Now that Andrew Chan and Myuran
Sukumaran are on their way to face an Indonesian firing squad, and now that all
diplomatic avenues of appeal seem to have been exhausted, it's maybe time for
some plain speaking.
Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran's fate was sealed the day
Joko Widodo was elected president. Widodo's win was predicated on his popular
appeal. The fact, however, is that Widodo is a poorly educated ex-businessman
who is already out of his depth as President. There is a big leap from being
Governor of Jakarta to leading one of the world's most populous democracies on
the world stage, and he has none of the intellectual finesse or political
experience of his predecessor Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
Widodo's behaviour in the context of the appeals for clemency
with respect to Chan and Sukumaran shows just how inexperienced he in the
context of both bilateral and multilateral affairs. His, for example,
politically expedient unwillingness to see Tony Abbott's reference to the
billion dollars in Australian aid to Indonesia to help re-build Aceh as an
indication of the depth of "friendship" between Indonesia and
Australia is both childish and petulant. Hiding behind the mantra of Indonesia
being a "young" democracy and knowingly mis-interpreting Abbott's
remarks as a threat, is, as we all know, blatantly and opportunistically
playing to a domestic audience. But there is a difference between being
"young" and being geo-politically immature. And in this context,
Indonesia, under President Widodo has taken a retrograde step. Widodo is no
Susilo Bangbang Yudhoyono. SBY had a genuine claim to be statesman-like –
intelligent, experienced, multi-faceted, humane. Widodo is none of these
things, not as a President, and particularly not as a human being.
As for Australia meddling in the sovereignty of Indonesian
or its rule of law, this is self-serving hogwash.
As indicated above, President Widodo has always had the
constitutional discretion to exercise clemency. Which begs the question: why
hasn't he done so?
The answer is that it's not Widodo who holds the reins of
power in Indonesia. Widodo is just a puppet, whose strings as president are
being pulled by a more powerful political elite who surround him, one of whose
bigger, longer-term agendas is to isolate Australia as a player in the region –
the theory being that if Indonesia turns its back on Australia [which is the
symbolic import of what Chan's and Sukumaran's execution represents] Indonesia
will become a quasi geo-political barrier between Australia and the rest
of South-East Asia, thereby limiting the effectiveness by which Australia can
exercise its economic and/or political influence in the region. In this
scenario, Australia is just the historically anachronistic and culturally
irrelevant much-resented non-Asian outlier in the region. Which is why our
continuing ties to both China and Japan are so important to us.
What most long-term observers of Indonesia [of which I am
one] will tell you is that a very significant proportion of Indonesia's ruling
elite [perhaps as much as 40 per cent, including Indonesian Attorney General
Muhammad Prasetyo, but more particularly Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno
Marsudi] do not like Australia. And "do not like" is putting it
mildly. This is at the heart of Indonesia's Chief Prosecutor's remark "a
thousand Tony Abbotts" wouldn't make a difference.
Given that this is the case, given that Widodo is now in
power, Chan and Sukumaran have never stood a chance, because what their
deaths are about, what they have always been about, is the opportunity for
Indonesia to use our compassion, our international standing and our goodwill,
and the fact that our Prime Minister and our Foreign Minister have been
prepared, effectively, to beg for their lives – to put us in our place.
What much of the recent diplomatic chatter in Jakarta has
been about is how Indonesia [read: Widodo and his circle] has enjoyed seeing
Australia grovel. And could they care less about their own
constitution's protection of a prisoner's rights – prisoners who, in this case,
are demonstrably reformed, or the sanctity of human life, or the hypocrisy of
their own efforts to achieve the same clemency for their own citizens that
Australia has sought? No, they could not.
Let there be no mistake, Chan and Sukumaran are not being
murdered because they were about to smuggle drugs out of Indonesia 10 years
ago. They are being murdered to satisfy a weak president trying to shore up his
populist standing, and it is a pity that comments made in private in this
context by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his former Foreign Minister Marty
Natalegawa, both of whom still command a great deal of international respect,
have not been more widely circulated.
The point that seems to have been missed in this entire
debate is that it is Widodo, as another human being, who has given himself
the right to take away the lives of Chan and Sukumaran. It is not the
rule of law, or of the Indonesian constitution – both give the President the
right to exercise clemency. He has chosen not to. What we see
playing out here is the will of a little man, being led by a coterie of
"invisible", morally bankrupt, others.
If President Widodo believed so fervently in the
appropriateness of the death penalty in the case of Chan and Sukumaran, why
does he not look into these men's eyes and pull the trigger himself?
Outsourcing this particular act of barbarism is an act of executive cowardice.
What this whole situation demonstrates is not that
Indonesia is a young democracy finding its way, but that Indonesia is an
immature democracy whose actions are prosecuted by someone who is
self-servingly hypocritical, someone who does not deserve to stand as an equal
amongst equals on the world stage.
