The right to life and Indonesian nationalism Ririn Sefsani and Timo Duile  ;   Ririn Sefsani works for the Partnership for Governance Reform and is engaged in voluntary supporter campaigns for Jokowi (Seknas Jokowi); Timo Duile is a lecturer at the Department of Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Bonn, Germany

JAKARTA POST, 22 Mei 2015

                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                           

When officials and Islamic organizations in Indonesia commented on the Charlie Hebdo massacre, one could hardly find a statement that criticized only the terrorists. A statement on the issue seemed to be incomplete without condemning the cartoonists for their profane caricatures. The magazine is published in France and many Indonesians believe that there should be global standards for the ethics of satire. The Muhammadiyah Muslim organization has urged the UN through the Indonesian government to develop a respective code of conduct. The right to not be insulted by caricatures is seen as a universal human right. With the executions of the Bali Nine duo and others, the very same people were completely contradictory. Instead of defending the universally recognized right to life, they emphasize national sovereignty and the particular ethical conduct of a country. Indonesia, in their point of view, did not have to comply with international human rights in that case, nor did it have to negotiate with other countries. The death penalty is perceived as an expression of national sovereignty. National sovereignty here means the sovereignty of Indonesian laws over international human rights. This nationalist perception leads to a legal positivism that outweighs universal human rights. First president Sukarno’s demand for political sovereignty, economic self-sufficiency and cultural independence is still an ideal of political currents in Indonesia across the board, from right-wing military figures to leftist activists. But as a part of the global community, Indonesia could benefit from the exchange of ideas and international cooperation, and many are not aware that this is already the case: The Bali Nine drug smugglers would never have been caught without the help of and cooperation with Australian authorities. Unfortunately, Indonesia cannot expect that kind of support any more as Western countries usually refuse to cooperate with countries that have the death penalty. Indonesia might be an archipelago, but there are almost no unidentified remote islands on the map of the UN any more. When Indonesian officials and civil organizations call for the universal recognition of the dignity of faith, they also should listen to those in favor of universal human rights. Universal values are not recognized as a priori by all cultures, but recognition requires a process of negotiation and exchange of ideas and arguments. There are many ways to justify the right to life. It can be justified by referring to holy books; it can be justified by referring to human dignity or to natural law. Indonesia should not isolate itself from the discussion about human rights or contrast human rights to national sovereignty. Apart from the right to live, mercy is also common and acknowledged in almost every culture, so why should it not play a more important role in Indonesia’s legal system? What prompted many Australians to demand the right to life for Australian inmates on death row were news reports about Kerobokan prison in Denpasar, Bali. The international community saw the two Australian prison inmates convincingly regretting their crime and engaging in rehabilitation activities. They saw desperate relatives begging for mercy. It was almost impossible not to feel empathy for the men on death row and their relatives. Despite the fact that some Indonesians accused Australia of defending drug trafficking, the war against drugs is also not the aim of just one country, but it is universally acknowledged that drugs are dangerous and selling and consuming drugs should be prevented. Here, Indonesia also can work together with other countries. The Indonesian government delayed the executions until after the recent 60th commemoration of the Asian-African Conference. While the sovereignty of each country was highlighted here, just as in the public discourse in Indonesia – and perceived interference by other countries to protect their citizens on death row were perceived as a rejection of Indonesia’s sovereignty – the spirit of the 1955 conference was quite another case. The first principle in the 1955 declaration on the promotion of world peace and cooperation demanded respect for fundamental human rights and the principles of the UN Charter, including, of course, the right to life. By executing foreign citizens, international cooperation falls prey to nationalism as a political tool for the national elite. Instead of dealing with drug trafficking by implementing police reform to establish an effective tool to fight drug production and trafficking, some drug traffickers are seemingly executed as a political statement. The international community is not an archipelago of isolated islands even if some nationalists might think so. The task of upholding universal rights is much more difficult than claiming particular cultural values. Why not take the right to life and mercy as universal values? Australia and European countries can learn from that value, too. Showing mercy for refugees who are seeking a better life in Australia or in the European Union is also necessary if governments advocate for mercy convincingly. It is time to re-think our common base of values as a global community and overcome nationalism. ●