D.J. Webb
Two Australian citizens face execution in Indonesia for drug smuggling, with current indications the pair will receive their lawful punishment on Wednesday (April 29th). They are part of a gang of drug smugglers known collectively as the Bali Nine, although the other members of the gang were sentenced to life imprisonment. Australian outrage has focused on the fact that Indonesia has the temerity to hand down the death penalty to criminals with Australian citizenship. Who do the Indonesians think they are?
Let’s forget the Bali Nine. What about the 250 million people of Indonesia? Indonesia is a sovereign, independent country, and 250 million do have their rights too, to their culture, to their chosen political process, to their chosen judicial process. There should be nothing compulsory about a developing nation signing up to Western-style light punishments.
Drug smuggling is controversial in libertarian circles: one solution to the problem is to legalize the trade. But that is tangential to what I’m addressing in this article, which is Australia’s imperious treatment of Indonesia. Drug smuggling is illegal in Indonesia, and any Australian citizens convicted should get the same sentence as everyone else. To argue anything else would be to demand the end of the rule of law in Indonesia.
For months now, the Australian government has been interfering in the judicial process in Indonesia, demand extra reviews of the penalty and so forth. Australia’s disgraceful foreign minister, Julie Bishop, has made scurrilous claims that Indonesian judges demanded a bribe to commute the death sentences to imprisonment. It seems likely, however, that the political leadership of Indonesia would not allow the local judicial system to be undermined by Australia, and so no payment would be sufficient to commute these sentences. Indonesia points out that Australia has advanced no evidence of corruption in the case. Australia has even leant on the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon to call for a moratorium on the death penalty in Indonesia. Curiously, it seems the UN denies the right to sovereignty of Indonesia.
Neither of the two men is really Australian! One, Myuran Sukumaran is a Sri Lankan Tamil born in Australia, and the other, Andrew Chan, is Chinese, the Australian-born son of Chinese immigrants to Australia. They were convicted in 2006 as part of a multinational gang trying to smuggle heroin into Australia. There are other similar cases in the pipeline. Another convict, Serge Atlaoui, has French citizenship, provoking French threats of “consequences” unless the local rule of law is traduced in Indonesia.
It is time countries like Australia let go. Indonesia is not a colony. It is not a country that really, by rights, ought to be under Western control. I defer to no-one in my admiration of the British Empire, but the Empire is in the past and we must not continue to make fools of ourselves on the world stage by behaving as if we (the Western countries) will forever be in a position to exercise control over the domestic policies of non-Western nations. Australia must let go of the concept of Empire. It must allow it to recede into history.
My sole hesitation over the process is that nine years have passed since conviction, and it would be better for sentence to be executed swiftly, without allowing the passage of many years. Be that as it way, this is Indonesia’s judicial system. Execute the pair on Wednesday, Indonesia, and tell the Australians to take a hike.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Neither of the two men is really Australian! One, Myuran Sukumaran is a Sri Lankan Tamil born in Australia, and the other, Andrew Chan, is Chinese, the Australian-born son of Chinese immigrants to Australia.”
So are you saying that nobody who’s not an aborigine is “really Australian?” If not, what factor other than being born in Australia (as you state these two were) makes one “really Australian?”
You do realize, don’t you, that when you assert Indonesia’s “right” “to their chosen political process, to their chosen judicial process” even to the extent of killing anyone its regime happens to want to kill for any reason, you are thereby ratifying anything and everything that any government, anywhere, might care to do?
Hi, I regard Australia as a European nation.
OK, that explains a lot. Follow-up: Given your just-admitted abject ignorance of both geography and history, why should I believe that you even know where Indonesia is, let alone what its state is or should be entitled to do?
Several thoughts on this:
I regard the execution of any person for a non-violent, non-invasive crime such as possessing drugs or selling drugs to a willing buyer to be a crime against humanity.
