Tag UN General Assembly

NEW YORK: Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations (UN) Maleeha Lodhi has been selected to help organise a high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child during its 74th session, the UN announced.

The announcement was made at a briefing in New York by the spokesperson of the UNGA President Maria Fernanda Espinosa.

“UNGA President Espinosa has appointed Ambassador Lodhi and Bulgarian Ambassador Georgi Velikov Panayotov as co-facilitators to ‘help with consultations with member states on the organizational and procedural arrangements’ for the high-level plenary meeting,” spokesperson Monica Grayley said.

She added that the two diplomats will also finalise the modalities resolution for the meeting through an open and transparent consultative process.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is a human rights treaty which sets out the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children.

Last week, a record number of 120 out of 193 United Nations member states voted in favour of a UN General Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, with a view of abolishing capital punishment. The resolution also expressed “deep concern” over the use of the death penalty and urged those countries that continue to retain capital punishment to take action to ensure that death sentences are not a result of discriminatory or arbitrary laws or practices.

In a dramatic turn of events, Pakistan was initially shown to vote in favour of the resolution (a change from past practice), but its vote was later “corrected” following the government’s claims that the UN had “inaccurately recorded” its vote. Now, Pakistan is one of only 36 UN member states to have voted against the resolution.

Restoration of executions in Pakistan in 2014 after a six-year moratorium is perhaps one of the most significant reversals of progress in human rights in our recent history. As the rest of the world is rapidly moving towards abolition of the death penalty, as shown by last week’s UN resolution, Pakistan is fast surpassing nearly all other countries and is now one of the highest executioners in the world.

The government brought back executions for people convicted of terrorism-related offences in December 2014 as part of the National Action Plan against terrorism, and lifted the moratorium for all cases in March 2015. Contrary to popular perception, a large majority of the executions that have been carried out since December 2014 relate to ordinary crime – specifically murder – and not “terrorism”.

Over these past two years, multiple problems relating to the implementation of the death penalty have been identified. These include lack of safeguards against executing people who were minors (under the age of eighteen), at the time of the offence; inadequate protection against executing people suffering from mental illnesses; and lingering concerns about executing people convicted wrongfully.

One important aspect of the implementation of capital punishment that has thus far been largely overlooked in Pakistan is its inherent arbitrariness, which is just another reason why retaining the death penalty is an ongoing violation of not only to the right to life, but also to the security of the person, equal protection of the law, and protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.

The argument is simple: the death penalty is an inherently arbitrary punishment because it cannot be applied fairly, consistently and without discrimination. As explained by the late Justice Chaskalson, former President of the South African Constitutional Court and former President of the ICJ in S v. Makwanyane: “At every stage of the (death penalty) process there is an element of chance. The outcome is dependent on factors such as the way the cases are investigated by the police, the way the cases are presented by the prosecutor, how effectively the accused is defended, the personality and particular attitude to capital punishment of the trial judge and, if the matter goes on appeal, the particular judges who are selected to hear the case.”

In Pakistan, most death sentences are given and carried out under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, which relates to murder. The provision provides for death or life imprisonment as the two possible sentences upon a finding of guilt.

The Court’s jurisprudence on whether and on what basis to give the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment has been inconsistent and often contradictory. For example, some Supreme Court judgments have held that death is the usual punishment for murder and judges have to individually justify giving the lesser sentence. Others, however, have emphasized the principle of “justice with mercy”, and have stated that courts must give reasons for opting for the death penalty.

What is considered a mitigating circumstance to make a defendant deserving of life imprisonment instead of death also varies greatly among judges. In some cases, provocation has been considered a mitigating factor; in others, it has been considered an accentuating factor.

Similarly, at times the Supreme Court has held that life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence where prosecution fails to establish the “motive” behind the murder, while in others, it has held failure to establish motive is not itself a sufficient ground to give the lesser sentence of lie imprisonment.

