Since the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR on the Abolition of the Death Penalty came into force in 1991, the abolition of the death penalty has become a mainstream international norm. The SETARA Institute found that over the past 25 years or so, the number of countries carrying out executions has shown a downward trend, with a compound annual growth rate of minus 2%. In other words, an increasing number of countries worldwide are implementing a moratorium on the death penalty or even abolishing it altogether. This data indicates that, in general, countries around the world recognize that abolishing the death penalty is one of the steps they must take to project an image as civilized nations. Currently, out of 193 UN member states, only 36 still have the death penalty in their laws and carry out executions on a regular basis. A total of 103 countries have explicitly abolished the death penalty, while others use it only under exceptional circumstances such as war (6 countries) or have maintained a moratorium for more than 10 years (50 countries).
Unfortunately, Indonesia is not on the right path toward becoming a civilized nation, given the execution of six prisoners in January 2015 and plans to execute ten others in the near future. The SETARA Institute believes that if Indonesia wants to be on the right path, the Indonesian government must abolish the death penalty for all crimes, including drug-related offenses.
Regarding the execution of those convicted of drug offenses, the SETARA Institute views the Indonesian government’s unyielding stance on the planned death penalty as a violation of the international treaty that Indonesia ratified—namely, the ICCPR in 2005. In 2013, the UN Human Rights Committee gave the Indonesian government its lowest rating due to its failure to comply with the Committee’s warning to halt executions of those convicted of drug-related offenses.
In August 2013, the UN Human Rights Committee reiterated its call to ICCPR member states to implement a de facto moratorium on the death penalty. If member states wish to continue imposing the death penalty, it should be permitted only for the most serious criminal cases—excluding drug-related offenses. The UN Human Rights Committee urged Indonesia to review its laws related to drug-related cases to ensure that such offenses are not punishable by death.
In early April 2015, in response to the Joko “Jokowi” Widodo administration’s execution of six individuals convicted of drug-related crimes in January 2015, the UN Human Rights Committee conducted an evaluation of Indonesia and expressed regret that Indonesia had not yet amended its laws regarding drug-related cases. The UN Human Rights Committee gave the Indonesian government a grade of “E” on a scale of “A” to “E”—a grade very rarely given to member states. An “A” indicates that a member state’s policies are highly satisfactory, while an “E” indicates that a member state’s policies run counter to the UN Human Rights Committee’s recommendations.
Implications for Indonesia’s international relations
Indonesia’s exclusion from the ICPPR treaty body. This exclusion stems from Indonesia’s failure to heed the UN Human Rights Committee’s stern warnings since 2013 to abolish the death penalty for drug offenders. The situation will worsen if the Indonesian government proceeds with the executions of ten other drug offenders after Indonesia was given a grade of “E” by the UN Human Rights Committee in early April 2015. Indonesian representatives will face difficulty explaining why, time and again, despite being sternly warned, they have remained obstinate. These repeated violations of the warnings will erode Indonesia’s basis of legitimacy when engaging in diplomatic maneuvers—such as calling on the Australian government not to reject asylum seekers so as not to burden the Indonesian government, or condemning Israel for its various human rights violations against Palestinians within the treaty body. Regarding this last point, the further implication is that it will undermine Indonesia’s efforts to build its image among member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) as the most proactive country in defending Palestine.
Indonesia will face obstacles in gaining support for its efforts to reform the UN Security Council. In various international forums, including most recently at the 2015 Asian-African Conference, Indonesia has raised UN Security Council reform as a key topic of discussion. The issue of UN Security Council reform—specifically the expansion of permanent membership—is currently a hot topic at UN Headquarters, and Indonesia has a vested interest in becoming a permanent member. Indonesia needs to present itself as a trustworthy nation in order to gain support from countries around the world—most crucially from the current permanent members of the UN Security Council. France, as one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, may potentially oppose Indonesia’s membership given the precedent of the Indonesian government’s disregard for France’s request for clemency regarding its citizen, Serge Areski Atlaoui, who is scheduled to be executed.
