Have Three Prime Ministers Really Failed Schapelle Corby?

It really is hard not to have a chuckle when stories like this wend their way into the media. Admittedly, Lawyers Weekly is not the most mainstream of media, but it is a publication that shares the concerns and voices of lawyers. So, in that sense, Kerry Smith-Douglas is a lawyer, she does represent the Corby Family in Australia (as far as I can tell), and there are interesting legal issues to be discussed and debated in this case.

Unfortunately, the significant issues that need to be debated here are not whether John Howard, Kevin Rudd, and now Julia Gillard have failed Schapelle Corby. The reality that the talking head that is Kerry Smith-Douglas fails to comprehend is that there are protocols and methods to the madness that constitute international relations that do not include successive Australian Prime Ministers jumping up and down on the spot and shaking their fingers at the democratically elected president of the Republic of Indonesia saying "give us back our girl or else!"

There is nothing funny about Schapelle Corby's case nor the predicament that she finds herself in. Kerobokan Prison is not a great prison to be doing a 20-year stretch in for smuggling drugs into the sovereign state of Indonesia. However, Kerobokan is not the worst prison in Indonesia nor is it the worst prison in Asia. Nevertheless, there are many people who think she has done enough time and it is time that she came home to Australia. Yet, it would be irresponsible to suggest that all Australians are in support of Schapelle Corby's repatriation to Australia, because they are not. There are still significant numbers of people, at least anecdotally, who argue "if you do the crime, you do the time".

This post is not about the technicalities of her conviction. If you want to read those posts then search this blog using the term "Schapelle Corby". Justice in this case was served in Indonesia. The cold hard reality that some refuse to accept is that the alleged crime occurred in Indonesia, Corby was arrested in Indonesia, she was prosecuted in Indonesia and she has been jailed in Indonesia since her conviction. The case was appealed pursuant to Indonesian law and these appeals ultimately failed. The case has be subject to judicial review and this failed to alter the result. The final step in this process is an appeal for clemency, this is pending a decision by the president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY).

It is a little bit weird to now start blaming this outcome on successive Australian Prime Ministers, isn't it? This case went belly-up, it was cactus, it was poisoned way before any of the past three Australian Prime Ministers could have conceivably launched a successful intervention. What remains now is some pretty solid bilateral lobbying and diplomacy. I am sure there will be those out there who want to jump in and argue that being silent has not served their cause well. Maybe this is so, but to be honest, I have not heard silence in this case since the outset. This has been a media circus from day one.

Final point, I am not going to argue that the best solution for Corby is to wait for a prisoner transfer agreement. However, that remains an option. The best bet is some form of humanitarian clemency from the Indonesian president that sees Corby's sentence slashed to time served. The most likely outcome is that she will be released having done at least 10 years of her sentence. Therefore, the clemency appeal will be successful in gaining a reduction in her sentence to about 15 years. Then with continued remissions for good behaviour, Corby will see freedom as early as 2014.

The problem here is not three successive Australian Prime Ministers failing Schapelle Corby, the problem has always been one of bad advice in the critical first few days after arrest.

I hope she is released immediately and returns to Australia as a free woman.

Ho hum...

Howard Snubbed for the Status Quo?

It would seem that being a cricket tragic and the former Prime Minister of Australia for 10 or so years are not qualifications enough to be rubber-stamped as a vice president of the International Cricket Council (ICC). The current format sees a rotational policy in operation where the vice-presidents rotate through the presidency of the ICC.

Unfortunately, for the former PM and self-declared cricket tragic, the powers that be aligned against him and have seemingly thwarted his attempt for a chair at the big table.

I am not sure that this should necessarily be seen as an insult to either John Howard or to Australia. The wash-up of this is likely to focus on a desire of some nations to keep the status quo, perhaps even some might want to discuss that the corrupting nature of power is at work here where vested interests are not going to allow the organisation to be cleaned up. There have been charges in the past that corruption is rampant in cricket and that the ICC does not have the desire or the power to clean it up.

There is one thing for sure, John Howard would be coming in all guns blazing. But, this is all hypothetical now as his nomination has hit the skids big time.

Too bad, but Ho Hum...

A Schapelle Corby Story With A Twist

In light of the first half of the new documentary about Schapelle Corby and her trip into Kerobokan prison hell in Bali, "Schapelle Corby: The Hidden Truth", the Transport Workers Union are now demanding an apology from Corby's legal defence team. The demand for an apology stems from the defence's contention that the drugs were planted in Corby's boogie board bag by corrupt baggage handlers who were part of an international drug smuggling operation.

Tampoe was fired from the Corby defence team after she was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years. Maybe there is an axe to grind or this is a fella looking for another 15 minutes of fame. The photo is of Robin Tampoe.

Robin Tampoe, who was part of the defence team and by his own account the architect of this particular defence strategy, has admitted that the whole strategy was a complete fabrication and a figment of his obviously broad imagination. The unsubstantiated allegation definitely defames all baggage handlers and suggests that there is a culture of corruption in Australian airports that allows for such things to occur. Now that this sleazy little allegation has been clarified as nothing more than one man's vivid imagination should an apology be forthcoming. Simple answer, probably not.

