent years in Turkey have witnessed important efforts along the path of political reform. In many respects Turkey has made important leaps forward. Civil-military relations in Turkey now approximate the standards in EU member states. The era of military interference in civilian life seems to be definitively over.

Emma Bonino

Regarding the Kurdish question, the Turkish government has undertaken a courageous process of reconciliation with the Kurdish nationalist movement.

The road ahead is long and bumpy, but the results achieved so far – when compared to where Turkey stood only two decades ago – are truly historic.

We also note, however, that in other important respects – notably freedom of expression, judicial reform, separation of powers, and rule of law – steps forward were matched or overtaken by parallel and at times greater steps backwards.

In the Report, the Commission criticises the Turkish government for displaying increasing authoritarian tendencies and draws attention to the widening gap between the EU and Turkey. Special emphasis is placed on judicial independence, separation of powers, freedom of media, restrictions on internet and government’s poor performance in freedom of thought, expression and demonstration in the aftermath of the Gezi Park protest initiated on March 28, 2013.

The deepening polarisation in the country between political forces as well as between the state and segments of civil society underpins many of the difficulties that Turkey has been encountering in consolidating its democracy.

The failure to agree on a new civilian constitution, the protests sparked in Gezi Park and the corruption scandal that enveloped Turkey at the close of 2013 all epitomise diverse manifestations of such nefarious polarisation.

A credible EU accession process that can assist Turkey’s democratic consolidation lies in the EU’s ability both to inspire reforms and to act as a glue between a disparate set of actors in Turkey, who have otherwise been torn apart by centrifugal forces.

At the same time, a healthy relationship between Turkey and the EU is predicated on Turkey’s efforts to reverse its political shortcomings and resume the path of democratic reform.

As regards economic development, Turkey has continued to demonstrate considerable resilience, having weathered the global financial storm and the ensuing repercussions on the Eurozone remarkably well so far.

Since Turkey’s accession process began, the EU-Turkey relationship has deepened significantly also in a number of areas which, at first glance, may seem detached from the accession process.

In the realm of energy, the interdependence between the EU and Turkey has grown in recent years, notwithstanding the stalling of the accession process.

Turkey has firmly established itself as a key transit country in the Southern Energy Corridor, and the recent agreements to transport Azerbaijani gas represent the first concrete manifestations in the making. But as a fast growing and energy hungry country, close to multiple sources of gas, Turkey aims at becoming not only a transit state, but also an energy hub.

In particular, Turkey could become a major destination and route for new gas sources from the Eastern Mediterranean and Iraq. In the case of the Eastern Mediterranean, a pipeline from Israel to Turkey passing through Cyprus’ Exclusive Economic Zone could also catalyse progress in the Cyprus peace process.

More broadly, 21st century Turkey’s foreign policy projection in the neighbourhood and beyond has lived through a remarkable rise. In terms of diplomatic initiatives, trade, movement of people, development assistance, military missions, or cultural outreach, Turkey’s regional and global role is unambiguously on the rise.

This does not mean that Turkish foreign policy initiatives are always successful. Turkey’s acute problems with Syria, the downturn of relations with Egypt, its complicated relations with Iran, Iraq and Israel, and its failure to move forward on Cyprus and Armenia all testify to this.

All notwithstanding, however, 21st century Turkey is clearly a regional power to be reckoned with. Across the EU there has been a rising appreciation of Turkey’s strategic relevance and a deepening consensus on the desirability of close foreign policy cooperation with Turkey.

The Independent Commission on Turkey strongly believes that change in both Turkey and the EU has become imperative. (END/IPS COLUMNIST SERVICE)

(*) Chaired by Martti Ahtisaari, the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and former President of Finland, the Independent Commission on Turkey, established in 2004, comprises prominent figures such as Emma Bonino, the former Foreign Minister of Italy, Hans van den Broek, former Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, Wolfgang Ischinger, chairman of Munich Security Conference, David Miliband, former Secretary of State of Great Britain, Marcelino Oreja Aguirre, former Foreign Minister of Spain, Michel Rocard, former Prime Minister of France, and Albert Rohan, former Secretary General of Foreign Affairs, Austria.

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino
ROME, Mar 3 2014 (IPS)

Until the late 1970s, only 16 countries had abolished the capital punishment for all crimes. Today, abolitionist nations are the overwhelming majority. More than two-thirds of nations, over 150 of the 193 members of the United Nations, have now rejected the death penalty or do not carry out executions.

This evolution was led by the recognition that in any judicial procedure there is always the risk of a miscarriage of justice. If a person is jailed and later found to be innocent she or he can be released and provided compensation for the time unduly spent in prison. This is not possible if an innocent sentenced to death has already been executed. The punishment is final and irreversible and there is no possible appeal from the grave.

The death penalty is a toxic and destructive punishment that causes untold injustice and suffering. It represents the ultimate denial of human rights. In the words of Albert Camus, the French Nobel prize winner for literature, “capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders.”

Unfortunately the cross-party in favour of the death penalty is still operating on a global scale. It goes beyond ideologies, religions, political trends, historical periods and international law. Gallows are still erected in capitalist democracies as well as in authoritarian or fundamentalist regimes, in poor countries as well as in rich and developed nations.

The list of crimes punishable by death is extensive and changes with time. Only the reason to justify the death penalty remains unchanged: it is considered as a deterrent against criminals; the supreme prerogative of the State to punish in “an appropriate way” the most heinous crimes.

These are both specious and simply irrational reasons. No one has ever been able to demonstrate the deterrent effect of the death penalty on crimes. Executions do not deliver public safety or deter violent crime – instead they endorse violence, sometimes fuelling cycles of violence and retribution. It is no surprise the States that have abolished the death penalty often have lower murder rates than those that have yet to do so.

It is therefore of paramount importance that countries that still envisage the death penalty ensure that information and statistics regarding its use are made publicly available. Only an objectively informed public opinion can accept and support reforms of the penal system aimed at abolishing the capital punishment as cruel and ineffective.

Nowadays there is a growing awareness on the issue and it is a fact that the trend towards abolition finds echoes in every region of the world. Even retentionist countries which head today the sad tally of executions are rethinking their approach.

Having said so, we must recognise that much progress still remains to be done. The situation in many countries is still a cause of grave concern. In some cases, we have witnessed the worrying phenomenon of some countries, which had previously agreed on endorsing the moratorium, to take the decision of re-establishing the death penalty. This is an involution which has distinguished mostly Asia but also Africa, with the reactivation of executions in Nigeria and Gambia.

Italy is proud to be part of the cross-regional coalition of States supporting the international campaign against the capital punishment. We took a strong and principled position against the death penalty. This campaign represents a priority for Italy’s foreign policy and has the full support of our Parliament and civil society.

Italy has been a major sponsor of the United Nations’ General Assembly Resolution on a universal moratorium of the death penalty since its inception in 1994. We are an active part of the interregional task force entrusted with its drafting. We also are one of the most active promoters of the campaign to convince countries previously abstaining or voting against the text to switch their votes in favour of the resolution.

While not legally binding, the United Nations resolutions have been a political breakthrough, sending a strong message to the minority of countries still adhering to capital punishment that it is time to reject what is increasingly seen as a cruel and counter-productive practice.

It is hard to overstate progress on this issue. A watershed moment came six years ago when, in December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly first adopted a resolution calling for a universal moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to a complete abolition.

This achievement was reinforced by three further UN General Assembly resolutions, in Decembers 2008, 2010 and 2012. On each occasion, the vote supporting the call for a moratorium gathered strength: rising from 104 votes to 111, while those States voting negatively fell from 54 to 41.

Next fall, first the United Nations General Assembly Third Commission and then its plenary shall negotiate and vote the fifth resolution on the universal moratorium. We will try to reinforce also the content of the text, calling for the imposition of death penalty only for the most serious crimes and to establish a Special Rapporteur or Special Adviser of the Secretary General on the issue of the death penalty.

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino
ROME, Dec 23 2013 (Columnist Service)

The past three years have been very important to scale up the movement to protect the rights and fundamental freedoms of women and girls and, particularly, to eliminate female genital mutilation worldwide.

We saw the political momentum growing and culminating December 2012 with the consensual adoption by the General Assembly of Resolution 67/146 banning female genital mutilation worldwide.

On that occasion all United Nations member states sent a strong political message about their commitment. The resolution calls upon member states to ensure effective implementation of international and regional instruments protecting women’s rights and to take all necessary measures to prohibit female genital mutilation.

The resolution was an important step forward; it is now our responsibility to ensure its effective implementation. The recent UNICEF report reminds us that despite the best efforts towards its abandonment, female genital mutilation still persists.

For this reason, during the General Assembly this year we organised a side event, together with Burkina Faso, UNFPA and UNICEF, to share specific contributions that governments and international institutions have made to the commitments undertaken with the adoption of the resolution.

Genital mutilation is only one of the manifold forms of violence women are still suffering all over the world. Just to mention the example of my own country, over 100 women have been killed in Italy this year, mostly in the context of domestic violence.

To reverse such a terrible trend, we have increased government action against crimes that victimise women. I am also very proud that Italy became the fifth member state of the Council of Europe to ratify the Istanbul Convention for preventing and combating sexual and domestic violence.

The same happened with the ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty, which introduces principles and criteria to oversee the movement of arms and to combat illegal trafficking. Such treaties contain an explicit provision on gender-based violence.

Women are the first victims of such trade. This also goes in the direction of a general change of culture leading to a gender-balanced approach in peace-building processes.

Gender-based violence was also the common denominator underlying the discussion at the high-level meeting during the General Assembly last September of the Equal Futures Partnership, the initiative launched by former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton which Italy just joined.

This is a partnership uniting nations firmly committed to closing the gender gap and to sharing experiences so that local practices can be replicated all over the world.

A less blatant but nonetheless harmful form of violence against women is the practice of early and forced marriages. We must take every opportunity to recall the importance of eradicating this practice in one generation’s time span, accelerating change in culture and traditions through a vibrant, ongoing campaign.

For this reason we also call for the inclusion of this target in the post-2015 development agenda.