Secondly, I specifically consider the worldwide persecution of persons who use, possess, or sell particular drugs that are disapproved of by states or cultural majorities to be a grotesque violation of any reasonable standards of human rights akin to the repression of political dissidents, ethnic cleansing, religious persecution, the misogyny found in certain Islamic societies, or the persecution of homosexuals, albinos, and persons accused in witchcraft in contemporary Africa.
Assuming the defendants in the Bali case are all “guilty” in a legal sense, it can reasonably be argued that they acted foolishly or without regard for their own rational self-interest. The same could be same about someone smuggling religious literature or artifacts into North Korea.
I agree with Thomas that states are essentially criminal gangs writ large who are trying to monopolize turf, and that most states are the product of plunder and conquest. That said, the principles of borders and the sovereignty of nations might have some practical or utilitarian value whatever criticisms could be made of them on a more abstract level.
However, it does not seem unreasonable for individuals holding state offices to use their position to exercise diplomatic pressure on other states for the purpose of preventing egregious atrocities. So far as I know, Australia is not threatening war or economic sanctions on Indonesia. Instead, the Australians are merely attempting to embarrass the Indonesian regime by exposing them for the medieval barbarians they are. If the Australians are somehow able to shame the Indonesians into mending their ways, then three cheers for the Aussies.
There is no such thing as a “crime against humanity”.
Well, on a sufficiently abstract level I would agree with that. Philosophically, I’m a moral skeptic, ethical subjectivist, and cultural relativist in the tradition of thinkers like Stirner, Nietzsche, and Foucault. I agree that human rights is a human construct, and one that only has value because humans assign it value. But if you reject the concept of “crimes against humanity” on even a utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective or socially constructed level, then there’s no barrier to genocide, serial killing, medical experimentation on humans, child rape, etc, etc.etc. I would agree there is nothing “wrong” with these things on an abstract, objective, or cosmic level. They’re “wrong” merely because they conflict with the interests of (most) humans.
Keith,
I suspect that DJ is just rejecting the aggregate “humanity” as something that can have crimes committed against it, as opposed to any given individual having crimes committed against him or her.
Yes, I considered that might be what DJ is arguing. DJ, what say you?
Thomas, the principle of national sovereignty is not in itself libertarian, but allows for pockets of libertarianism to exist. The right of the Indonesian State to kill people for associating with forbidden chemicals is the same as the right of another state to legalise use of those chemicals.
Once individual states are subject to external supervision, they may be pulled up to certain minimal standards of civilised behaviour. But they will also be prevented from rising above those standards.
“The right of the Indonesian State to kill people for associating with forbidden chemicals is the same as the right of another state to legalise use of those chemicals.”
States don’t have rights. People do. That’s why I enclosed the word “right” in scare quotes.
But that was a mere aside. I’m not as interested in Mr. Webb’s opinions on particular international intrigue as I am in his continuous insistence that things are what he decides they are rather than what they seem to be.
He’s decided what “marriage” and “family” mean such that anyone whose marriage doesn’t match his definition is in a “fake marriage” with a “made-up family.” He does have a certain amount of e.g. scriptural basis for holding to such personal definitions.
But now he’s decided that some people who are born in Australia are Australians, while other people born in Australia aren’t Australians, and he seems to have a much less firm ethnic, cultural or historical basis for that definition, such that under his definition the only way to to find out who’s an Australian and who’s not an Australian (or, for that matter, any other nationality) is to ask DJ Webb. Which doesn’t seem to me to be a very sound way of defining nationality.
I do not believe in this “war on drugs” with executions and so on.
Nor am an admirer of the Indonesian government – with its wild spending President and so on (although that applies to a lot of other countries – not just Indonesia).
However, I do not believe in war (or other conflict) based on the domestic policies of another country. If Indonesia was threatening Australian national security interests, by all means threaten them with X,Y, Z – but not over this.
But no one forced these Australian citizens to go to Indonesia – they were not abducted, they went there voluntarily. And the laws of Indonesia (and Singapore and so on) are well known.
