‘Je suis Charlie?’ Maybe. Iam Jokowi? Definitely Jonathan J Ariel  ;   A contributor to onlineopinion.com.au where this article, in a different form, first appeared

JAKARTA POST, 23 Januari 2015

                                                                                                                                     

It’s pretty darn simple when you think about it. Whenever a nation faces a threat to its national security, how its leadership and citizens respond will decide two things. First, will the threat be destroyed? And second, if not destroyed, will it at least be repelled? Two republics, France and Indonesia, offer very different approaches to very similar problems. Following the twin terror attacks in Paris, many in France and around the world claimed they were with the magazine Charlie Hebdo (Charlie Weekly). “Je suis Charlie,” they hymned. It was fashionable to join a large crowd while nibbling on pains au chocolat and march up pretty tree lined Parisian avenues denouncing terror and at the same time revealing they were clueless about just how to fight terror. At the same march, the more resolute but far, far less in number, held up different banners: “Je suis Hyper Casher” (I am the Kosher Supermarket), indicating they too were appalled by the killings, but they preferred to stand with a less chic sector of society, the Jewish community. Both protesting groups made a point. And that point was what they were against. Sadly neither made clear just what they would do to ensure they achieved a nation without terror. And their leader, French President François Hollande, wasn’t much better. Contrast this with Australia’s good friends in South East Asia. This is a corner of the world that can identify threats as well as properly respond to them. This part of the world does so in a style that reflects its cultures and its principles. And yes, this approach differs markedly from Western culture and values, but that doesn’t make it any less valid. Take drug trafficking as an example. In a few weeks, the Republic of Indonesia will execute two Australian heroin smugglers, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. Good riddance to bad rubbish. There is no disputing their guilt. Everyone agrees on the facts: as part of the so-called “Bali Nine”, they were arrested in Denpasar on April 2005, faced trial, were charged with violation of Articles 82(1)(a) and 78(1)(b) of Law No. 22 of 1997, were found guilty and given sentences of varied imprisonment and sentenced to death by firing squad. What some in the West, including Australia, object to is Indonesia’s sovereign right to penalize drug traffickers as it sees fit. Somehow, Western do-gooders are convinced that they know better what harm the drug trade causes in Indonesia and what is the appropriate penalty. The editorial of Jan. 14 in the Courier-Mail, a tabloid published in Brisbane, summed up the mood of much of Australia’s media. It shrieked that the two ringleaders “do not deserve firing squad”. While that view may be broadcast loudly, it is far from being the only view. Many Australians understand that Indonesia is a sovereign state with its own laws and a legitimate right to apply those laws as it sees fit. The same Australians who would lecture Indonesia on what penalties to impose on drug traffickers would surely not stand for Indonesia telling Australia how to treat Indonesians who broke our domestic laws, even if what the Indonesians did in Australia was not criminal in Indonesia. Australia officially rejects the death penalty. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has done as many in the media, parliament and lobby groups expected of him. He conveyed his opposition ad nauseam, chronically badgering the Indonesians and when he wasn’t, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop put in her teo rupiah’s worth. Critics of Indonesia’s death penalty ignore the reality that had Chan and Sukumaran succeeded in their wickedness and flooded the streets of Denpasar, Melbourne or Sydney with their 8.3 kilograms of heroin, then an inestimable number of lives would have been forever destroyed as a result of using, dealing, overdosing on heroin, or given the ghastly nature of the drug industry, killing or being killed. Most nations agree that drug trafficking poses a major threat to the international community and that the scourge of drugs weakens the moral fiber of a society. Where nations differ is in their response to those causing the problems. Putting aside the debate as to whether capital punishment deters others, 32 countries and territories including Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and the United States, choose to remove the cancer of drugs by having capital punishment on its books and applying it when the circumstances warrant. Executing persons involved in the trade, be they king pins or mere mules, at the very least extinguishes the likelihood that they will re-offend. The more “sophisticated” Western elites apparently believe instead of death, the taxpayers (Australian? Indonesian?) should be milked for say 25 years at US$60,000 per year to house, clothe and feed each one of these offenders. Southeast Asia is a leading drug producing area. With this come great responsibilities for governments to solve drug trafficking and its illicit use. Anti-narcotic laws of Indonesia allow for preventive detention, the seizure of major drug traffickers and the confiscation of passports of convicted drug traffickers. Most Indonesians warmly embrace capital punishment, being the next logical step in the republic’s arsenal in its war on drugs. Indonesia’s new President, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, elected in mid 2014 explicitly campaigned on a platform of showing zero tolerance to drug smugglers. He considers drug crimes to be very serious as well as a clear and present danger to Indonesia’s national security and social fiber. Australia may well oppose the death penalty wherever and wherever it is imposed and as sure as night follows day polite objections are lodged. Critics of Indonesia in the West are free to voice their opinions in a friendly, non-threatening manner. And many do. However they are not free to meddle in the legal system of another sovereign state. If the executions go ahead as planned, the world will be a better place. Fewer Indonesians and Australians will be condemned to commence an addiction to heroin. And fewer will deepen their dependence on that narcotic. Unlike the French, Indonesia has identified a threat, developed a strategy to take it on and has exhibited the courage to tackle it head on. Witnessing France’s all-at-sea approach to fighting terror fills very few with confidence that France will be victorious. While Indonesia’s approach, even to its critics strongly persuades that it shall in time defeat drug runners. And it will slowly but surely get its drug problem under control. So, Je suis Charlie? Maybe, but I’m not sure. Saya Jokowi? Definitely. I am Jokowi. ●