The Australian Government has asked
Indonesia to spare the lives of convicted drug smugglers Andrew Chan and Myuran
Sukumaran. The two Australians are currently on death row, convicted of
smuggling heroin at the resort island of Bali. On what grounds should the lives
of these criminals be spared?
Well, apart from arguments in mitigation citing
good conduct and apparent repentance whilst in prison, the appeals for clemency
appear to turn on four points: 1) Australia believes that state-sanctioned
execution is barbaric and should not be done; 2) the individuals concerned are
Australian citizens, 3) the Australian people will generally be upset if the
two men are killed and this could pressure the Australian government to cool
relations with Indonesia, and 4) other governments will dismiss as hypocrisy
any future call for Indonesians to be spared the death penalty in foreign
countries.
Are any of these arguments likely to
prevail? No, they are not.
Indeed, any slim chance of leniency was
diminished considerably by the comments of Australian Prime Minister, Tony
Abbott, in reminding Indonesia of the one billion dollars given by Australia as
tsunami aid. If the Australian Government wanted to limit the options of
President Joko Widodo, known as Jokowi, essentially tying his hands on this
issue, their loud and insistent ‘diplomacy’ could not have done a better job.
Standing rock solid against Australia’s opposition
to capital punishment is Indonesia’s determined, “anti-colonial” resistance to “interference”
in their judicial processes and their unwavering assertion of sovereign
independence. Last month, Indonesia executed six convicted drug traffickers —
five of them foreigners from Brazil, Malawi, the Netherlands, Nigeria and
Vietnam — by firing squad. President Jokowi has said that he intends to show no
mercy in his war on drugs, which he claims are killing up to 50 Indonesians a
day.
Two weeks ago, the Guardian newspaper
reported that
Indonesia’s foreign minister, Retno Marsudi, stressed that application of the
death penalty is in accordance with due process, “The death penalty is part of
the law of Indonesia,” she said. “It is implemented as a last resort for the
most serious of crimes. The decision is taken by our judicial system, which is
independent and impartial.” Marsudi also said that Indonesia’s fight against
drugs had entered a “critical stage” and that drugs had “ruined the lives of
many hardworking Indonesians”.
However, Rafendi Djamin, who represents
Indonesia on the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, argues
that official corruption is part of Indonesia's drug problem. That corruption,
he adds, also raises the possibility of fatal miscarriages of justice when the
death penalty is applied, "There are very serious flaws in our judiciary. We
are still working on it. And with this flawed judiciary, you believe you are
not, you know, killing the wrong people? This is the tragedy of our society
now."
Presumably, Indonesian President Jokowi, Foreign
Minister Retno Marsudi, and the Attorney General, Muhammad Prasetyo, all know this, and yet Indonesia’s Attorney General declared on Friday
that “nothing whatsoever” could stop the execution of Andrew Chan and Myuran
Sukumaran from going ahead, promising they would face the firing squad as soon
as possible. Why?
Perhaps to answer this question we
need to examine the political situation in Indonesia. President Jokowi enjoys
popular support but is possibly the politically weakest post-Suharto president. He is not in control of his own
party, and his ruling coalition does not control a majority in parliament. At
present, President Jokowi's Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, or PDI-P,
along with its four smaller allies, have about 44% of the seats. In October
2014, his opposition in the Presidential elections, Lieutenant General (Rtd)
Prabowo's coalition used a change to the law and its parliamentary majority to
install its own man as speaker. It then took control of all of parliament's
influential committees.
In such circumstances, any weakness shown
by Jokowi or suggestion that he kowtowed to Canberra over the fate of the drug
smugglers would be detrimental to his political standing.
The death penalty for drug smuggling is
reportedly popular in Indonesia. Also, Indonesian public sentiment has shown
very little tolerance to external ‘interference’. Put simply, President Jokowi cannot
afford to meet the Australian request on this issue. He would lose too much
face and so would Indonesia.
Presumably, the Australian Government, teeming
with SE Asian ‘experts’ would know this. Why then pursue such an approach? The
louder Australia appeals and more insistent it becomes, the less the Indonesian
President is able to agree. We might
conclude that the Australian rhetoric is directed primarily at a domestic
Australian audience.
However, Jakarta has sent a typically
Javanese message to Canberra that it would prefer not to let this issue lead to
a serious rift. A
spokesman for Indonesia’s Attorney General said that transfer of the Australian
prisoners to Nusa Kambangan for execution had been delayed because the prison
is not yet ready. The seemingly inevitable has been postponed probably until
next month.
If the Australian Government
genuinely cares for the fate of its two imprisoned citizens, perhaps a new and
completely different strategy is needed. An Asian
approach would be for the Prime Minister to declare publicly that Australia
“respects Indonesian sovereignty” and “the independence of the Indonesian
judiciary”. Whilst Australia and Indonesia disagree on the use of capital punishment,
Australia would “never seek to interfere in the internal affairs of its close
and dearly valued neighbour and friend”.
He might then proceed to request that
consideration be given to examining the premise behind the death penalties to
test whether indeed there is any evidence anywhere in the world that the death
penalty actually reduces the incidence of drug-related crime. Australia would
be honoured to provide financial support for such a study, which could be
undertaken by Indonesian experts with the assistance of the ASEAN Secretariat
or Asian Development Bank. Indonesia and many other countries would benefit
greatly from such a study.
In private, the Australian Prime
Minister could also explain that as an act of friendship and with no conditions
attached, Australia would be humbled and deeply grateful were the execution of
its citizens and others on death row for drug crimes to be postponed until
completion of the study.
This would possibly, just possibly
open the door for Indonesia to make up its own mind on this question without
any hecklers in the gallery trying to force their hand. Sadly, too many words
may already have been spoken in public for such an option. But at least this
approach might give the Indonesian President room to manoeuvre without loss of
face for himself or his country.
Published in The Malaysian Insider, 23 February 2015