It would be like me going to Saudi Arabia and then selling booze and pork.
After my (inevitable) arrest, the British government should NOT make threats to get me released.
“You would feel differently if the Saudis put a rope round your neck Paul” – perhaps I would, but if I want there voluntarily (and knew in advance what the punishment for my actions would be) it is not sensible for the British government to make threats on my behalf (although they are free to politely urge my release – if they wish to do so).
Ditto Indonesia.
By the way I do not regard Australia as either part of Europe or part of Asia.
It is a Pacific nation – as is New Zealand.
For example – one of the 50 States of the United States is NOT part of the North American continent (Hawaii – which is in the Pacific).
Paul claims his Merit Mark for geography – although few people remember what a school “Merit Mark” is anymore.
To be fair, I think what Mr Webb really means is that he does not want Australia to have an open door immigration policy – because it would demographically (not geographically) became part of Asia, indeed part of Indonesia (the nearest part of Asia – and with a high birth rate).
Then the laws of Australia would become like the laws of Indonesia – because Australia would be part of Indonesia (a nation with some ten times its population).
It is hard for me to understand how anyone who has stood on the borders of the Third World (as I believe both Thomas Knapp and myself have), could possible support a “no borders” policy.
But then different people observe the same situations and draw radically different conclusions – some people (such as me) see a threat to the non aggression principle by removing border defences, other people (such as Thomas) see those border defences themselves as a direct violation of the non aggression principle (by violating freedom of movement).
I suppose it is a different estimate of the intentions of the people on the other side of those borders.
I see the intentions of very many (not all) of those people as hostile, Thomas would fundamentally disagree.
“It is hard for me to understand how anyone who has stood on the borders of the Third World (as I believe both Thomas Knapp and myself have), could possible support a ‘no borders’ policy.”
I’m unaware that I’ve ever stood on any borders, Third World or otherwise. I regard borders as no different than, and worthy of no more or less respect than, any other gang’s turf lines.
The problem is not whether these fellows are Australian or from Upper-JipooPooland or from somewhere else. There are two separate and unrelated problems here, and the “degree of Australian-ness” of the blokes in question is not relevant.
The problems are:-
(1) That all states like to have something object or habit that’s desired hugely by most people, something that they can then criminalise to varying degrees depending on their culture; it’s the “Find Out What All The People Like, And Then Order Them To Stop It under Criminal Penalties. Because It’s _For Us_ and _Not for Them_ .”
(2) Criminalising “drugs” allows modern “busy states” to get to look busier. They can please the United NatioNazis (Paul Marks are you watching? I said “Nazis again, old man) in this way, by employing lots of semi-intelligent wall-eyed-goons as “police” in cool uniforms and having guns (mostly) and going after “those who corrupt people especially _the children_ “. Children have been State Property for some time in the UK for example, but as yet nobody has really noticed.
Some States are institutionally-authoritarian, and like to do lots of this sort of stuff. I suspect Indonesia is one of these. there may be a “religious” aspect to this too, such as “Moslem states” disapproveing of alcohol, which is nice, or disapproving of girls showing parts of their bodies in a general way, which is also nice and is natural as was the case with cavemen.
In “Merseyside” for example, the fact that drugs are criminalised gives the Police Authority almost unlimited funds to hire policemen, who can tear about in chequered BMW racer-estates at all times, have a helicopter to wake you up at 2am by its hovering, and can hang around near “clubs” in the Small Hours – for purposes that you can only guess at for I will not say. This carries on, for the “North Western Cities’ Crime Bosses” who all live in “Hillside” (look it up) in gated and armoured homes, are needed for the continuance of “police employment in the area.”
If I was an Australian of whatever degree we’re discussing here, and I wanted to go to Indonesia or Malaysia, then I’d decide that being alive beats being dead bu a lot, and I’d not be caught with “drugs” on me, when going in or out of (countries which I would rather, if I had to, handle with a very long spoon.)