A very encouraging step was the approval last month by the U.N. General Assembly’s Third Committee of a resolution aimed at achieving a ban, within the next 12 months, on early and forced marriages. This resolution – promoted by Italy and nine other countries – was co-sponsored by 109 countries and was approved by consensus.

Violence against women also encompasses trafficking and slavery. This is a particularly
painful subject for me: it is very sad and frustrating to feel helpless when hundreds of migrants, women and men and children, tragically die off the coasts of Lampedusa (in Sicily). For this reason we are insisting on a common European effort within the framework of the Mediterranean task force led by the European Commission to combat human trafficking.

This leads me to talk about the situation of women in our neighbouring countries in the Southern Mediterranean. In some of these countries the promotion of women’s rights has a long tradition.

In other cases gender issues have been promoted by those autocratic regimes which the Arab Spring swept away, as they became instrumental for them to show their modern face to Western allies while continuing to violate other human rights.

Whatever the reasons for their past promotion, we must continue monitoring to avoid any setback, like attempts to delegitimise the Personal Status Code (adopted in 1956) in Tunisia or to misapply the law imposing sanctions for female mutilation in Egypt.

For this reason we should increase our efforts in initiatives like the one undertaken by the European Union and United Nations, “Spring Forward for Women”, which includes measures to ensure effective access by women to economic and political opportunities in the Southern Mediterranean region.

On the Italian side, I would also like to mention an initiative we successfully launched last February and that we will repeat next year: Women in Diplomacy School. The school aims at giving women specific tools for their empowerment as leaders. It is open to the participation of young women from our neighbouring Mediterranean countries.

The Women in Diplomacy School is part of a wider project that Italy has launched in view of the Expo Milan 2015, the Women and Expo initiative.

Our ambitious goal is to make Expo 2015 in Milan the first “gender Expo” ever, hoping that this will serve as an example for future editions.
(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino
ROME, May 14 2013 (IPS)

The recent agreement for the normalisation of relations between Serbia and Kosovo has confirmed that the European Union (EU) is still acting as a “magnet”, attracting its external neighbours and transforming and integrating them. Thanks to its prospects for EU membership, the whole Balkan area has become more stable and secure. Unfortunately, this virtuous magnetism no longer exerts the same force of attraction on our own citizens.

Italian Foreign Affairs Minister Emma Bonino. Credit: Victor Sokolowicz/IPS

With every passing day, the founding fathers’ dream of peace and freedom seems to be turning into a nightmare for many.

The EU is increasingly being associated with austerity policies that lead to recession, unemployment and social despair. More worryingly, there are signs that the current crisis is not limited to the EU’s economic sphere but also impacts its most fundamental values.

Everywhere in Europe we see rising intolerance; growing support for xenophobic and populist parties; discrimination and a weakening of the rule of law; and entire populations of undocumented migrants, virtually without rights, punished for their status rather than their individual behaviour.

Our inclusive and open community is threatened by destructive actions pursued by nationalistic and demagogic groups. But they are not the only ones inflicting damage on the Union.

In some countries, including Italy, we see too many violations of the rule of law and of international and European treaties, an unreliable justice system, inhumane and degrading conditions in prisons, serious infringements of human rights and grave cases of lack of accountability. How can we preach respect for universal values abroad if we are among the countries most condemned by the European Court of human rights?

It is in our vital interest to react to all these alarming trends.

To defend the European construction, we need to rediscover its mission. Its founding fathers had to discard a whole world of prejudice and fear. They knew from their tragic experience that building fortresses and walls under the guise of ensuring peace and security was an illusion.

They chose integration, and rejected barriers. And they understood that all freedoms are closely linked: one cannot want free trade yet hinder the free movement of people.

Nationalist and demagogic groups are spreading fear and prejudice across Europe by exploiting the current malaise and social despair of all those without a job, and without faith in their future. As European Central Bank President Mario Draghi stressed: “It is of particular importance at this juncture to address the current high long-term and youth unemployment.” This is a fundamental mission of the new Italian government. The data flow is still depressing, urging us to adopt new measures in coordination with our partners and in full respect of our fiscal commitments.

However, I believe that the choice is not simply between fiscal tightening and reckless spending, nor can fear of and disaffection with Europe be tackled with economic measures or financial engineering alone. No solution is credible without a political dimension and without encompassing the whole European architecture.

We need a new score: a federal solution.

I have spent a lot of time, passion and energy supporting the creation of a federal Europe; not for ideological reasons but simply because I do not know any other system capable of allowing 500 million people – belonging to different nations, cultures, religions and speaking a multitude of languages – to live together in freedom and diversity in the 21st century.

Federalism does not mean that the central European government should become a Leviathan, as described by the frightening words of the Europhobes.

A couple of years ago, I proposed a “light federation”, an institutional model that would absorb no more than five percent of European gross domestic product (GDP) in order to finance specific government functions such as foreign and security policy, scientific research, trans-European networks and safety of commercial transactions, among others.

For instance, how can European governments provide adequate security, with fewer financial resources? Only a shared European defence system, with common, integrated armed forces, would enable us to get out of the corner into which tight budgetary constraints are confining us. European governments are reluctant to take decisive steps towards this goal. The consequences of that reluctance are fragmented initiatives, wasted resources and a growing irrelevance of European influence on the world stage.

The same applies to scientific research, a field where national programmes are often too small to be productive and compete successfully with the huge projects of the other global powers.

The 2014 European parliamentary elections will be a significant test. If we want to prevent the risk of an over-representation of populist parties, we need to put federal Europe at the centre stage of the electoral campaign. The pro-Europe political families should present their own candidate for the presidency of the European Commission and submit political agendas for the future of the EU, stressing that a federal solution would save significant financial resources. So, the federalist perspective could assume concrete meaning for all citizens, avoiding the risk of being perceived as an abstract juridical matter.

In 2014, exactly a century after the murder of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo that led to the destruction of Europe, we will have another opportunity to give a new impetus to the federal project, under the Italian presidency of the EU. And after 2014, a review of the treaties could give European citizens a stronger sense of ownership of our common institutions and ensure an easier coexistence between countries in the eurozone and the other member states.

If Europe does not solve its problems of recession and populism, we could lose all that we have achieved since the 1950s, with no estimate of how long it will take to regain the same level of democracy, prosperity and stability as before. But if we adopt a new vision, engage our citizens and unite our governments, we could start a new phase of boosting growth and fostering democratic legitimacy and global influence.

(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

A growing number of people are convinced that, in order for the monetary union to be saved, the European Union (EU), or eurozone, must have a ministry of the treasury or finance ­in other words, it must be able to tax and spend.

Today, the EU has virtually no power to tax. Its budget revenue comes from contributions by member countries. Moreover, its spending ­a negligible one percent, more or less, of the EU GDP­ finances almost no government functions but rather pays for subsidies, with those for agriculture accounting for almost half of the entire EU budget.

If there were a treasury, the EU would be able to tax citizens and spend the resulting revenue, which would in turn imply the existence of a budget. Considering this prospect with an open mind, the first question is: what would the budget go to?

Even excluding the largest typical public spending items, like education and social programmes, there are government functions that -in keeping with the theory of fiscal federalism, the principle of subsidiarity, and common sense- could be assigned to the central European government, in particular security and defence, diplomacy and foreign policy (including development and humanitarian aid); border control (the equivalent of Homeland Security in the United States); EU-wide infrastructure projects; major research and development projects; and social and regional redistribution.

Defence and foreign policy may be the last sectors considered to be inextricably connected to state sovereignty and off limits for assignment to a larger, international entity.

Still, the growing loss of influence in international affairs that afflicts even the most important European countries is increasingly clear to everyone.

Nick Whitney, ex-head of the European Defence Agency, formulated the most perspicacious and persuasive condemnation of the current state of European security and defence policy: “After almost two decades from the end of the Cold War, the majority of European armies are still organised in preparation for a total war at the German border as opposed to the maintenance of peace in Chad or supporting peace and development in Afghanistan… This failure to modernise means that the majority of the 200 billion euros that Europe spends each year on defence is simply wasted…The individual European states, including France and Great Britain, have lost and will never regain the ability to finance all of the new necessary capabilities alone.”

If this is the diagnosis, and if the years and years spent trying to improve coordination and cooperation among the various national defence organisations have failed to provide the remedy, then wouldn’t the most logical solution be the creation of a European army? It should be noted that precisely because the mission of

European military forces has changed so profoundly, it would be far easier to create from scratch new armed forces (men, equipment, doctrine, and all the rest) than to persevere in the futile attempt to adapt existing forces to a new mission while trying to improve cooperation between them. Why is it possible to create a central bank and currency from scratch but not a new military?

In 2009, defence spending of member states ranged from 0.6 percent of GDP for Ireland to 2.5 percent for Greece. For the largest member states the percentage of GDP was as follows: France 2.0, Germany 1.5, Italy 1.4, Poland 1.7, Spain 1.2, the UK, 2.6. Collectively they spent 1.7 of the European GDP, or 194 billion euros in 2009.

A hypothetical level of one percent of GDP for EU defence might thus seem modest, but it amounts to almost 130 billion euros, which would automatically make the EU armed forces a substantial military organisation, second only to that of the United States, with resources between three and five times greater than those of countries like Russia, China, or Japan. Even so, EU member states would be saving 60-70 billion dollars with respect to current outlays ­more than half a percent of the union GDP.

The transfer of given government functions from the national to the European level should not result in any increase in public spending within the European Union and indeed might result in a net reduction due to economies of scale. In the case of defence, a single organisation is without a doubt more efficient than 27. Moreover, as shown by the experience of NATO during the Cold War, efforts to coordinate independent defence organisations inevitably produced disappointing results and widespread parasitism on the wealthiest contributors of this public good. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Emma Bonino, a radical leader and former European Commissioner, is vice-president of the Italian Senate. Marco De Andreis, former official of the European Commission, is senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

By Emma Bonino and - -
ROME, Sep 21 2011 (IPS)

The approval by the UN General Assembly in December 2007 of the Resolution for a Universal Moratorium against Capital Punishment was a fundamental step forward not only for the anti-death penalty campaign but also for the affirmation of the rule of law and of those natural rights historically won and often written into national law but not always respected.

