So the New Year has started and it did not take long to see that we are still in the same world full of stupidities, problems and lack of commitment. Something confirmed by the actions of the new Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon, when commenting the death penalty of Saddam Hussein.

On his first day in office Ban Ki-Moon made a complete turn in UN’s traditional strong stand against the use of death penalty, while refusing to condemn the use of it, instead pointing at each nations right to decide on the use of this punishment or not, and its consistency with international law.

For a so called “first impression” stand point - and indeed New Year standpoint! - on international law and ethics I would have hoped for a less medieval stand by Ban Ki-Moon. It is clear that the death penalty is a violation to just about every human right starting with human dignity and right to life.

On an ethical side it is questionable why a state would posses a bigger right to take someone’s unquestionable right to life then other humans, and that “evil” could ever justify “evil”. On a practical level it is hard to see what is gained with statistics showing higher murder rates as a consequence of the use of death penalty in the US states still implementing it, and with for example Kurds asking why Saddam was killed before put on trial for genocide on Kurds.

Today there are only 65 countries that allow death penalty (including South Korea - Ban Ki-Moon’s home country), a number sturdily decreasing. 2005 executions only took place in 22 states, clearly indicating that we are moving away from an outdated ethic and practice (China is still dominating and US of course). Still, US are a defender of death penalty, in strong contrast the EU. The UN has officially always kept a firm line against the use of death penalty, even in the case of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, something for example clearly stated in recent weeks by the UN representative to Iraq, Ashraf Qazi.

That Ban Ki-Moon chose to diverge from this line, and the line of Kofi Annan, I think is a very unpleasant start for 2007.

If the UN fails to defend human rights and the rightful implementation and development of international law - what is then the purpose of the organisation?

And what, to go to the extreme, would be the consequences of for example international tribunals implementing death penalty with the support of UN? Could the majority of the world that has condemned death penalty even support such institutions?

No, Ban Ki-Moon. We expect something more from the Secretary General of UN and you can expect an unpleasant starting time unless you read up on the federal core ideas of human rights, international law and progressive international institutions setting the individual before state sovereignty!

Reply to this article

3 comments

• 

  1 - Death is death is death: Short HR course for UN’s new Secretary General

  4 January 2007 14:31, by Valéry
  

  “refusing to condemn” as you say is hardly a U-turn.

  The fact is that penal law is not UN’s competency. If the Europeans have chosen to define a common core of principles there is no such thing at the international level.

  The amazing thing with the hanging of Irak’s former dictator is that all those who failed to condemn the mass murders he commited when in power are now condemning his execution.

  On principle there should not be death penalty, I agree, but Saddam Hussein got what he deserved and one can only rejoice about his fate when thinking of his victims.

  Let’s spend more time thinking about how act internationaly to prevent dictators to oppress the people in their country and less to debate about what Ban Ki-Moon might have said or forgot to say about the death of a mass-murderer.

  Reply to this message

  • Death is death is death: Short HR course for UN’s new Secretary General 4 January 2007 19:15, by Åsa
    

    I fully agree that a more pressing topic is how to avoid genocide, crimes against humanity, dictatorship terror and many other crimes Saddam Hussein is guilty of. But this is one topic.

    An other topic is the fight against death penalty – a fight not in any way connected to Saddam Hussein exclusively. What made me react explicitly to this case is the remarkable of a UN Secretary General refusing to condemn death penalty once asked, diverging abruptly from Annan’s and UN’s line. UN can not decide on national penalty law, but as a defender of human rights, including the right to life, it should condemn the use of the death penalty. I personally think it is sad the UN cannot do more than that – condemn. That it does not have the competences to upheld neither international law nor the charter of Human Rights fully. But in these situation the least we could expect from the institution is to make a moral pressure on all of those violating them. Who else could do it with more legitimazy? Certainly not those unable to condemn Saddam’s former regime and other sad situations around the world as you pointed out….

    And as far as “he got what he deserved” is concerned, I think instant death and the martyr branding of Saddam is an easy way out compared to most of his victims…. But still – this has nothing to do with the death penalty question. Death is death is death – and if we believe in the unquestionable right to life we must condemn it wherever it is used.

    Reply to this message

• 

  2 - Death is death is death: Short HR course for UN’s new Secretary General

  7 January 2007 09:23, by Curlypeter
  

  Hey there!

  According to the latest news (see the BBC News link) the new UN Secretary General has revised his initial stand on the issue of the use of death penalty in Iraq. Now he is calling for a suspension of further executions.

  So where does this leave us on the issue of death penalty? Obviously it’s still a very controversial topic. The good thing is that most of the world leaders expressed doubts into the way the situation had been handled by the Iraqis and was appauled by Ban’s statement that capital punishment “was for each and every member state to decide”. So it seems some people (even in high places still care about international rules - the problem is when and how they implement them (if at all).

  The reactions of the Iraqi government to the critiques from abroad on the other hand are quite worrying and remind me of Bush’s early international policy after 9/11 - ’either you’re with us or against us’.

  But if you go into the case by case basis one can of course hardly argue that the likes of Saddam Husein (I’d add A.Pinochet) would deserve such a death. Yet in the case of Saddam I am bothered by the fact they waited for two trials but not a third one in which he would be trialed also for the genocide against the Kurds. This tells a lot about the hypocracy inside the Iraqi society and is a genuine problem for the reconciliation of all the peoples living in Iraq.

  See online : BBC NEWS // UN urges stay of Iraq executions

  Reply to this message