But anyway, why would I want to go to Indonesia anyway? I can see it on Google-Earth. What would you go there for? I do not know. Sorry; it’s a mystery to me. Perhaps these poor wretched condemned people took a bad decision – the decision to go to Indonesia. Nobody forced them.
If you go to another country, abide by its laws, or face the consequences. There is far less concern shown for men convicted of sex crimes allegedly committed over forty years ago than there is for these people who are undoubtedly guilty of the crimes of which they were convicted in Indonesia.
What Australia should have said is this:-
Listen up dudes.
We send two million tourists a year to “Bali” (wherever that is) from The West. These people need drugs. To dance in your discotheques that you provide with mixing desks designed by British engineers and made in China. You sell them alcohol there anyway, because you earn money.
We don’t and you don’t want to have to shoot dead two million western Teenage backpackers a year for bringing in their own drugs to Bali, as it would be bad for trade, and you’d look a bit strange even to the UNNazis (Paul are you listening?)
So how about letting a few traders in with the drugs, and out again and then everybody’s happy? When a libertarian British government decriminalises all drug trading and use globally, then you can fire the Policemen concerned and use the revenue for another Gold Bed, or a tank from France.
I will make no more than these totally random observations:
1) The “offence” that they have been convicted of would not exist in a free society.
2) The criminal process in this case appears at best to have been somewhat rough and ready, with some odd inconsistencies.
3) The Indonesian government has made a quite grotesque theatre of the run-up to these executions.
4) I am not sure that Indonesia is generally associated with the concept of the rule of law.
5) If one says “the law is the law” , “if you can’t do the time don’t do the crime” etc as far as Indonesia is concerned, one might equally well say the same about any law duly enacted in any country at any time. Are we thus to regard Solzhenitsyn as a criminal? After all, nobody made him write that letter; perhaps indeed he was stupid to do so.
6) The last thing a state should be entrusted with is the power to execute anyone.
7) I hope none of these people is executed – but I am not optimistic.
As I said, if you want to go discotecking on your gap year in hot places, then Liverpool and Manchester are probably safer; and you don’t even have to fly there for 20 hours and then be searched on arrival by wall-eyed-goons with guns, since these places are down the road. And the only wall-eyed-goons you’ll face are the Ethnic White British “bouncers”…And if you’re a woman, they’ll “let you in for nothing”….specially if you’re part of a gaggle of 14-year-olds flashing your “iphones”.
Much safer than going to Indonesia, to be shot. You can also get the beaches and discotheques and alcohol in Blackpool, and a pint is less than £2.50 still, even in the summer. I don’t think you can be allowed to camp on the beach though, for tidal reasons.
In other words, governments,according to D.J Webb, have right to enslaved their citizens.
I have no objection to you use the word “Nazi” for “National Socialist” David. Although I am confused as to why you use the term for people who are not actually National Socialists – but you may argue they are in some respects.
However, why are you not using the word for people who really did support the propaganda of the National Socialists?
People such as the late Dr Harry Elmer Brown – or Murray Rothbard, who took the lies of Dr Brown and spread them in libertarian circles (as well as personally praising Dr Brown to the skies – see his obituary for the vile scumbag, and many other bits of writing).
And if you are going to call Dr Brown a Nazi (as well as the United Nations and the Guardian newspaper and so on) why do you not call Sean Gabb a “Nazi”?
The Dr Brown view of the First World War – check that was backed by the National Socialist government of Germany (they also helped Dr Brown financially) and it is backed by Sean Gabb.
The Dr Brown view of the Second World War – ditto that is the Murray Rothbard view and the Sean Gabb view.
The Dr Brown view of the Cold War – ditto that is the Murray Rothbard view as well as the Dr Kolko view and the Dr Gabb view.
Now I must stress that I would NOT call Sean Gabb a Nazi – not, not, not.
