Extradition: Singapore and Ba'asyir<\/p>\n
Patricia Silalahi, Jakarta<\/p>\n
An article about our relations with Singapore which appeared
\nin this newspaper on March 14, entitled Extradition treaty must
\nexclude terrorism by Bambang Widjojanto and Mohamad Mova
\nAl'Afgani was very interesting, and perhaps also controversial.<\/p>\n
The two writers pointed out that an extradition treaty with
\nSingapore could jeopardize national stability as the treaty might
\naggrieve Islamic fundamentalists.<\/p>\n
Their main concerns - apart from the argument that the treaty
\nwould have little impact on eradicating corruption -- is what
\nwill be the government's response if Singapore requests that
\nIslamic cleric Ba'asyir be extradited, once the planned treaty is
\nsigned?<\/p>\n
Widjojanto and Al'Afgani warned readers not to let the
\nextradition treaty backfire on Indonesia. They argued further
\nthat the government may face a national protest when it deals
\nwith politically sensitive issues such as terrorism, considering
\nthat the term has a loose definition.<\/p>\n
An extradition treaty with Singapore is essential for the
\ngovernment. It is a preliminary step in achieving justice and
\nprosperity, two of the five goals on President Susilo Bambang
\nYudhoyono's agenda for the next five year.<\/p>\n
The proposed extradition treaty with Singapore is aimed at
\nhunting down Indonesian corruptors who fled to the city state to
\navoid legal proceedings in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
From this perspective, Singapore has been a haven for corrupt
\nIndonesian bankers. If Singapore, with its relatively clean
\ngovernment reputations has less interest in eradicating
\ncorruption, it is her business. Nonetheless, with the
\ninterdependence brought by globalization, corruption is a problem
\nfor all nations. It is very difficult for Singapore just to
\nrepeat its old arguments about signing such a treaty with
\nIndonesia.<\/p>\n
Widjojanto and Al'Afgani proposed that the planned extradition
\ntreaty with Singapore shall exclude acts of terrorism as an
\nextraditable offense. The provisions of each nation in the treaty
\nmay differ.<\/p>\n
Extraditable offenses, in practice are a source of dispute
\nbetween parties. The United States, for instance requires
\nevidence that the accused has violated the laws of both the
\nUnited States and the country demanding that the person be
\nextradited to face trial in their own country. Meanwhile for most
\nnations in the European continent they will surrender the accused
\nupon a simple demand and will try their own nationals
\ndomestically for crimes committed abroad.<\/p>\n
The international law on treaties was set out in the Vienna
\nConvention on the Law of Treaties, on May 23, 1969. Indonesia is
\na party to this convention and so it applies to each treaty
\nconcluded by Indonesia. Could it be possible to exclude acts of
\nterrorism as an extraditable offense under the treaty?<\/p>\n
Where the Vienna Convention does not apply to a treaty, a
\nstate may refer to customary international law. The Vienna
\nConvention itself codifies customary law and thus is evidence of
\nthe law on the subject. I agreed with Widjojanto and Al'Afgani
\nthat the case of Mohamad Al Farouq's extradition to Guantanamo is
\na violation of habeas corpus rights; an infringement of an
\nindividual's rights in obtaining access to justice.<\/p>\n
But the planned extradition treaty with Singapore and the case
\nof Ba'asyir are two different cases. The international community
\nhas honored Indonesia's sovereignty in bringing Ba'asyir before a
\nlocal court. Therefore it is unreasonable to link the case of
\nBa'asyir with the proposed extradition treaty with Singapore.<\/p>\n
The writer is an Indonesia diplomat. The views in this article
\ndo not necessarily reflect the government's position. She can be
\nreached at patriciabandoro@hotmail.com.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/extradition-singapore-and-baasyir-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}