***"John Howard's position lacks consistency. We are unconcerned when the death penalty is applied to non-Australian citizens. Yet it is an act of barbarism when it is applied to Australians. Now, the death penalty is either right or wrong. It can't be right or wrong according to the citizenship of the person. There is a moral and political decision for Australia to take and, so far, we are trying to ignore it."
***Semua politikus adalah uler 2 kepala, bedanya kalau WNI dan ex WNI yang menetap di luar negeri, bisa mengerti tindak tanduk politikus si bule, tetapi mengutuk tindak tanduk serupa yang dilakukan presiden dan menteri2 RI... Morals in the mirror November 26, 2005 THE longer it continues, the more the outcry from Australia over Nguyen Tuong Van's death sentence will be seen by Asians for what it is - an exercise in hypocrisy and inconsistency by Australia not deserving to be taken seriously. This is not to deny the obligation on the Howard Government, our political leaders, our media and Van's lawyers to try to save the young man's life. It is not to deny the inhumanity and injustice of the decision. But it is past time for Australians to reflect on the consequences of their position and try to comprehend how others perceive them. Every nation in Southeast Asia has the death penalty. Every nation except The Philippines practises the death penalty. China executes many people each year. Singapore in per capita terms is the world's main capital punishment nation. It has executed about 400 people over the past dozen years. Australia lives in a region of the world where the death penalty is a judicial reality, a situation unlikely to change. It is absurd to pretend that Australia hasn't been aware of such realities. Australia's values are different from Asia's in that sense; this country opposes the death penalty within its own jurisdiction. But Australia has accepted the death penalty in the region for decades. Our position is different to that of the European Union. We don't campaign against the death penalty. We don't launch protests. We don't raise the issue in multilateral forums or in bilateral meetings or in regional gatherings. We don't tell Asian nations that their relations with Australia will be compromised by the death penalty. Perhaps we should have done these things, but we haven't. Successive Labor and Coalition governments have taken a national interest decision that the death penalty should not threaten our ties in the region. This is known and understood by every government in Asia. Indeed, on critical occasions Australia has supported the death penalty. John Howard, significantly, supported the death penalty decision by an Indonesian court against the Bali bomber, Amrozi. On August 7, 2003, Howard said of Amrozi's death penalty: "The Indonesian court has applied it and I accept that. I respect the jurisdiction of the Indonesian court and I do not intend to make any representations that it not be carried out. If it's the view of the Indonesian court that it be carried out, then it should be carried out. These crimes were committed in Indonesia and the law of that country must prevail." The next day, August 8, Howard told 3AW's Neil Mitchell: "And I find it extraordinary that anybody can use the word 'barbarism' in relation to this man. I just find that extraordinary." Howard sympathised with the Australians who had lost family members in the Bali bombing. "I have met a lot of these people," he said. "I remember how they felt. And I just try to put myself in their position." When Australians face execution in Asia it is a different story. Not surprisingly, we care more about our own, a human and a nationalistic reaction. In 1986 Bob Hawke labelled as "barbaric" Malayasia's execution of two Australians on drug charges, and its prime minister, Mahathir Mohamed, used this line against Australia for years: we were the nation that saw Malaysia as barbaric. The Howard Government's policy, therefore, seems as follows: as a general rule we see the death penalty as a nation's own decision; when Asian terrorists who kill Australians are sentenced to death we support the decision; when Australians are sentenced to death we ask for clemency; and, as a general rule, we oppose any bilateral policy retaliation in support of our appeal for clemency. This is a typical Howard policy, based on pragmatism, inconsistency, national interest and a shunning of abstract principle. It is the sort of policy that lawyers, moralists and human rights activists repudiate. It also reveals the difficulty for Australia of handling the death penalty issue in the region. How should the policy be changed? University of Melbourne Asian Law Centre director, Tim Lindsey, highlights the dilemma. "This issue is not going away," he says. "Just wait for the sentences on the Bali nine. I would be absolutely astounded if some of them did not get the death penalty. Australia is going to have to decide where it stands on this issue. "John Howard's position lacks consistency. We are unconcerned when the death penalty is applied to non-Australian citizens. Yet it is an act of barbarism when it is applied to Australians. Now, the death penalty is either right or wrong. It can't be right or wrong according to the citizenship of the person. There is a moral and political decision for Australia to take and, so far, we are trying to ignore it." Every Asian government would be aware of Australia's hypocrisy. Australians should also be aware of how we look from the region. Is it any wonder that our representations are rejected? Howard's approach, however, is founded on two realities, public opinion and the national interest. Just consider them. In August 2003, Newspoll found that Australians supported the death penalty for the Bali bombers by 57 per cent to 33 per cent. Only one-third of the community opposed execution. Another poll the same month found that Australians favoured the death penalty by 56 per cent to 36 per cent for acts of terrorism and that 38 per cent were strongly in favour. Given that more Australians will probably be killed by terrorists in future these results are unlikely to weaken. The point is that public support does not exist in Australia for a sustained and consistent opposition to all forms of capital punishment in Asia. Howard knows this. Public opinion is like Howard's policy, inconsistent and equivocal, and it varies depending on the victim. The national interest imperative is about how far Australia should push its clemency claims. The retaliatory action Australia can take against countries such as Singapore and Indonesia is almost limitless. Where do you begin when bilateral ties are so substantial? The options include political retaliation, trade or investment sanctions, reductions in economic co-operation, reductions in security, military and police links. Does Australia cut back its security ties with Singapore and Indonesia - designed to track down terrorists trying to kill Australians - in order to admonish these nations for their capital punishment policies? Beyond the emotionalism of the moment, there would be little sustained public support for such bilateral retaliation. Of course, there is a further problem: it would be unlikely to have any impact whatsoever. The Howard Government has formed the bedrock conclusion that Singapore will not change its mind and that nothing can save Van's life short of what Alexander Downer calls a miracle. That doesn't exempt the Government from making further efforts. But Howard and Downer want to bring expectations into line with reality. This execution is Singapore's responsibility. It is the responsibility of neither Australia nor the Howard Government. The issue of whether Australia changes its policy needs to be reassessed but there is no easy solution to these moral and political complexities. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17364089%255E12250,00.html ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/uTGrlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED] List owner : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