The other Tampoe claim relates to the former Foreign Minister in the Howard government, Alexander Downer. Tampoe claims that Downer was more aware of what was going on than he ever publicly stated. The claim includes a suggestion that Downer said there was a need to look at the brothers. The Foreign Minister was undoubtedly briefed as were his staff about what was going on. The case had a high profile and involved an Australian citizen overseas facing charges that were likely to see her do serious jail time. Is it possible that Downer took a special interest in the case? It is possible but how active an interest has been played down by Downer himself on the radio over the last couple of days. Nevertheless, the former Foreign Minister has admitted that he did ask if there was any other family members involved. A simple question though is hardly evidence of any particular interest.

Life goes on!

Does Rudd's Vision Change Australian Policy on RI?

This is an opinion piece from today's Jakarta Post. I re-post it here for the reason that the writer is a personal friend and one of the people that provided me with my education on Indonesia. Despite our often differences in opinion, he is one of the few people I trust to give me the low down on why my opinions are wrong or misguided!

It is also interesting to see how a long-term expatriate Indonesian views the way Australia deals with its nearest and biggest neighbour.

Eko Waluyo , Sydney Thu, 06/12/2008 10:18 AM Opinion

The visit of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to Indonesia from June 12 to 14, along with his trip to Japan, aims to advance Australia's economic and security interests. His ambition to create an Asia-Pacific community by 2020 is a sign Australian foreign policy will focus on engaging Asian countries.

Whether his vision will be a success or not, he is willing to bury Howard's idea of being the U.S. deputy sheriff in the region. Rudd wants to reassure the Asian countries they can be comfortable with Canberra under Labor.

Paul Keating said in 1994 that "no country is more important to Australia than Indonesia", where economic and security cooperation was the focus of bilateral cooperation rather than human rights and democracy issues. As a result, his dictum could be translated as "no country is more important to Australia than Soeharto's regime".

Indonesia today is much different than when Keating was in office. National and local elections are held regularly and the military's role in sociopolitical life has been eliminated in certain cases. Keating's road map to cement the relationship with Indonesia expired after Soeharto's departure; however, the Rudd government should take the social and political transformation in Indonesia as the foundation to build a genuine relationship.

The Labor government in Canberra now has the potential to develop a bilateral relationship with Indonesia by learning from Keating's and Howard's paths, with Canberra possibly playing a role to strengthen democratic processes and human rights.

There are several places Rudd's government can play a significant role. Issues that need to be addressed when Rudd meets President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono include whether Australian aid can be effective to eradicate poverty in Indonesia and create equal rights for citizens, how the half-heartedness of Jakarta to address the problem in Papua has created mistrust among Papuans toward Jakarta, and how to support security sector reform, particularly among the Indonesian Military and the National Police.

The culture of egalitarianism within democratic systems like Australia exists because of the country's social security system among citizens. The consequence of the 1998 economic crisis created unemployment and widespread poverty in Indonesia. There are 37.2 million people living in poverty without basic income and other social securities. Despite the economic growth of 6.2 percent, there is a big shortage of jobs. Human rights must include access to employment and economic security.

Kevin Rudd has promised to increase Australia's overseas aid program from 0.3 percent of GDP to 0.5 percent by 2015 as Canberra's part in the global movement against poverty. If aid is subordinate to foreign policy, it's hard to believe aid will effectively address these substantial problems.

Indonesia is among the biggest recipients of Australian aid, but this program is more about cementing intergovernmental relations (especially after the 1999 rupture over now Timor Leste) and most aid programs are delivered by Australian businesses (called "boomerang aid" by critics).

Several regencies in Indonesia (Jembrana in Bali, Makassar in South Sulawesi, Kupang in East Nusa Tenggara, Blitar in East Java and more) have been implementing social programs in health and education. Australian aid should support similar programs in other regencies.

When Jakarta introduced the 2001 law on Papuan special autonomy, the message was clear that education, health and unemployment would be addressed. In addition there would no longer be human rights abuses and past abuses would be addressed to destroy the culture of military impunity.

But the presence of so many troops in the province has only created conflict with local communities, and as a result Papuans do not have the power to exercise their democratic rights. Health and education infrastructure does not meet their requirements. In addition Papua is no longer a major issue in the eyes of Jakarta's ruling political elite and special autonomy is not fully implemented as a consequence.

Kevin Rudd's genuine commitment to support special autonomy for Papua should be proved by addressing the Papuan issue with his Indonesian counterpart.

The transformation from three decades of authoritarian role (where the military was able to control social and political life) to democratic transparency is an impressive change in 10 years. Security sector reform is part of the political agenda for further democratization, through legal regulations to put the military under democratic institutions and turn the police into civilians. However, security sector reform is just beginning, and here international cooperation can play a role.

Rudd's first salvo in foreign policy was to sign the Kyoto Protocol and promise to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq. The most crucial aspect is whether he is willing to differ with Washington's policy. Is he also willing to change past patterns of supporting the Indonesian armed forces regardless of human rights concerns, the pattern seen under Keating and Howard?

Howard's legacy on security cooperation with Indonesia needs to be evaluated. Especially in an era of military reform it is inappropriate if Australian forces train with Kopassus. In addition, the police cooperation should go beyond counterterrorism because the police need a new democratic paradigm.

Kevin Rudd's vision to promote an Asia-Pacific Community should not only be about economic and security issues that especially benefit Australia but also about economic security and human rights in Asia. In regards to Indonesia, the Asia-Pacific community should articulate the reform of the security sector.

The writer is a program coordinator of Indonesian Solidarity, a nonprofit organization that support human rights in Indonesia and Sydney -- Australia