After the vote the usual practitioners of realpolitik tried to diminish its import, saying if would serve no purpose. It is true that the UN cannot force any member country to abolish the death penalty, but the moral force and political message sent by the resolution are undeniable. For the first time ever, the United Nations established that capital punishment is a matter of individual rights and not simply an internal question for national judicial systems. It also sent the message that the elimination of capital punishment would constitute a significant advance for the system of human rights.

Since the vote, it has had concrete effects in many countries, as documented in the latest report by Hands off Cain.

The legal abolition of the death penalty in recent years in many states of the US -which saw a drop in executions from 52 in 2009 to 46 in 2010-, the reduction that is apparently occurring in China, the reduction in the number of capital offenses in China and Vietnam, and the thousands of death sentences commuted in Pakistan, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Burma are not insignificant developments. While they cannot be seen as prelude to the immediate abolition of the death penalty, they are a clear indication that the world is moving in the direction urged by the United Nations.

Also significant is the abolition of the sanction in recent years in Africa and particularly countries like Rwanda and Burundi, symbols of a continent that has been battred more than any other in recent history by human tragedy: genocide, mutilation, mass rape, summary executions, and deportation.

The arrest warrant issued in 2009 by the International Criminal Court for Sudanese president Omar Al Bashir for the massacres in Darfur was a judiciary prelude to the political development that would soon occur in many Arab countries and others: the end of the myth of the invincibility of dictators who had ruled for decades.

In January after 23 years of dictatorial rule, Ben Ali left Tunisia and the interim national unity government announced the ratification of the most important international treaties, including the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court and the abolition of the death penalty.

In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak risks falling victim to the death penalty that he himself, during his three decades of uninterrupted rule, extended to forty crimes. Ali Abdalla Saleh in Yemen and Bashar al- Assad in Syria are still resisting but at the price of a war they have chosen to launch against their own peoples.

Muammar Ghaddafi received an arrest warrant for crimes against humanity issued by the International Criminal Court. In Morocco after the huge anti-establishment protests in February, King Mohammed decided grant the release of 92 political prisoners and commute the death sentences of five others and to transform the absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy. In Jordan, the death penalty has not been implemented since 2006, which suggests that the monarchy is headed towards abolition. In Lebanon a de facto moratorium has been in place since 2004. Djibouti constitutionally abolished its death penalty

Last December, these and other Arab countries, including Bahrain, the Arab Emirates, Mauritania, and Oman, which all abstained from the first vote, did not oppose the new resolution on abolition that was approved by the UN. Algeria not only voted for it but was one of the co-sponsors.

To uproot once and for all this aberrant and contradictory principle that life must be defended by inflicting death, the countries that supported the UN moratorium must insure that it is respected in all circumstances.

But it isn’t all good news: the Hands Off Cain report shows that Iran, which has consistently finished among the world’s top executioners, kicked off the new year with an orgy of executions. In North Korea public executions tripled in recent years. In Iraq, even under the “democratic” government of Nouri al-Maliki, the pace of executions has continued uninterrupted.

In China as in Iran, and North Korea as in Iraq, it will be the “parallel democracy” by the Radical Party that will have to compensate for the lack of an official presence on the part of the so-called liberal, civil, abolitionist world. In fact it was Radical Party leader Marco Pannella who, after the announcement that former Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz was condemned to death, staged a hunger strike to obtain “a moratorium against capital punishment for Tariq Aziz as well”, partly to break the tragic continuity with the sanction’s vogue under Saddam Hussein but also to preserve a key witness for the reconstruction of the historical record and the responsibility of the regime up until the war -a war that, it is now clear and amply documented, was set in motion by Bush and Blair precisely to prevent peace and the realisation of our plan of bringing about a free Iraq through the exile of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a fiduciary UN administration. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Emma Bonino, Vice president of the Italian Senate, is a leader of the Radical Party..

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino and - -
ROME, Jul 6 2011 (IPS)

Who could forget the images of joy broadcast worldwide the morning of February 11 from Tahrir Square of people celebrating the announcement by newly-selected vice president Omar Suleiman that Hosni Mobarak, leader of Egypt since 1981, had resigned? The eyes of the thousands of young Egyptians radiated great hopes for the future of their country and deep pride in the courage and tenacity shown during the 18 days of protests. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, once it weighed the pros and cons of abandoning the leader to his fate, “temporarily” took control over the country to initiate the delicate period of transition towards democracy. For a moment everyone, or almost everyone, thought that a new age had dawned, in a “new Egypt”.

But experience teaches that the process of democratisation involves more than simply holding elections and cannot be achieved in just a few months. Instead it is the fruit of a process of hard work that involves every level of society. To tell the truth, of the programme of reforms demanded by the protesters, little has been accomplished in the months since the fall of the regime. And while the transition proceeds step by step towards parliamentary elections, almost every force present in the streets is asking the army to postpone them given the absence of a clear constitutional framework. The only exceptions are the Muslim Brotherhood and what remains of the disbanded former official party, which are the most structured and best organised elements in the scattered post-Mubarak reality.

The current period is thus very delicate. Confrontations between the secular-liberal front and the Islamist front, broadly understood, are growing increasingly polarised and often violent. A not always visible rift has opened between the student movement and the military, which is now often seen not as the guarantor of the people’s demands for freedom and justice but as part of the old regime fighting for its survival. Peaceful protests are now banned and the press is muzzled. And then there were the “virginity tests” carried out last March 9 on unmarried arrested activists with the excuse of protecting the honour of the armed forces by showing that the girls had not been raped in detention but had arrived already not virgins.

But there is another worrisome aspect of the democratisation process that involves the judiciary and military leaders: the so-called “transitional justice”, or the procedures adopted to try exponents of the old regime accused of a range of crimes.

Mubarak, his wife (free on bail), their two children, as well as a series of ex-ministers and pillars of the old ruling class, the so-called “Alexandria clique”, have been arrested and charged with corruption, embezzlement, abuse of office, and homicide. The proceedings have taken place with a clear lack of transparency, using ad hoc rules that are anything but certain, and with sudden juridically inexplicable accelerations. Given that democracy cannot be built on either impunity or vengeance, we believe that the interim government can aid the work of the judiciary by requesting the establishment of an independent international commission to take charge of this process.

It would be a step towards the formation of a “new Egypt”, now too much like the “old Egypt”, to show that the transition from authoritarianism to democracy is complex and intricate. In this phase it is important that Tahrir Square reorganise itself and direct its energies towards upholding the rule of law so that its citizens in a position to participate in the decision-making process as inclusively as possible. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Emma Bonino is vice president of the Italian Senate; Saad Eddin Ibrahim is the founder of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies.

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino and - -
ROME, May 18 2011 (IPS)

From Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Europe is being swept by social and political changes so massive that they are calling into question its fundamental principles. Diversity, which has been a positive constant throughout our history, is now considered a threat. The signs are plain to see: a propagation of intolerance and fanaticism, growing support for populist and xenophobic parties, an ever more massive presence of immigrants without status or rights, “parallel” communities that do not interact with the rest of society, the repression of individual freedoms, and democracies in crisis.

Given this alarming panorama I accepted last July the invitation of the General Secretary of the Council of Europe, Thorborn Jagland, to join a selected Group of Eminent Persons presided over by former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer with the mandate of preparing a report on how to combine liberty and diversity -two concepts central to the European identity- in the 21st century. The result of our work, which was made public May 11, proposes an alternative to this wave of populism and tries to show a way forward for a Europe that is stronger and more sure of itself and that integrates diversity instead of rejecting it, which is futile. We have asked ourselves whether, if it is possible to be African-American or Italian-American, a European could also be an Anglo-Asian or Italian-African or Euro-Mediterranean.

We think that such a Europe could exist as long as all who live in it are accepted as citizens, regardless of religion, culture, or ethnicity. Like all other citizens in a democracy, they must play a part in the establishment of laws, while recognising that no religious or cultural logic can provide a sufficient excuse to violate them.

In the report we propose a sort of diversity manual which contains 17 guiding principles for leaders, legislators, and activists. Basically, there must be a consensus on the idea that the law applies to everyone while making sure that everyone knows what the laws say and how they can be changed. Particular measures are necessary to insure equality of opportunity to members of marginalised communities. Freedom of expression can always be defended, never limited with the excuse of placating violent or intimidating behaviour. At the same time, it is important not to underestimate the effect of public statements that feed prejudice against immigrants or minorities.

To put these principles into practice we invite the states that make up the Council of Europe to grant the rights and duties that come with citizenship -including the right to vote- to the largest possible number of inhabitants, and as an intermediate step, to grant all foreign residents the right to vote in administrative elections. An effort must also be made to correct the stereotypes of immigrants and present in public a more realistic picture of the needs of the work force, given that according to demographic forecasts projections, without immigrants the population of Europe will grow increasingly smaller and older. The European Commission calculates that in the next 50 years in the 27 EU member states, the active population will decline by about 100 million despite the constant increase of the general population during this period.

We are not calling into question the need to control the floods of immigrants but rather addressing the need to guarantee the fair and human treatment of immigrants and individuals who are granted asylum. The major scandal -and we stress this in the report- is the treatment of Europe’s largest minority, the gypsy population, estimated to be between 10 and 12 million. Unlike other minorities, the gypsies are not recent arrivals, and a vast majority are citizens of European countries. What distinguishes them from the rest of the population is their social exclusion. In level of education and income they are at the bottom of the social ladder in every country of Europe.

No other group is the target of such discrimination, and no European country can be proud of its treatment of them. They suffer the most persistent violation of what we Europeans like to call “our values”. In Italy the minister of the interior went as far as to lament the fact that there was no way of repatriating them because “here many of them have Italian citizenship, the right to stay, and there is nothing to be done about that”.