This double murder will, inevitably, see the relationship
between our two countries reach a new low – [my own view is that it will be
worse than that] but maybe that's what the people who have the real power in
Indonesia want. It's more than a pity, however, that the two incidental pawns
in this power play, Chan and Sukumaran – two decent, good young men,
despite the sins of their past – will have paid with the one thing that we all
value most – their lives. This needn't have been the case, and Indonesia and
its President have a lot to answer for.
Mark Henshaw, is an
author, novelist, and Chairperson of the group Australian Writers for Clemency.
He is a long-time Indonesia observer and has been there three times in the last
four years.
Capital punishment — Jokowi’s twin policy positions
ReplyDeleteAs Indonesia moves into the final phase of its preparations for the execution of 10 convicted drug offenders, it’s worth pausing for a moment to ponder some disturbing statistics. These figures, not widely broadcast but readily available, should certainly be a cause for concern for President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, who has crafted an image around his response to the twin challenges of Indonesia’s alleged “drug emergency” and the escalating number of Indonesian nationals facing the death penalty in other countries. In recent weeks, commentators in Indonesia and abroad have pointed to apparent inconsistencies between the President’s determination to show no mercy to drug traffickers while vigorously defending the 229 Indonesian citizens facing execution overseas, 57 percent of whom face drug charges.
Regardless, Jokowi’s strategy seems to be a successful one — at least on a domestic level — aided perhaps by a perception that perpetrators of drug trafficking are largely foreigners. Jokowi has also gained significant traction from appearing to be unswayed by international pressure; shaping the issue into one of national identity and suggesting (inaccurately, as it happens) that any and all appeals constitute an affront to Indonesia’s sovereignty. If the Indonesian government presses ahead with the planned executions, Indonesia will surpass Japan and Yemen and join the 10 nations with the highest annual execution rates — an alarming shift for a country which has, to date, applied the death penalty in a relatively modest and discretionary manner.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe preponderance of foreign nationals among the condemned has already been noted more than a few times, as has the fact that, in the post-Soeharto era, only one Indonesian has been executed for drug trafficking. Indonesian human rights group, Commission for Missing Persons and Victim of Violence (Kontras), pointed out that Indonesia tends to hand down the death penalty to countries with little political impact.
Jokowi’s pledge in December last year to refuse clemency for all 64 drug convicts on death row may be about to drastically alter that picture. If the President is true to his word, the road he is taking could be a very dangerous one indeed. While there are minor discrepancies in the figures published by Kontras and by legal website hukumonline.com, the demographics of death-row drug offenders present a serious dilemma for Jokowi.
If the 10 prisoners scheduled for imminent execution are excluded, almost half — 44 percent — of the remaining death-row inmates facing execution are Indonesian nationals. The Indonesian government’s strenuous defense of its own citizens facing execution abroad for drug offenses may become increasingly problematic if it intends to execute its own citizens for the same crime at home.
It may be that Jokowi is prepared to make national distinctions between the victims of international drug trafficking, but that would involve the type of moral gymnastics that would be difficult to defend even to his own countrymen, let alone the international community.It may be that the President views those who take drugs out of the country as fundamentally different from those who import drugs, or manufacture drugs within Indonesia’s borders — although it’s difficult to imagine there’d be much appetite for that line of reasoning in light of the pending execution of Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, who conspired to smuggle drugs from Indonesia to Australia. Whichever way you look at it, Jokowi’s pledge will significantly impair the prospects of securing leniency for the 131 Indonesian drug offenders abroad.
Currently, 360 Indonesians face the death penalty abroad.
Based on 2012 data from Migrant Care, 31 citizens were condemned to death and awaiting execution in Malaysia, China and Saudi Arabia. This, too, may present a diabolical dilemma for Jokowi. Aside from the Indonesian nationals on death row, over a third of the remainder are from countries where Indonesian citizens currently face execution for a range of offences. Jokowi’s vow to refuse clemency to all 64 drug offenders will limit any prospects of reciprocity and almost undoubtedly hamper efforts to save Indonesian citizens, a point which has been stressed by the head of Migrant Care, Anis Hidayah.
No doubt Jokowi has enhanced his political capital through tough rhetoric and an unyielding approach to drug crime. It seems implausible, however, when you look at who’s in the firing line, that continuing with this approach will pan out in a positive way for either President Jokowi or for Indonesians in general. Drug crimes are not just confined to foreign nationals, and it’s not just foreigners on death row abroad who are vulnerable under Indonesia’s new approach to capital punishment. It’s not too late for Indonesia to take a different path before two of Jokowi’s rigid policy positions collide. We can only hope the President considers the sobering consequences of this collision before any more lives are lost. By Sarah Gill, Perth government policy analyst, a freelance writer and researcher. She is undertaking postgraduate studies in law, policy and government at the University of Western Australia.