Other jurisdictions have grappled with similar issues. In 1980, the Indian Supreme Court restricted the death penalty to the “rarest of rare cases” to reduce the arbitrariness and inconsistency in when judges opt for the death penalty. However, courts have since then admitted that this “test” has been unsuccessful, and that despite the “rarest of rare” guideline, the application of the death penalty is still based on the “personal predilection of the judges constituting the Bench.”

Courts in the United States have also for many decades tried unsuccessfully to craft rules to reduce arbitrariness in the death penalty. The impossibility of this task led US Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun to famously declare: “I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death”, in expressing his view that the death penalty was inherently unconstitutional.

The Indian and US examples are in line with experiences from around the world have shown that no attempts to cure the system of death from its arbitrariness are likely to be successful. This is why the South African Constitutional Court, for example, declared the death penalty unconstitutional in all cases because of the arbitrariness and inequality inherent in the punishment in 1995.

Multiple studies carried out world over show that arbitrariness in the application of the death penalty manifests itself as discrimination against people from vulnerable segments of society. In India, for example, a recent National Law University study found the death penalty is disproportionately given to Muslims and people from “backward castes”. Out of all cases where death sentences were given by courts in terrorism-related cases, 93.5 per cent of convicts were either Dalit or from religious minority communities.

Studies from the United States show similar bias in sentencing, with African Americans at greater risk of being given death sentences than white people, especially if the victim is white.

Arbitrariness in the application of the death penalty has effectively resulted in a “death lottery”. While in other criminal cases arbitrariness in sentencing may result in differences in duration of sentence, in death penalty cases, how and why judges use their discretion on sentencing is, literally, a matter of life and death.

It is time the government reconsider Pakistan’s support for the death penalty. The inherent arbitrariness in the application of the death penalty is another reason to do away with capital punishment on top of many of others – the inherent cruelty to the executed person and his or her family and the denial of the right to life, not to mention the lack of any deterrent effect and the always present possibility of wrongful conviction.

Omer is a legal adviser for the International Commission of Jurists. She tweets @reema_omer

NEW YORK: Late Pakistani human rights lawyer Asma Jahangir has posthumously been awarded the UN Human Rights Prize 2018.

The prize was awarded to Jahangir, who passed away on February 11 after suffering a stroke at the age of 66. The award was accepted by her daughter Munizae Jahangir at a ceremony held at UN General Assembly, New York as part of activities to celebrate Human Rights Day.

“Many remember Pakistani lawyer Asma Jahangir as ‘a giant’ in the global human rights movement. Learn about her fearless contributions to human rights and why she’s one of this year’s UN Human Rights Prize winners,” the UN Human Rights Twitter account posted.

A large number of diplomats, human rights activists and senior UN officials attended the ceremony.

The Human Rights Prize is awarded every five years, in accordance with a resolution of the General Assembly that was adopted in 1966.

President of the UNGA María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés also congratulated Jahangir and the other three recipients of this year’s award on Twitter. “Warmest congratulations to the 2018 winners of the UN Human Rights Prize. Rebeca Gyumi, Asma Jahangir Joênia Wapichana and FrontLineHRD. Your work inspires us all.”

Jahangir was known for taking up court cases of victimised and marginalised sections of society, as well as for speaking against human rights violations and her courageous stand against the military rule of General Zia-ul-Haq.

An author and staunch activist of democracy, Jahangir also received several accolades for her work on human rights.

Jahangir was also a vocal opponent of judicial overreach and would often confront the superior judiciary when it would extend its jurisdiction in her opinion.

From 1998-2000, Jahangir served as the special rapporteur of the UN Commission on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions and was the special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief of the UN Commission on Human Rights since 2004.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu address a press conference after a meeting at the Chancellery in Berlin on June 4, 2018. Photo: AFP

German Chancellor Angela Merkel holds talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday as they seek to publicly brush past their list of differences and promote cooperation between their countries.

The visit by Merkel and members of her cabinet comes as part of German-Israeli government consultations held regularly, though the last one in 2017 was postponed, with scheduling conflicts cited as the official reason.