But Italy is not the only country to promote policies that are non-integrationist and even racist or xenophobic: the same kind of policy can be found in every part of Europe. This is a dangerous tendency that we have to reverse while there is still time. For this reason we are asking the Council of Europe and the European Union to work together on a common immigration policy and at the same time to reach out to our neighbours in the Near and Middle East and North Africa to offer them a real possibility to meaningfully participate in the institutions and conventions of Europe. In this way we think that Europe could become a better place. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Emma Bonino, Vice president of the Italian Senate, is a leader of the Radical Party and a member of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe.

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino and - -
ROME, Feb 8 2011 (IPS)

Italy is one of the most backward countries in Europe in almost every indicator of gender equality. This is despite the fact that in terms of advanced degrees and qualifications, women surpass men and, in the last 30 years, have reached positions of power in all sectors of the market and proven that a company improves with a woman at the helm.

The social and economic consequences of this situation are grave. Underemployment of women (only 46.3 percent have jobs) is a drag on the country’s growth and exposes women to poverty. There are no policies to balance profession and family for women, which makes having children problematic, slows career advancement, and even forces women out of the labour market. Women comprise a very small percentage of political representatives, which is made worse by the media’s tendency to show women in a manner that is chauvinistic, damaging, and dominated by stereotypes, which impedes the formation of cultural models and conditions the aspirations of young people.

The statistics in Italy are exasperating at every level. Even in those areas of labour in which women predominate, like schools, health care, and public administration, women almost never make it to the top. This is an issue that exists throughout the entire Italian system given that representation is the life blood of democracy. To reform the system so that women could reach the top-level positions would mean opening the floodgates to non-traditional interests and altering the economic and political agenda.

Women’s lack of options and the obstacles they must contend with are well-known; for example, the fact that day-to-day issues frequently take priority over other activities, including work. A larger presence of women in the upper ranks of political and economic circles could make the priorities of daily life a focus of decision-making.

The Committee on Equality and Inequality has made three proposals: First, the creation of a National Authority Against Gender Discrimination that would enforce respect for gender equality and promote the equality of men and women in practice. Second, equalising the retirement age for men and women in the Public Administration would bring savings of 3.75 billion euros in ten years, funds that could be used to finance programmes to create a balance between work and family life. Third, the creation of a monitor of the presentation of women on radio and television, which would have both a qualitative and quantitative function.

The new entity would have the authority to intervene not only in traditional cases involving sex crimes or abuse of women but also in employment situations in which advancement to higher positions in politics or business was delayed or blocked. The latter is a subtle form of discrimination that usually occurs without provoking scandal. In the city government of Rome, for example, a board of directors was recently named of all men except for a single councilwoman, without any protest whatsoever.

Though I am not a fan of quotas, it is known that even in Norway, a paradise for women, a law was necessary to bring corporate management by women to 40 percent in companies listed on the Norwegian stock market. The law worked: afterwards the companies performed better than expected.

In Italy, the presence of women in these sanctuaries of economic power is under five percent. The extreme gravity of the situation in Italy these days, especially from the perspective of women, could make people wish that sooner or later a major cultural upheaval would take place and that women would cease being represented as victims and see themselves as full participants in economic and social development.

Of course, this lack of interest at present is characteristic of these times. It is also true that after the victories of thirty or forty years ago all of us, and especially the feminist movement, have been resting on our laurels. The fact that television is pumping out the very worst female stereotypes only makes the situation worse.

The fact that the public seems uninterested in women’s rights might suggest that the problem has been resolved, but the opposite is true. All civil rights must be debated and re-won every day, as is true with democracy itself. The radicals have long denounced what they call “the Italian plague” -the degradation of the rule of law over the last sixty years. Unfortunately, correcting the plight of women in Italy will be very difficult given the complete lack of both awareness of the problem and the will to do anything about it, not only in the ruling class but also among the vast majority of Italians. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Emma Bonino, leader of the Radical Party, is Vice President of the Italian Senate and Honourary President of the Committee on Equality and Inequality.

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino and - -
ROME, Nov 10 2009 (IPS)

Exponents of the Catholic Church and the Italian government have reacted angrily to the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights requiring the removal of crucifixes from all schools in the country. Since the November 3 decision, both entities are on war footing and are mobilising to have the decision reversed or its enforcement blocked. The court is based in Strasbourg and has representatives from 47 nations, not all from Europe.

Is the decision scandalous, as its opponents assert, or inevitable?

The basis of the ruling states that “the State must abstain from imposing religious beliefs in places where people meet under its jurisdiction”. The presence of the crucifix in classrooms implies “a violation of the freedom of parents to educate their children in keeping with their own convictions” and is contrary to “the religious freedom of the students”. The court “does not believe that the display of a symbol that it is reasonable to associate with Catholicism can contribute to the educational pluralism essential to the preservation of a democratic society (…) a pluralism recognised by the Italian Constitutional Court”.

The sentence of the Strasbourg court is neither a scandal nor the product of “lay fury”. Rather, it is a simple confirmation that all public spaces belong to all, whether Catholic believers, non- believers, or believers of other religions.

On the other hand, laicism has nothing to do with majorities or minorities but involves the protection of each and every person. It is inclusive and respects all people, and public spaces -and schools in particular- are public because all can recognise themselves in them. In effect the premise of the ruling is that public spaces are dedicated to collectivity, which includes believers an non-believers alike, and for this reason I consider the ruling an act of common sense and authentic laicism.

The court’s decision teaches us the value of pluralism, a concept that should be familiar to all in a democratic society.

Religiosity should reside in hearts and behaviour and not on walls.

It has been argued that the symbol of the crucifix is a part of our culture and identity as Italians. This is the same argument used at the European level when various religious groups and the Catholic Church in particular launched a fervent campaign to include in the preamble to the European Constitution a statement that Christianity is an important part of the roots and cultures of the continent.

I don’t see how the current ruling can be seen as conflicting with people’s identity if there was no prior identification of the roots of Europe, or Italy, as Christian.

When the debate on the European constitution began, certain Catholic groups called for discussion to be shifted from the “roots to the fruits” of Christianity. And the majority of European nations did not agree that Christian identity should be included as a foundation of a union of peoples.

At any rate, I think that a significant proportion of Catholics would find it difficult to defend the crucifix and all it represents as merely a component of cultural identity.

The discussion should centre on the common values of the Old Continent. I agree with the thinking of Europeanist Altiero Spinelli that there is a precise historical European identity: a group of peoples who believe in liberal democracy, the rule of law, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

There are millions of citizens -in Italy as well as other countries of Europe and the world- that have diverse cultural roots all of which are worthy of equal consideration. The religiosity practised in churches and places of worship deserves respect. However, public spaces must be maintained as such, neutral.

The option is a serious laicism, which is more and more Europe’s cultural patrimony, thanks to which we have reached a crucial balance that in no way impinges on the exercise of religion.

The Italian government has announced that it will appeal the decision of the European Court. I invite the government to reflect on the fact that this ruling should not be seen as a scandal or assault by lay forces but simply as a product of objective consideration. This should not be seen as an occasion to raise the barricades by either side. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Emma Bonino is vice-president of the Italian Senate and a leader of the Radical Party.

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino and - -
ROME, Apr 16 2009 (IPS)

When news broke about the new Shi’ite Personal Status Law in Afghanistan, many were appalled by the fact that it legalises rape within marriage. “Marital Rape Legal in Afghanistan”, screamed the headlines, and we all reacted with shock and horror. On closer inspection, however, the law is actually much worse than we had all thought.

The real problem with this law is not the provisions on marital rape, abhorrent as they are, but the fact that it officially relegates women to second class citizens. The law legitimises restrictions on anything and everything women do, including where they go and whom they visit; it legalises their subjugation to the whims of others; it denies them a say in decisions about their children; and it denies them access to education and health care.

This barefaced denial of human rights needs to be condemned loudly, unequivocally and universally. Thankfully, taking advantage of the International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague and the NATO Summit (3-4 April), world leaders did just that, and the impact has been felt in Kabul. Following resounding condemnation both within and outside Afghanistan of the Shi’ite Personal Status Law, Afghan president Hamid Karzai has declared his intention to have it reviewed.

The story does not end here, however. Now that the international meetings are off the front pages, we cannot let this issue slide into obscurity. This is why No Peace Without Justice and the Transnational Radical Party have launched an international appeal to put the Afghan authorities on notice that the world will continue to watch and that Afghan women will not be sold out for the sake of appeasement.

Some say this law is the price for gaining the support of hardline Shi’ites in the tough presidential elections later this year. But while a new wind of ‘reconciliation’ and containment is blowing in western chanceries and think-tanks, we shall never accept to pay for a political truce within Afghanistan with the sacrifice of fundamental rights of women.

For the rights of Afghan women to be treated with contempt in everyday life is bad enough, but for those violations to be codified and legitimised and wilfully traded for short-term political gain is truly abominable. Our servicemen should not fight and die in Afghanistan in order to help restore the restrictive, discriminatory practices that existed under Taliban rule.

It is not enough to say, as many have been at pains to point out, that because this law only applies to the country’s Shi’ite minority, it will only affect a small percentage of Afghanistan’s female population. If anything, this makes it even more discriminatory, and its adoption demands action from all women (and men), whether or not they are Shia, whether or not they are Afghani.

Indeed, the world should not be mildly offended by this development but rather incandescent with rage. As long as one woman anywhere in the world is not recognised as the final arbiter of her own personal integrity, all women suffer. The violations it seeks to enshrine in law ought to inspire horror and outrage in every person.

The new legislation is not only a direct violation of international law, it is also a contravention of a host of articles in the Afghan Constitution, not least the provision declaring that the “liberty and dignity of human beings are inviolable”. Yes, the Constitution allows the application of different personal law for Shi’ites, but that is not a blank cheque to sign away the basic fundamental human rights of Shi’ite women or men. Every law in Afghanistan still needs to respect the Constitution and international law, including the provisions outlawing discrimination against women. This law does not.