But by your loose use of the word “Nazi” David – you (not me) should be calling Sean Gabb a Nazi.
Perhaps it is time for you to adopt my more restricted use of the word “Nazi” for people who actually believe in National Socialism – rather than throw around the word “Nazi” quite so loosely.
There is more to being a “Nazi” than just parroting nonsense about the First and Second World Wars (as Sean does) or parroting nonsense about the Cold War (as Sean does also), or even pretending that “the rich”, the “capitalists” and “big business corporations” (“Corporate Liberalism” and all that tosh spread by the late Dr Brown and the late Dr Kolko and picked up by the late Dr Rothbard) control the British and American governments (the Nazis spread these lies just as much as the Communists do).
If this was all someone had to push to be a “Nazi” then YES Dr Sean Gabb would be a Nazi (and so would Kevin Carson) – but there is something rather more to being a “Nazi” than this.
One actually has to believe in National Socialism to be a Nazi – and, therefore, Sean Gabb is NOT a Nazi. And, to be fair, this means that Kevin Carson is NOT a Nazi either.
Small correction: I believe the “Elmer Brown” you’re referring to was actually named “Elmer Barnes.”
This is something we agree on.
While I dislike the US government as much as Murray Rothbard ever did, the point of a lot of “historical revision” seems to be to arrive at the position which makes that government look its worst, whether the actual facts bear out that conclusion or not, even to the point of praising — or at the very least letting off the hook — other regimes which are at least as bad, and usually worse (e.g. the Confederate States of America, the Third Reich, the North Vietnamese, etc.).
Thomas — His name was “Harry Elmer Barnes.” And Paul knows that perfectly well; he’s gotten it right in his other postings mentioning the man. (One in the last few days in fact.) It was just a short between brain & keyboard .
As to your main point: Well said. :>)
Paul, could you perhaps be more specific about what Sean says about WW1 and WW2 that you disagree with? It would help me if you could attach a summary of refs to your post about this, that I could look straight up and see what I think about what Sean has said.
That does not mean I would instantly start to disagree with Sean, since I pretty-much know what he thinks and writes, and I have not so far demurred. Indeed; I have often come round to positions he takes, which I previously disagreed with (eg the Iraq War and Afghanistan.) But it would help if you could cite chapter and verse about what you say that you think he’s said.
Would you say that for example, Paul, the “Scottish National Party” is Nazi, or what is it?
My apologies Thomas – my “word blindness” can hit when I am not working to keep it in check.
Yes it was Barnes not Brown.
And I agree about the Slave Power and the other cases.
One does not have to be a fan of Lincoln (a Henry Clay Whig who I would NOT have supported at the Convention of 1860) still less of Woodrow Wilson or Franklin Roosevelt (both of whom I detest) to see the truth about the Slave Power of Jefferson Davis and co, and the truth about the expansionist aims of Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
I hope that people who have served the American government in the past (whether citizens like yourself – or non citizens such as me) do not have illusions about it. “Lesser evil” does NOT mean “good”.
David “could you be specific about…”
Oh for bleep’s sake David – you know perfectly well what I am talking about and you have known for years.
As for the Scottish National Party.
Do I believe they are a deeply nasty, indeed evil, group of people?
Yes of course I do.
But do I believe they are “Nazis”? No I do not.
David how can someone be a Nazi if they do not hold the National Socialist view of Jews?
Anti Semitism was not an optional extra of the National Socialist movement – it was the heart of it.
And the anti Israel position of SNP is not quite the same thing. Although, yes, a “deal with Iran” (and the rest of the stuff they support) would result in the murder of millions of Jews – this is NOT the intention of the SNP policy.
After all Sean Gabb also supports a deal with Iran – is he a Nazi?
An SNP Scotland would not send troops to round up Jews and send them to the gas chambers.
Although, of course, Rothbard’s hero Harry Elmer BARNES denied the Germans did that – at least not as a specific policy of extermination.