There were reports however that Merkel was unhappy with a law passed then related to Israeli settlement building in the occupied West Bank.

There has been no shortage of controversy ahead of this week´s visit.

Last week at the UN General Assembly, Netanyahu accused Europe of “appeasement” of Iran, a word evoking European capitals´ reluctance to stand up to Adolf Hitler in the run-up to World War II.

Netanyahu has been seeking to convince European countries to follow US President Donald Trump´s lead and withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.

Germany, like the other signatories to the hard-fought deal, has sought to keep it alive, saying it is preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons for now.

Netanyahu has also hit out at what he calls the EU´s “absolutely crazy” demands of Israel, such as those related to his country´s occupation of Palestinian territory.

As a counterweight, he has sought sympathetic ears within the EU among countries whose leaders´ nationalist stances have been a thorn in Brussels´ side, including Hungary.

Despite those issues and others, both sides seem determined to have the visit run smoothly.

Germany says the discussions will focus on economic ties, innovation and technology, while noting that the government-to-government consultations have been in place for 10 years.

It mentions Merkel´s previous comments on the responsibility toward Israel that Germany bears as the perpetrator of the Holocaust.

Felix Klein, who heads the German government´s fight against anti-Semitism, will be part of the delegation. Fears of a resurgence in anti-Semitism in Germany are expected to be discussed.

“Germany and Israel are linked by a unique relationship,” Merkel said in her weekly podcast.

“And we are grateful that we are now close partners and friends.”

There will be no meetings with Palestinian officials during the one-day visit.
‘She’s lost hope’

EU nations have repeatedly criticised Israeli settlement building and warned over threats to remaining prospects for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Germany has remained steadfast on the issue.

In recent weeks, it has joined calls against Israel´s planned demolition of a Bedouin village located in a strategic area of the occupied West Bank.

On Tuesday, residents of the village, Khan al-Ahmar, displayed signs with Merkel´s picture calling for help.

Yoram Ben-Zeev, a former Israeli ambassador to Germany, said Merkel would likely only “go through the motions” during the visit on issues related to the conflict with the Palestinians.

“I think that for the time being she´s lost hope that things can move,” Ben-Zeev told AFP, noting Trump´s confusing statements on the conflict, Netanyahu´s right-wing stance and Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas´s unpopularity.

“Why should she put her hands in the fire?”

Netanyahu will likely want to speak about his country´s main enemy Iran while possibly requesting Merkel´s assistance in dealing with Russian President Vladimir Putin, said Ben-Zeev.

Russia has been angered by the recent accidental downing of one of its planes by Syrian air defences during an Israeli raid in Syria.

It has delivered the advanced S-300 air defence system to Syria as part of its response, which could limit Israel´s strikes against Iranian and Hezbollah targets there.

A visit to Israel by Germany´s then-foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel in 2017 ended in acrimony when Netanyahu cancelled their meeting.

Netanyahu made the decision after Gabriel refused to call off meetings with rights groups critical of Israel´s government.

When Gabriel visited again in January, the two met but Netanyahu publicly corrected him over his stance on a two-state solution.

Gabriel had said he was “very thankful to hear that, of course, also the government of Israel wants to have two states” with secure Israeli borders.

Netanyahu interjected to reiterate his position that Israel must maintain security control in the Palestinian territories under any peace arrangement.

He declined to say whether that would mean Palestinian statehood or some lesser form of autonomy.

NEW YORK: Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi on Monday said Pakistan desires a broad based relationship with the United States based on mutual trust and respect.

The foreign minister’s comments came during a meeting with Congressman Joe Wilson, a Republican member of the House of Representatives, who called on him in New York, according to an official statement.

Qureshi, who is leading Pakistan’s delegation to the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly, appreciated Congressional assistance provided in the past for enhancing Pakistan’s counter-terrorism capacity.

“Pakistan has successfully turned the corner in its fight against terrorism at a great cost of human life and resources,” Qureshi said.