Despite the announcement that the law will be revised, now is not the time for complacency. This positive news from Kabul is, quite simply, not positive enough. Now is the time to maintain our perseverance: sign the international appeal, voice your opinion to your elected officials and to the Afghan authorities, take innovative, nonviolent action. The women of Afghanistan deserve no less than our total, unflinching support. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Emma Bonino is vice-president of the Italian Senate. The international appeal is available on http://www.npwj.org

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino and - -
ROME, Jan 13 2009 (IPS)

The difference in retirement age between men and women -65 and 60, respectively- in Italy lies at the intersection of two major national problems: pension reform, which is a political taboo in the country, and the unequal treatment of women in the labour market in terms of access and pay. It is discriminatory, intolerable, destructive to women, and amounts to a colossal waste of the great untapped capital of Italy’s female population.

The work situation for women in Italy was already grim before we were struck by the current economic crisis. The numbers are almost too shameful to cite: 67 percent of the country’s inactive population are women, which places them in the grey zone between working and not working. According to statistics, 3.5 million inactive women would be inclined to accept any job available but cannot because of a lack of childcare and a lack of demand for female workers by businesses. To this figure, in this country of million, we may soon have to add the women who will lose their jobs as a result of the recession.

Inactivity is the tomb of the labour market, a frequently final transition from employment to a renunciation of work.

It is a long-standing problem that assails women throughout their working years and then into retirement. A mere 46.7 percent of women have access to the labour market, as opposed to 70.9 percent of men, with a sharp disparity between the North and the South. The figure in the North is close to the European average, around 60 percent, but in the centre and South of the country the figure drops to 30 percent, because of which Italy finds itself second only to Malta and Greece, which are last in Europe in this measure.

The contrast between Italy and Europe is bizarre. While here a major effort is required to even to talk about equalising the retirement age, elsewhere in the European Union it is being raised to 65 for men and women, and there is even talk of pushing it to 70.

Now on to the taboo matter of pension reform, which arouses a schizophrenia in attitudes so intense that the very topic is frequently struck from discussion agendas. Various reasons are given: “Too many people have already tried to fix it.” “Someone always gets upset.” “Then who’s going to listen to the unions?” In short, it’s a hot potato better passed to the next administration.

But that won’t be possible this time, thanks to a judgement by the European Court of Justice regarding Italy’s failure to level the public administration retirement age for men and women. The Italian government must respond rapidly and explain what action it intends to take to remedy the situation. If not, a massive fine will be imposed. Unfortunately, thus far the debate about this matter in Italy has been excessively ideological and dominated by empty political rhetoric.

The following figures should provide a powerful justification for restoring to the country’s political agenda women’s pensions, women’s employment, employment continuity, equalising the retirement age, and childcare: old age pension benefits for women are 52 percent of those of men; this figure is 70 percent for disability pensions; in contrast, reversible pensions, in which benefits pass from the man to his widow, are 147 percent higher because women live longer than men. In the last ten years pensions for men have risen by an average of 41 percent, as opposed to 35 percent for women. Moreover, women’s pay is one-third lower than men’s for equal work.

What is the response of the Italian government to this situation? Sending women home earlier, and thus with a lower pension, so they can become babysitters of their children’s children.

What possible defence is there of such an obviously destructive status quo? The right course of action would be to recognise the judgment of the European Court as an opportunity to level the retirement age, pay, and career opportunities for men and women, and improve childcare and public assistance. Otherwise, we will suffer the bad joke of paying a fine of millions of euros that should have been used to help resolve the situation. Who in my country could think it civil, fair, right, or sensible to maintain this inequality for our generation and the ones that will follow? (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Emma Bonino, member of the Transnational Radical Party, senator, and Vice President of the Italian Senate.

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino and - -
ROME, Oct 2 2008 (IPS)

October 10, the International Day Against the Death Penalty, will be an occasion to reaffirm the universal moratorium on executions, approved last December 18 by the General Assembly, and to insure it is complied with, . In this article, Bonino writes that for death penalty states, the resolution has an undeniable moral value and political force. The UN has for the first time established that capital punishment is not confined to the ambit of domestic justice but involves the universal sphere of human rights. In truth, the definitive solution to the problem involves not only the death penalty but also democracy, the rule of law, and respect for political rights and civil liberties. At present, we are requesting that this year\’s resolution include a request that death-penalty countries make available to the UN Secretary General all information relative to their death penalty and executions. We are also demanding a new resolution that creates the position of a UN Secretary General Special Envoy charged with monitoring the situation and working to encourage and reinforce internal processes in death penalty countries such that they adhere to the moratorium on executions.

Immediately after the historic approval of the resolution, sceptics began to denigrate its value and scope, arguing that “it doesn’t change anything” and that “it is not juridically binding on governments”. It is a moot point: obviously the UN cannot use a resolution passed in the General Assembly to require a member state to abolish its death penalty.

However, for death penalty states, the resolution has an undeniable moral value and political force. The UN has for the first time established that capital punishment is not confined to the ambit of domestic justice but involves the universal sphere of human rights. The establishment of this principle has placed the sanction in an entirely new light.

For this reason, the mere announcement of the debate on the initiative in New York last year was enough to provoke numerous positive developments, which were followed by others this year, as shown in the 2008 report of the association “Hands Off Cain” and in the UN Secretary-General’s report recently distributed to the General Assembly.

For example, between last year and the first months of 2008, capital convictions in Chinese courts dropped by 30 percent, thanks also to a January 2007 reform that granted the Supreme Court the exclusive faculty to approve capital sentences.

Earlier this year, Cuba commuted all of its pending death sentences, as did Pakistan, which had one of the most populous death rows in the world. These are developments which, though they may not indicate that the elimination of the death penalty is close at hand, clearly show there is real movement in that direction.

One of the issues under debate in the European Union was the strategy to bring about an abolition of the death penalty. Last year the Italian government had to work hard to convince its European partners that the UN resolution should call for a moratorium and not the abolition of the death penalty. A death penalty moratorium would represent not only a sort of truce in the practice of capital punishment but also a more democratic, liberal, and non-authoritarian means of fighting the practice, the elimination of which would show respect for parliamentary rules and timeframes that would be involved in changing the texts of national constitutions, laws, and legal codes.

The antifundamentalist focus of the campaign for the moratorium was successful and prevented the perception that it was a paternalistic measure imposed by western countries on the rest of the world. This inclusive attitude induced countries that still have the death penalty, like Burundi and Uzbekistan, to vote in favour of the resolution, while others decided to abstain rather than vote against it, like Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and Vietnam.

As explicitly planned, the resolution figures in the order of the day of the General Assembly, which opened its yearly session on September 23. However, the approval of the new resolution is not a mere formality nor should it lead to new attempts to change the mechanics of the resolution to “strengthen” it to make it “more abolitionist”. To really strengthen the resolution it would be enough for the General Assembly this year and in future years to reiterate its support for the moratorium, which is the route to the eventual elimination of the death penalty.

There is also a step that could politically strengthen the resolution: the elimination of state secrecy around the death penalty. Many death-penalty countries -almost all authoritarian regimes- provide no information regarding executions. This lack of information available to the public is one of the causes of an increase in the number of executions.

In truth, the definitive solution to the problem involves not only the death penalty but also democracy, the rule of law, and respect for political rights and civil liberties. At present, we are requesting that this year’s resolution include a request that death-penalty countries make available to the UN Secretary General all information relative to their death penalty and executions. We are also demanding a new resolution that creates the position of a UN Secretary General Special Envoy charged with monitoring the situation and working to encourage and reinforce internal processes in death penalty countries such that they adhere to the moratorium on executions.(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino and - -
ROME, Apr 23 2007 (IPS)

Globalisation is not a random and uncontrollable phenomenon but rather a process that we can regulate and guide, writes Emma Bonino, minister for International Trade and European Affairs of Italy. In this article, Bonino writes that today through the progressive strengthening of multilateral regulatory bodies –the European Commission, WTO, IMF, OECD– we can make sure that the benefits are ever greater and reach more of the world\’s population. Aid remains essential in situations of extreme poverty. But to implement a policy for development, aid is not enough, and I think that we should move more and more towards \’\’aid for trade\’\’, a form of assistance that makes it possible for a developing country to bolster its trade capacity and thus its ability to share in the \’\’dividends\’\’ of globalisation. Globalisation is not the cause of the ills of the underdeveloped areas of the earth; rather, it is a lack of participation in globalisation that prevents a country from achieving development and freedom. Globalisation is not a zero sum game but a great opportunity for all. Those who decide to play will not lose; rather, those who sit out, who just look on, will be the real losers.

Without a doubt, it is a long and complex process, partly because the world has changed: today the fulcrum of the world economy is shifting further and further east. Whereas before the economic centres were Washington, London, Paris, and Tokyo, today they are also Shanghai, Calcutta, and Sao Paolo. This is a point made by WTO director-general Pascal Lamy: ”There is no longer a world of the north and a world of the south but many norths and many souths.”

No analysis of globalisation can avoid the subject of offshoring, or job migration, though there are as yet no unequivocal figures about the process and numbers cited vary widely. However, it should be remembered that whereas in the first phase of globalisation, the process of offshoring was intended to lower production costs by shifting operations to areas where labour was cheaper –with the attendant risk of deindustrialisation in the first country– today offshoring has taken new forms which can work in favour of national industry and entrepreneurship as well.

In markets with double-digit growth, in fact, locating a business means guaranteeing one’s self an international profile, establishing one’s self in markets with high rates of consumption, and strengthening one’s capacities for survival in the global markets. This is true not only for major corporations but for small and medium-sized businesses as well.

It should not be forgotten that a new actor has appeared on the globalisation scene: the citizen-consumer. Whereas previously it was only the major multi-nationals that determined international trade flows, today consumers do as well. Increasingly well-informed and attentive, when consumers enter a store or supermarket they frequently make ”informed” purchases that directly determine the fate of products. Genetically-modified foods are but most dramatic example of this new process of ”informed international trade”.

Addressing globalisation means guaranteeing effective governance, putting in place rules, policies, and institutions that amplify the benefits that derive from this phenomenon. However, creating rules, policies, and institutions cannot be effective unless there are mechanisms in place that insure their credibility, respect, and correct operation. It is necessary –at least in my opinion– to promote a new form of international responsibility, which is first of all a matter for the state, whether regarding their own citizens or the actions and policies that they implement internationally. To put it another way, we can no longer allow ourselves to interact without a spirit of loyalty and co-operation on the world stage if we wish to benefit from globalisation.