The death penalty policy is counterproductive to the fight against drugs because it causes developed nations to lose sympathy for Indonesia. Drug-related crimes are a form of transnational crime that requires close cooperation between developed and developing nations if it is to be successfully combated. If the death penalty continues to be carried out, efforts to garner international support for combating this transnational crime will be hindered due to a decline in sympathy from developed nations toward Indonesia. The support that Indonesia and other developing countries can expect from developed nations includes intelligence to uncover transnational networks of drug producers and traffickers, technological assistance for drug control, and funding for anti-drug research or campaigns.
Indonesia lags behind the Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, and Laos in Southeast Asia. The Philippines and Cambodia have de jure abolished the death penalty in their laws. Thailand has announced that the death penalty will be abolished in its laws in the near future. Meanwhile, Myanmar has imposed a moratorium during the process of signing and ratifying the ICCPR, with the intention of subsequently abolishing the death penalty from its laws. As for Laos, it has maintained a de facto moratorium on the death penalty for more than 20 years. At a conference organized by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Thai government, a Thai representative explained that the death penalty is highly problematic because it tends to involve racial and ethnic bias, lacks empirical evidence of its effectiveness, and involves suffering during the execution process. Indonesia should recognize the trend toward respect for human rights within ASEAN and join in abolishing the death penalty domestically. Furthermore, Indonesia could play a greater role in campaigning for all ASEAN countries to abolish the death penalty. If this were to happen, it would demonstrate the tangible influence of Indonesia as the de facto leader of ASEAN and serve as a diplomatic achievement that Indonesia could highlight in various international forums to strengthen its soft power.
Indonesia’s image as a celebrated new democratic power poised to play a greater role in human rights affairs has been tarnished. Yet Indonesia, along with India, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, and South Africa, is regarded as one of the new democracies hoped to become more trustworthy international actors in advancing global civilization. Currently, due to intense international media coverage of capital punishment in Indonesia, the country is being equated with undemocratic nations that do not uphold human rights—such as many African nations, as well as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and China. The international community’s perception that Indonesia does not respect human rights is highly undesirable because, since the reform movement began in 1998, Indonesia has been striving to improve its human rights record so that we may be viewed as a nation eager to enter a new era with new norms.
Carrying out the death penalty would hinder the achievement of one of the foreign policy priorities under President Jokowi’s leadership. The Indonesian government has established three foreign policy priorities, one of which is the protection of citizens, including migrant workers. Currently, there are 38 Indonesian citizens in Saudi Arabia and 168 in Malaysia who face the death penalty. The Indonesian government has an obligation to protect these citizens by making every effort to ensure that they are not executed. Indonesia can utilize the OIC Human Rights Committee—where Indonesia has a commissioner—to protest the policies of Saudi Arabia and Malaysia. However, the death penalty carried out by the Indonesian government domestically has eroded Indonesia’s legitimacy to engage in such advocacy.
Recommendations
The SETARA Institute recommends that the Indonesian government cancel its plans to carry out the executions of death row inmates and calls on the Indonesian government to implement a moratorium, in accordance with the warning issued by the UN Human Rights Council. During the moratorium, the SETARA Institute recommends that the Indonesian government review legislation that still provides for the death penalty with a view to abolishing it. Furthermore, in line with the principles enshrined in the Indonesian Constitution, the abolition of the death penalty will improve Indonesia’s image regarding human rights, which in turn can serve as a foundation for strengthening Indonesia’s soft power in foreign policy.
Contact Person:
| Hendardi (Chairman of the Board of Directors) | : 0811170944 |
|---|---|
| Bonar Tigor Naipospos (Deputy Head of the Management Body) | : 0811819174 |
| M. Ghufron Mustaqim (Researcher at the Setara Institute) | : 085227995026 |
www.setara-institute.org
@SuaraSETARA
View Publication
Key Findings of Research on Mapping the Political Implications of the Death Penalty on Indonesia’s International Relations