Qureshi also shared Prime Minister Imran Khan’s vision for a peaceful neighbourhood which is critical to achieving the government’s ambitious socio-economic plans for Pakistan.

The foreign minister also outlined his government’s domestic and foreign policy priorities. He said the support of young Pakistanis had played a major role in Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s election victory.

A major part of the government’s wide-ranging development agenda was focused on delivering education, jobs and opportunities to the youth, Qureshi told Wilson.

Congressman Wilson congratulated the foreign minister on PTI’s election victory and emphasised the need for continued cooperation between the two countries for achieving their common objectives in the region.

Congressman Wilson, who is from South Carolina, serves on both the House Foreign Affairs and the House Armed Services Committees.

Twelve months on from his explosive debut on the world´s biggest diplomatic stage, Donald Trump returns to the UN General Assembly on Monday to trumpet a turnaround in ties with last year´s number one enemy, North Korea´s Kim Jong Un.

But while relations with Kim have improved dramatically, leaders attending the annual gathering at UN headquarters in New York will hear how another of Trump´s adversaries, Iran´s Hassan Rouhani, remains beyond the pale for the American president.

After arriving in his hometown on Sunday, Trump has a packed schedule over the next few days, kicking off with a speech about the global drugs trade on Monday.

In addition to his address to the General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump has a series of bilateral meetings with allies such as French President Emmanuel Macron, Britain´s Theresa May and Japan´s Shinzo Abe, whom he met with late Sunday.

One of the most closely-watched will be Monday´s meeting with South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-in, who will brief him on last week´s inter-Korean summit with Kim in Pyongyang.

In his 41-minute speech at the General Assembly in 2017, the US president made clear he wanted to turn the clock back on the last half-century´s growth of global rules and institutions to return to the primacy of the nation-state.

While the implications of his “America First” philosophy rattled many world leaders who sat in the chamber, the main target of his invective was absent.

After months of escalating tensions over advances in the North´s nuclear program, Trump warned Kim that Washington would “totally destroy” North Korea if the US or its allies was attacked.

His colourful description of Kim as a “rocket man” on a “suicide mission” triggered an angry response from Kim, who called Trump “mentally deranged.”

While Kim will again be absent from New York, observers will look for pointers toward a second summit between the US and North Korean leaders since their historic get-together in Singapore in June.

Although he has expressed frustrations in recent months, Trump´s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says efforts to persuade Pyongyang to denuclearise are progressing.
Rouhani Meeting?

“We are hopeful that we can deliver this outcome for the world,” he told “Fox News Sunday.”

Pompeo — who has visited Pyongyang three times — will preside over a Security Council meeting Thursday where he will brief members on how the administration can persuade the North to turn its back on nuclear weapons.

He will also defend the Trump administration´s use of sanctions to force change, which has seen Chinese and Russian companies punished for doing business in North Korea.

Trump´s recent predecessors have all failed to bring about a lasting upturn in ties with the North and skepticism remains about whether Kim has taken any concrete steps, but that seems unlikely to deter Trump from pushing toward a follow-up to Singapore.

“It doesn´t appear that the Moon Jae-in summit did much more than continue a kind of atmosphere and pageantry leading into President Trump´s next summit,” said Mike Green, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

While Trump will dial down the rhetoric against Kim, there seems to be little prospect of him doing likewise with Rouhani.

The US annoyed many of its allies in Europe by pulling out of a deal they jointly negotiated in 2015 that lifted sanctions against Tehran in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program.

US allies in the Middle East, notably Saudi Arabia, have, however, been delighted by Trump´s stance.

Several of the president´s top lieutenants will address a meeting on Wednesday billed as a “United Against Nuclear Iran Summit” that will also feature speakers from Arab allies.

Rouhani has organised a press conference at the same time.

The White House has not completely closed the door on a Rouhani-Trump meeting and given how things with Kim have turned out, perhaps nothing should be regarded as impossible.

But in a weekend op-ed in The Washington Post, Rouhani charged that Trump´s offer of talks was not “genuine” and came with a list of “openly insulting preconditions.”