Finally, there is the coherence of policies as an element of virtuous management of globalisation. I offer two examples:

From the point of view of trade policy we have a duty to conclude as soon as possible –and as well as possible– the Doha Round of the WTO, begun in November 2003. This process offers undisputed advantages, above all for developing countries, and so for Africa. The elimination of all subsidies for agricultural exports by 2013; the dismantling of those mechanisms that allow not only raw materials but increasingly processed goods to enter rich country markets with the greatest ease; the implementation of new measures to facilitate trade — all of these measures would open the way for a significant jump in growth for the poorest countries.

Similarly, we have to bring about the rapid conclusion of the Economic Partnership Accords (EPA) between the European Union and the countries of Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (ACP). These agreements have the potential to spur development of the ACP countries. It is of course necessary that there be certain conditions. Above all, it is essential that at the end of the EPA each country find itself in better, not worse, shape than before. Second, the new accords must promote the development of real regional blocs that can set in motion dynamics to spark growth and integration. Third, the process must be capable of generating greater trade flows as well as greater quantities of aid.

I am particularly interested in the synergy between aid and trade, which have been long considered separate elements, alternatives, or even competing approaches. Aid remains of course essential in situations of extreme poverty. But to implement a policy for development, aid is not enough, and I think that we should move more and more towards ”aid for trade”, a form of assistance that makes it possible for a developing country to bolster its trade capacity and thus its ability to share in the ”dividends” of globalisation.

Globalisation is not the cause of the ills of the underdeveloped areas of the earth. To the contrary, I think that the opposite is true, that it is a lack of participation in globalisation that prevents a country from achieving development and freedom. Globalisation is not a zero sum game but a great opportunity for all. Those who decide to play will not lose; rather, those who sit out, who just look on, will be the real losers. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino and - -
BRUSELLS, Jul 1 2004 (IPS)

In mid-July the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) will vote on whether to suspend for three years the Transnational Radical Party\’s (TRP) consultative status within the Council in response to a request by the Vietnamese Delegation to the UN, writes Emma Bonino deputy in the European Parliament and a leader of the Transnational Radical Party. In this article, Bonino writes that suspension would send a very unfortunate message regarding human rights in the area, particularly for the indigenous people of South East Asia. Vietnam believes that the TRP has abused its relationship with the UN by accrediting Kok Ksor, whom they allege to be a terrorist with a separatist agenda. Kok Ksor is a member of the Montagnards, the ethnic minority asylum seekers from Vietnam\’s Central Highlands, and is the President of the Montagnard Foundation Inc. (MFI), a non-profit organization registered in the US and dedicated to the preservation of Montagnard life and culture. MFI is not on any national or international list of terrorist organizations recognized by the EU, the US or the UN. Suspension the consultative status of the TRP will not only ban it from the UN system, but will also silence dozens of voices that, over the last several years, have been allowed to present their concerns before many UN bodies, starting with the Commission on Human Rights.

In mid-July the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) will vote on whether to suspend for three years the Transnational Radical Party’s (TRP) consultative status within the Council in response to a request by the Vietnamese Delegation to the UN. Suspension would send a very unfortunate message regarding human rights in the area, particularly for the indigenous people of South East Asia.

On 21 May 2004, after a two-year process, the 19-member United Nations Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (UNCNGO), which is part of ECOSOC, took action on the Vietnamese Delegation’s request, which was lodged in May 2002. The request was supported by nine delegations: China, Ivory Coast, Cuba, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Eight voted against: Cameroon, Chile, France, Germany, Peru, Rumania, United States and Turkey. Colombia and Senegal abstained.

Vietnam believes that the TRP has abused its relationship with the UN by accrediting Kok Ksor, whom they allege to be a terrorist with a separatist agenda. Kok Ksor is a member of the Montagnards, the ethnic minority asylum seekers from Vietnam’s Central Highlands, and is the President of the Montagnard Foundation Inc. (MFI), a non-profit organization registered in the US and dedicated to the preservation of Montagnard life and culture. It goes without saying that MFI is not on any national or international list of terrorist organizations recognized by the EU, the US or the UN.

For much of their history the Montagnards had little contact with the mainstream Vietnamese, who kept mostly to the coastal areas. They comprise a large number of distinct and recognisable aboriginal groups. Their population has dwindled from over three million about 100 years ago to a few hundred thousand today.

The Montagnards were first colonised by the French (1895-1954), who recognized their claim to these lands, defined their borders, and formalised their right to their own nation in 1946. After the French withdrew, the Vietnamese took over colonization of these lands, calling the people ‘moi’ or savages, and instituting intensive assimilation policies and genocidal practices.

Cultural leveling and particularly the harsh birth control measures forced on Montagnard women, is driving up the average age of their population and accelerating their extinction. Many of the Montagnard children today are half Vietnamese as a result of compelled mixed marriages. Private property and land of have been confiscated and distributed to ethnic Vietnamese as the Montagnards to barren areas where farming is almost impossible. Forced labour and slavery have been imposed on Montagnards regardless of age or gender. Extended families are broken up.

Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Human Rights in Cambodia, Peter Leuprecht, has expressed concern about recent reports that law enforcement and security forces have been involved in serious breeches of Cambodia’s international obligations, including the forcible deportation of Montagnards who fled from the Highlands to Cambodia.

“It is worrying,” Leuprecht said, ”that the Foreign Minister recently stated that the government would deport Montagnards, whom he has labelled ”illegal immigrants”, without providing for an asylum process within Cambodia or allowing the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) the opportunity to assess the claims. It is of particular concern that the Foreign Minister has repeated unsubstantiated claims that the … UNHCR is smuggling asylum seekers into Cambodia rather than reaffirming the government’s commitment to its international obligations.”

Since 1995, the TRP has been active within the UN system promoting a variety of issues, ranging from the creation of the ad hoc Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda to the establishment of the International Criminal Court; from a moratorium on the death penalty to a free, open, and accountable Information Society; from the promotion of democratic reforms to the exposure of systematic human rights violations.

In its work, the TRP –which all know is a non-violent organization– has collaborated with many governments as well as non-governmental organizations, including MFI. For almost three years now, thanks to the work of MFI, the TRP has been able to compile in-depth reports on the worrying human rights situation in Vietnam’s Central Highlands, which have been presented to the UN, the European Union, and the US Congress as well as to major NGOs. These dossiers have consistently triggered official public statements calling on Vietnam to open the region for a comprehensive assessment of the situation. A final decision on the Vietnamese request will be taken by the members of ECOSOC at the substantive session in July 2004.

Suspension the consultative status of the TRP will not only ban the Transnational Radical Party from the UN system, but will also silence dozens of voices that, over the last several years, have been allowed to present their concerns before many UN bodies, starting with the Commission on Human Rights. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino and - -
BRUSSELS, Jun 1 2004 (IPS)

The profoundly conservative nature of European politics, the EU institutions, and individual member states is worrying, particularly as manifested in EU economic and social policy, writes Emma Bonino, deputy in the European Parliament and a nleader of the Transnational Radical Party. In this article, Bonino writes that current debates about the size of the EU budget are beside the point as long as almost half of these funds will go to finance the Common Agricultural Policy, which imposes a huge cost on EU consumers while ruining the hopes of hundreds of millions of farmers in developing countries. Another troubling example of conservatism was the decision by almost all of the fifteen old member countries to put off until 2011 complete freedom of movement for workers of the ten countries that just joined the EU. Then there is the continuous postponement of the initiation of serious negotiations on admitting Turkey. While the reasons for such prudence are comprehensible, the EU cannot lose this historic occasion to create a deep and stable connection between a large Islamic country and the liberal and democratic West.

Debate about the future of Europe, particularly its institution aspects, has filled the months leading up to the recent elections in the region and will fill those to come. It is clear that the future of the EU (which has 25 member states as of May 1) depends to large part on these aspects, as does its ability to face the major challenges that lie before it.

This is particularly the case with regard to the EU’s diplomatic and military role in the international arena, which it has perennially –and ineffectively– attempted to define.

What is most worrying at this point is the profoundly conservative nature of European politics, the EU institutions, and the individual member states. This is true first of all for EU economic and social policy, of which three examples present a clear picture.

1. Europe is presently consumed with animated debates about the EU budget, which is small in proportion to the community GDP (1.17 percent) but is relevant in absolute terms: 100 billion Euros. The problem is not the quantity of resources but the way they are used. Discussion of whether the EU budget should be 1 or 1.17 percent is beside the point as long as almost half of these funds will go to finance the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), a system of agricultural subsidies and protections that impose a huge cost on EU consumers while they dash the hopes of hundreds of millions of farmers in developing countries trying to break out of poverty.

There is also a second cost to the CAP: it places the EU always on the defensive in negotiations of the World Trade Organisation, whose mission includes the elimination of protectionism and subsidies, which it considers trade barriers. Trade policy is one of a small number of completely communitarian policies and thus could be an important instrument of EU credibility in international diplomacy. Instead, in its current form it is Europe’s Achille’s heel, a source not of strength but of weakness.

A few months ago a group of high-level experts charged by the European Commission with preparing an Agenda for an Expanding Europe presented their conclusions. The key point of the agenda was the revision of the community budget by eliminating spending on agriculture and replacing it with investment in research, innovation, and infrastructure. The report was severely criticised by the very commission that requested it, first of all by the commissioner of agriculture Franz Fischler. It was then placed in an inaccessible archive.

At the 2000 Lisbon summit, the EU committed to nothing less than converting the region into the most competitive in the world before 2010 on the basis of knowledge, yet it is incapable of shifting into innovation and research the funds that now go to protecting European sugar producers from ”competition” from poor countries like Mozambique.

2. It is similarly contradictory to aspire to excellence on the basis of knowledge while shutting the door on biotechnology in the agricultural sector — among others. Why and in whose name Europe has opted to stay on the sidelines of competition in genetically-modified organisms and human biotechnologies is a question for another place. However, it must be clear that this decision deprives us of real participation in one of the most promising areas of scientific progress in our time.

