Original title: This time, China, Japan and India stood together silently!
Source: Niu Tanqin
Interestingly, this time, China, Japan, and India stood together in silence to oppose the West.
And the attitude is very clear:
China, Japan and India: Oppose!
Britain, France and Germany: Yes!
What occasion is this?
The UN Human Rights Council in Geneva recently voted on the “death penalty” resolution.
This resolution was proposed by 50 countries including Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Israel, Spain, and Belgium. The core content is:
1. Call on countries that have not yet joined or approved documents related to the abolition of the death penalty in the United Nations to consider joining or ratifying;
2. During the 52nd session of the Council, the issue of “human rights violations” related to the death penalty was discussed.
There is a sentence in it, which is very painful:
(It is) deeply regrettable that the use of the death penalty has caused the human rights of those facing the death penalty and other affected persons to be violated… The lack of transparency in the use of the death penalty affects the human rights of those sentenced to death and other affected persons. Direct consequences.
In other words, in the eyes of these countries.
1. The death penalty is inhumane and must be abolished;
2. Countries that do not abolish the death penalty actually violate human rights;
3. If you violate human rights, we have to intervene.
Part of the draft resolution on the death penaltyWhen it comes to abolishing the death penalty, European countries are clearly at the forefront.
On the day before the Human Rights Council vote, French President Macron also delivered a speech saying that in the first half of next year, France will assume the rotating presidency of the European Union, and he will do a big thing.
What’s the big deal?
Promote the abolition of the death penalty on a global scale.
In Macron’s words, France is the “35th country to abolish the death penalty” in the world. “So far, 106 countries have abolished the death penalty, and another 50 countries have suspended the death penalty legally or in fact.” In his eyes, the death penalty is “abominable.” It is a “state-level execution” and a manifestation of “rejection of human rights.”
This is the attitude of Europe, what about other countries?
Anyway, in the vote on the 8th, 29 countries followed Britain, France and Germany in favor, but 12 countries opposed it.
Those who voted against:
China,
Japan,
India,
Pakistan,
Bahamas,
Bahrain,
Bangladesh,
Cameroon,
Libya,
Mauritania,
Somalia,
Sudan.
In addition, five countries including the Philippines and Indonesia abstained.
Why vote against?
The Chinese delegation explained it like this:
The issue of death penalty is a legislative and judicial issue within the sovereignty of a country. The international community has no consensus on the issue of the death penalty. Many countries believe that when dealing with the issue of the death penalty, including the death penalty, it is necessary to fully consider factors such as the judicial system, economic and social development level, and historical and cultural background of each country. China implements the policy of “reserving the death penalty and strictly applying the death penalty”. This is determined by the specific conditions of Chinese society and the specific needs of fighting crime. The Chinese Criminal Law stipulates that the death penalty is only applicable to criminals with extremely serious crimes. There are also strict standards and approval procedures for applying the death penalty.
The Human Rights Council should adopt an objective, fair and balanced attitude when discussing and passing resolutions on the death penalty, and respecting the judicial sovereignty of all countries. We do not support the humanization of judicial issues, let alone hype the issue of transparency in the death penalty. China will vote against the draft resolution L.17/Rev.l.
The meaning is very clear:
1. There is no international consensus on the abolition of the death penalty. It has been abolished, but there are still many countries that use the death penalty.
2. To preserve and abolish the death penalty, you must also consider multiple factors such as the judicial system and historical and cultural background. Leaving aside the history and culture to talk about preservation and abolition, it is like insisting on the practice of the West in Afghanistan, and it must be divorced from reality.
3. China’s principle is “reserve the death penalty and apply the death penalty strictly”. We are very cautious. Don’t think about it!
4. The current problem is the humanization of judicial issues and hype about the transparency of the death penalty. Therefore, we oppose it.
China opposes, Japan opposes, India opposes, tacitly, all voted against.
Maybe many people have not seen it, the big brother in the West, where is the United States?
Oh, the United States is beating soy sauce outside the Human Rights Council!
When Uncle Trump was angry that year, the United States scolded and withdrew from the Human Rights Council, but he has not yet returned. But even after returning, there is a death penalty in the United States, and it is estimated that nine out of ten people will vote against it.
Because many Americans are puzzled by so many shootings every year, the murderer shoots and kills dozens of people. The final verdict is that the murderer cannot be sentenced to death but can only be imprisoned for life. Is this reasonable?
Therefore, some states in the United States say no to the death penalty, but some states firmly disagree with the abolition of the death penalty.
Of course, there are some people in Europe who are very opposed to it. In France, haven’t you enough terrorist attacks?
International politics is interesting.
Finally, three simple points.
First, we all know the contradictions between China and Japan and the friction between China and India. India has not stopped recently. But on this issue, China, Japan and India came together silently. Great powers have diverse interests. What should be struggling must be resolutely struggling, and what should be cooperating is still cooperation. There are still differences between the East and the West.
Second, it is now Britain, France, Germany and China, Japan and India. But in fact, Britain, France and Germany think that they are politically correct, but they have no idea, because there is another ruthless role, that is, the United States. It is said that among Western countries, the United States and Japan are the only ones that retain the death penalty. Europe is very disappointed. Macron, you have to come on, and convince the United States and Japan first.
Third, this somewhat reveals the difference in cultural concepts. For China and many other countries, it is only natural to kill people to pay their lives and pay debts. Of course, you must kill less and be careful. A person cannot be resurrected from the dead, and an innocent person cannot be wronged. But the latest idea in the West is that people cannot be killed, even if they are heinous. But on the battlefield, these countries are particularly fond of killing people, and they are killing indiscriminately. For example, Australia, killing innocent people in Afghanistan indiscriminately.
There are far more people who died under Western guns than the number of people sentenced to death in the world.
Our stupid heads really don’t understand this kind of sharp contrast.
Is it too hypocritical?
.