3. Another troubling example of conservatism was the decision by almost all of the fifteen old member countries to put off until 2011 complete freedom of movement for workers of the ten countries that just joined the EU. Doesn’t this amount essentially to the creation of a de facto category of ”illegal workers of the EU”. And isn’t this clearly at odds with common sense, not to mention economic sense, and a commitment to a Europe of rights and freedoms?

The same might be said of the reluctance with which the question of Turkey’s admission to the EU is being treated — through the continuous postponement of the initiation of serious negotiations. While the reasons for such prudence are comprehensible, the EU cannot lose this historic occasion to create a deep and stable connection between a large Islamic country and the liberal and democratic West.

These three examples, though partial, give a clear measure of the conservative nature of European politics today. I do not underestimate the difficulty of forging a consensus on these issues and on liberal policies to address them, but what is certain is that Europe cannot build its future with its head in the sand. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino and - -
BRUSSELS, May 1 2004 (IPS)

Efforts to eradicate coca production through \’\’supply reduction\’\’ and \’\’alternative development\’\’ have failed miserably, writes Emma Bonino, Member of the European Parliament and founding member of the International Anti-prohibitionist League. In this analysis, Bonino writes that the situation in the Andes has become unbearable for local communities, threatening the general development of their countries while providing a source of easy and big money for all sorts of illegal groups, from the narcos to terrorist and paramilitary networks. Comprehensive alternative development projects should address the broader economic situation of farmers, who cultivate \’\’drug crops\’\’ not only because of to \’\’rural poverty\’\’, \’\’lack of access to markets for legal products\’\’, and \’\’unsuitable soil for many other crops\’\’ as the UN claims, but also because the plants are an integral part of the cultures, traditions, and religions of the indigenous peoples living in those regions. The Permanent Forum should look into the possibility of reflecting coca-related issues in its annual report, where it issues recommendations to the ECOSOC. Ending the prohibition on coca should become a priority for all those that genuinely struggle for freedom and human rights and that are working towards the establishment of a system that functions on the force of law and not the law of force, a law that does not prohibit, but facilitates, the cohabitation of peaceful peculiarities including, ultimately, indigenous issues.

Four years ago, the Economic and Social Council of the UN (ECOSOC) established a Permanent Forum to discuss indigenous issues ”relating to economic and social development, culture, the environment, education, health, and human rights”.

Overwhelmed by a variety of topics ranging from the environment to social justice, the debate within the Forum has never addressed an issue that is crucial to many indigenous groups: that of coca, which is a central, if not vital, element of the very life, tradition, culture, religion, and economy of dozens of indigenous peoples that live throughout the Andean region. The main reason for this lack of attention is that, unfortunately, coca is one of the plants that have been strictly regulated, and at times systematically prohibited, by the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances.

Over the last decade, the international community has addressed coca-related issues promoting a series of projects of ”supply reduction” as well as ”alternative development” to eradicate the ”evil” plant from the face of the earth. All those efforts have proven unsuccessful in eliminating coca cultivation or substituting it with other licit crops. Many of these eradication programmes, like the aerial fumigations in Colombia, have been carried out, often through violent means, and have had a tragic impact on the health of thousands of people as well as on the environment of the concerned regions. In other eradication efforts, money has been promised to campesinos for their voluntary eradication and/or eventual substitution of coca. Despite some tentative positive results, duly documented by the UN in Bolivia and Peru in the late 1990s, in the medium-long term all these anti-coca programmes have failed miserably.

The story of ”alternative development” projects is another altogether. While in theory the idea of promoting licit crops as an alternative income source is a good one, in practice the substitution has never proven to be self-sustaining in the medium or long term. In fact, once the international community pulled out of those projects, the progress achieved disappeared in a matter of months, leaving local communities ready to go back to cultivating the illicit plant.

Furthermore, the usual alternative to coca bush has been palm hearts, which were in vogue in past years but have been overproduced since, drastically decreasing their profitability and consequently annulling the economic argument in favour of the substitution.

Finally, when it comes to agricultural products, the tariff system imposed by North American and European countries places an unfair burden on developing nations, closing rich markets to products from the ”south”.

The situation in the Andes has become unbearable for local communities, threatening the general development of their countries and the well-being of the entire Latin American continent. It has also provided an incredible source of easy and big money for all sorts of illegal groups, from the narcos to terrorist and paramilitary networks. This dramatic situation is always addressed with the same formula: prohibition, which has never produced the desired results and needs a radical revision.

In the framework of its work towards the promotion of ”alternative development”, the UN should carry out a feasibility study to assess the possibility of allowing the development of original uses of the plants that are used to produce narcotics. In fact, coca leaf can be used not only to produce medicines of different sorts, but also, as it has for hundreds of years, in the production of goods such as tea, flour, toothpaste, soap, condiments, fabrics, chewing gum as well as different dietary supplements and, last but not least, the means to alleviate the abuse of the chemical substances processed from its leaves.

If the UN is really committed to improving socio-economic conditions for targeted populations through ”sustainable development projects”, the original uses of these illicit plants should indeed be integrated in the programmes.

Comprehensive alternative development projects should address the broader economic situation of farmers, who cultivate ”drug crops” not only because of ”rural poverty”, ”lack of access to markets for legal products”, and ”unsuitable soil for many other crops” as the UN claims, but also because of the plant’s traditional importance to the indigenous peoples living in those regions where it grows.

If the Permanent Forum could look into the possibility of reflecting coca-related issues in its annual report, where it issues recommendations to the ECOSOC for its distribution to relevant UN organs, funds, programmes and agencies, it would make a substantial contribution to indigenous issues. It may be too late for this year’s session, but starting to raise the issue this spring may launch a preparatory process that could indeed include coca as an item for discussions for next year.

Ending the prohibition on coca should become a priority for all those that genuinely struggle for freedom and human rights and that are working towards the establishment of a system that functions on the force of law and not the law of force, a law that does not prohibit, but facilitates, the cohabitation of peaceful peculiarities including, ultimately, indigenous issues. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino and - -
BRUSSELS, Mar 1 2004 (IPS)

With all due respect to the Spanish electorate and those citizens mourning their dead, I believe that socialist leader Jose Luis Zapatero\’s position on withdrawing his country\’s troops from Iraq constitutes a victory for Al Qaeda, writes Emma Bonino, deputy in the European Parliament and leader of the Transnational Radical Party. In this article Bonino writes that March 11th provided irrefutable proof that Al Qaeda represents a real threat to us all. Certain leaders of the European left have stated — involuntarily, I am sure– that they share the position of Zapatero. Perhaps they haven\’t grasped how this announcement might be read and acted upon by the terrorists themselves. In sharp contrast to Zapatero\’s position, the correct response to March 11th should be, \’\’We will all go to Baghdad,\’\’ with the determination to assume a concrete role in the fight against terrorism. Only in this manner can the calls for UN and/or NATO involvement have real meaning and effect, as expressions of shared responsibility.

With all due respect for the Spanish electorate and to those citizens mourning their dead, I believe that socialist leader Jose Luis Zapatero’s position on withdrawing his country’s troops from Iraq constitutes a victory for Al Qaeda. This was precisely the interpretation of the terrorist group itself, as was clear from the declarations of ”We won!” that flooded the Internet and Arab television programmes, whether correct or not.

Many in Europe had continued to believe that terrorism was almost exclusively a matter between Arabs and the US and that the America was in a certain way ”asking for it”. March 11th provided irrefutable proof that Al Qaeda represents a real threat to us all, that it is an organisation operating on a global scale with a political agenda that far from being secret is publicly proclaimed, preached, and propagated.

Any who might still believe that these attacks are the work of ”a few Bedouins” or who feel safer locked in their homes, are either naive of simply don’t understand what is at stake.

It should suffice to consult a map of the slaughter of the last few years: New York, Bali, Istanbul, Riyad, Casablanca, Baghdad, Nassyria, Kerbala, and now Madrid –in addition to the earlier attacks in Nairobi, Dar Es Salam, etc– to grasp the dimension of the threat. A tally of the errors, real or presumed, committed in the last few months by various of the protagonists in this drama can hardly count as an excuse.

There is one problem and only one: what do we do now? Pack our bags? If this is the answer, it means yet again abandoning the Iraqis, letting them descend into a violent civil war, with unimaginable repercussions for the region and the world.

It would be opportune if we in the West understood that we are not the only players and arbiters in the world, and that every word we pronounce is translated, heard, interpreted, and repeated, hour after hour, by 220 million Arabs or Muslims.

Certain leaders of the European left have stated — involuntarily, I am sure– that they share the position of Zapatero. Perhaps they haven’t grasped how this announcement might be read and acted upon by the terrorists themselves. (It was not by chance that US democratic presidential candidate John Kerry immediately criticised this position.) But if we think for a moment, it isn’t hard to guess what the result might be: more attacks, against governments or organisations, whether international or regional organisations, civilian or military, Arab, American, or European, selected with great tactical or ”political” precision to spread terror and make us all hostages or prisoners.

This is why a campaign promise of the Spanish socialist presidential candidate, which unexpectedly was converted into a potential government policy, must not become an order to withdraw troops that could play into the hands of Al Qaeda.

We are not all Zapateros, nor should we be. Nor can we serve (or even seem to serve) Bin Laden and his political agenda.

As a radical militant I fought from the beginning for the UN to be given a role in the Iraqi conflict and to use every diplomatic means possible to avoid the resort to military force, introducing a proposal to force Saddam Hussein into exile which in other cases (Liberia for example) proved to be a practical and reasonable solution.

In a broader context, our plan for a World Organisation of Democracy involves a reform of the United Nations intended to restore the spirit and the letter of the UN Charter.

However, in the current circumstances we must recognize that after the divisions within the Security Council and the terrorist attacks that killed the highest UN functionaries in Baghdad, an appeal to the UN is no more than a rhetorical alibi unless accompanied by a explicit call to those countries, including in the Arab world, that still stand on the sidelines with regard to Iraq, to finally commit to assuming real and substantial responsibilities in that country.

In short: in sharp contrast to Zapatero’s position, the correct response to March 11th should be, ”We will all go to Baghdad,” with the determination to assume a concrete role in the fight against terrorism. Only in this manner can the calls for UN and/or NATO involvement have real meaning and effect, as expressions of shared responsibility.

Finally, it must be said that there is nothing noble about abandoning the Iraqis (as happened to the Chechens, the Bosnians, and many others) when they need us most and at a time so crucial to their future. It is hardly a gesture that the democratic world could feel proud of. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino and - -
CAIRO, Dec 1 2003 (IPS)

Certain that they had won the war in Iraq almost without fighting, the Americans now seem to be mired in a \’\’peace\’\’ for which they clearly failed to devise a strategy or a plan, writes Emma Bonino, Emma Bonino, member of the Transnational Radical Party and deputy in the European Parliament. In this article Bonino writes asks, Is it really wrong to have gone in to and remain in Iraq? Today, to be \’\’pacifist\’\’ is to pursue the cynical, wait-and-see policy of those who say, \’\’After all, the Americans got what they were looking for.\’\’ Many have raised the spectre of the Vietnam syndrome, but today the greatest risk is not \’\’Vietnam syndrome\’\’ but the \’\’get-out-of-Vietnam syndrome\’\’. We must do everything possible, whatever our past positions might have been, to make sure that the efforts now underway in Iraq are successful. If the current state of affairs is to be corrected, everyone, beginning with the European countries, must put aside the wait-and- see politics and do everything possible to make Arab countries participate in the reconstruction, whose populations, regardless of the rhetoric of the ruling class, are finally beginning to ask themselves the right questions about terrorism, particularly after the attacks in Riyadh, Casablanca, and Istanbul.

Certain that they had won the war in Iraq almost without fighting, the Americans now seem to be mired in a ”peace” for which they clearly failed to devise a strategy or a plan. Should they then be left to work it out alone, as so many candid voices and a few old foxes of European politics would have it? Is it really wrong to have gone in to and remain in Iraq? Let’s start by saying that there is one less dictator in the world. Despite Saddam Hussein’s residual ability to do harm, the Iraqi people are free of him, and the majority of them, according to the polls, support the continued presence in the country of US troops, whom they instinctively trust more than the thugs of Saddam. Today, to be ”pacifist” is to pursue the cynical, wait-and-see policy of those who say, ”After all, the Americans got what they were looking for.” Many have raised the spectre of the Vietnam syndrome, but today the greatest risk is not ”Vietnam syndrome” but the ”get-out-of-Vietnam syndrome”. Part of this has to do with the upcoming US elections and the barely-hidden desire of certain European countries to see Bush defeated. However, the worst scenario would be a replay of the events that followed the Paris Accords of 1973, when the Americans decided to get out, sending the peace movement into paroxysms of joy. The government of the South, minimally representative and discredited in the eyes of even its ally the US, failed to win congressional approval for aid to enforce the agreement and was invaded by North Vietnam just two years later in 1975. That same year Pol Pot took over Cambodia, which had been run until then by a pro-American regime. The result: 20 years of horror and oppression for the region, from which it is still trying to free itself with great difficulty, after the deaths of millions. It’s true that the Americans think their supremacy should be based essentially on military strength. But given the challenges of our day, this is pure illusion, which fuels Washington’s skyrocketing military spending. Then there is the idea that the Iraqi problem could be reduced to a solely military question — another illusion. Indeed, it is unlikely that there is any problem that preventive military action alone could resolve. If the current state of affairs is to be corrected, everyone, beginning with the European countries, must put aside the wait-and- see politics that has characterised them up until now. What we must demand of Europe is to get involved and above all to stay involved. We must do everything possible to make Arab countries participate in the reconstruction, whose populations, regardless of the rhetoric of the ruling class, are finally beginning to ask themselves the right questions about terrorism, particularly after the attacks in Riyadh on May 12, Casablanca, Riyadh again, and Istanbul. In short, we must do everything possible, whatever our past positions might have been, to make sure that the fforts now underway in Iraq are successful. We radicals, for example, took a position that did not prevail; the approach we advocated was not adopted by either Italy, the government, or the opposition, nor was it embraced publicly as an explicit political initiative by the so-called international community. Our position was ”A free and democratic Iraq” — and so it remains. It wasn’t forced exile for Saddam Hussein. The challenge was to create conditions that made it more attractive even for Saddam Hussein to leave the country rather than die beneath the bombs. Our proposal was not something drawn out of thin air; rather it is exactly what happened recently in Liberia, where the will of the international community and the help of the special tribunal for Sierra Leone forced the dictator to pack his bags. It is an approach that can be tried again even today, immediately, recognising that there still exists a state of conflict that can be ended with a formula that would include offering exile for Saddam Hussein. As for democracy, it seems a taboo topic in Europe, not for us, of course, but for ”the others”, our foreign policy, and our trade policy. It seems that only Bush is talking about it, notwithstanding the enormous contradictions of American politics, and US policy regarding the International Criminal Court, multilateral trade talks, and the environment. Bush did well, for example, to state that Islam is perfectly compatible with democracy. We should demonstrate this concretely by encouraging in particular the democratic nuclei throughout the Middle East that are fighting for democracy. The problem is not ”exporting democracy” but making it take root in certain Arab countries. This may be the most complicated step to take, but in reality, at times it is enough to sustain what is there before our eyes but that we don’t want to see. And it would be enough if we all believed ourselves instead of thinking that it is only an American utopianism. It isn’t, and this is the key to ”winning the peace” in Iraq and in the Middle East. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Emma Bonino and - -
KINSHASA, Jul 1 2003 (IPS)

In recent weeks a singular destiny has pushed the Democratic Republic of the Congo to assume the role of symbol of both the martyrdom of Africa and the continent\’s ability to resolve its conflicts and actively participate in international civil campaigns like the universal moratorium against the death penalty, writes Emma Bonino, member of the Transnational Radical Party and deputy in the European Parliament. In this article for IPS, Bonino writes, I approached the Congolese president Kabila after the radical movement to abolish the death penalty, Hands Off Cain, selected me to lead a mission to save the lives of his father\’s assassins. We asked him not to sign the warrant for their execution and to join the fight within the UN General Assembly to reintroduce a proposal for a universal moratorium against capital punishment. Kabila responded that a moratorium on the death penalty is an issue for the future parliament, adding that he would not call for the execution before it decided. UN followers estimate that this year the resolution could garner 95-100 \’yes\’ votes, 21-26 abstentions, and 62-65 votes against. Thus the victory of the abolitionists is within reach. It will be paradoxical if the West, so generous with its ethics lessons to Africa, betrays the hopes of the 28 African nations that despite the horrors they witness daily have allied themselves against \’\’state homicide\’\’.

In recent weeks a singular destiny has pushed the Democratic Republic of the Congo to assume the role of symbol of both the martyrdom of Africa and the continent’s ability to resolve its conflicts and actively participate in international civil campaigns like the universal moratorium against the death penalty.

By now everyone knows about the horrors that have been perpetrated for months in the province of Uturi in the northwest of the country, where the European Union has sent its first military peacekeeping mission outside Europe. While the operation, dubbed ”Artemis”, has both humanitarian and political goals, its ultimate purpose is to extinguish the violence which, irresponsibly stoked by Congo’s neighbours, Uganda and Rwanda, threatens to reignite the civil war that it took exhaustive international diplomatic efforts to quench after eight years of bloodshed.

In contrast, very little is known of the ambitions and plans of the new transitional national unity government of the young president Laurent Kabila, formed on the basis of the peace accord. This was one of the factors that led me to ask the president, just as he was gaining international legitimacy as head of state, to make the courageous symbolic gesture of pardoning the thirty men condemned to death for the assassination of his predecessor and father Laurent Desire Kabila — and of taking a position against the death penalty.

I had met neither the son nor the father, though I had been involved in a heated public dispute with the latter when I was European Commissioner for Humanitarian Assistance. At the time I said what I thought of this little-known man who had placed himself at the service of the Rwandan invaders and covered up his massacres, assuming in 1997 almost by sheer chance the throne of Mobutu, leader of what was then Zaire. His ascent had more to do with the speed of the dictator’s collapse than any merit of his own. Killed in a palace coup in January 2001, he was succeeded by his son.

I approached the younger Kabila after the radical movement to abolish the death penalty, Hands Off Cain, selected me to lead a mission to save the lives of his father’s assassins. We asked him not to sign the warrant for their execution and to join the effort in the UN General Assembly to reintroduce a proposal for a universal moratorium against capital punishment. Kabila responded wisely and prudently that a moratorium on the death penalty is an issue for the future parliament, which is provided for in the peace agreement. But he added that he would not call for the men’s execution before the parliament made its decision.

In few countries of the world is human life less valued than in the Congo. Between four and six million people were killed in the civil war — one out of ten inhabitants. Yet one senses that the Congolese instinctively oppose the death penalty and the notion that any authority could be granted the legal power to take life. This was most convincingly shown at the Makala prison, which houses the men accused of assassinating the elder Kabila: in the office of the director hung a poster against torture and the death penalty.

Abolitionists have good reason to remain optimistic in this difficult battle for the moratorium, which was begun by the Italian government in 1994 in the General Assembly. Since then, 33 UN member states have abolished the death penalty. In recent months, despite the climate of tension that followed the war in Iraq, the anti-death penalty resolution regularly submitted to the UN Human Rights Commission won a record 75 votes of support, up from 68 last year.

On July 2, presenting the European Parliament with the programme for the Italian presidency of the EU, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi announced his intention to introduce the resolution at the next session of the General Assembly in September.

UN followers estimate that this year the resolution could garner 95-100 ‘yes’ votes, 21-26 abstentions, and 62-65 votes against. Thus the victory of the abolitionists is within reach. For this to happen, it should be enough for the initiative announced by Italy to win the solid backing of the EU.

It will be paradoxical if the West, so generous with its ethics lessons to Africa, betrays the hopes of the 28 African nations that despite the horrors they witness daily have allied themselves against ”state homicide”, de facto and de jure. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: