Extradition: Singapore and Ba'asyir

Extradition: Singapore and Ba'asyir

Patricia Silalahi, Jakarta

An article about our relations with Singapore which appeared
in this newspaper on March 14, entitled Extradition treaty must
exclude terrorism by Bambang Widjojanto and Mohamad Mova
Al'Afgani was very interesting, and perhaps also controversial.

The two writers pointed out that an extradition treaty with
Singapore could jeopardize national stability as the treaty might
aggrieve Islamic fundamentalists.

Their main concerns - apart from the argument that the treaty
would have little impact on eradicating corruption -- is what
will be the government's response if Singapore requests that
Islamic cleric Ba'asyir be extradited, once the planned treaty is
signed?

Widjojanto and Al'Afgani warned readers not to let the
extradition treaty backfire on Indonesia. They argued further
that the government may face a national protest when it deals
with politically sensitive issues such as terrorism, considering
that the term has a loose definition.

An extradition treaty with Singapore is essential for the
government. It is a preliminary step in achieving justice and
prosperity, two of the five goals on President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono's agenda for the next five year.

The proposed extradition treaty with Singapore is aimed at
hunting down Indonesian corruptors who fled to the city state to
avoid legal proceedings in Indonesia.

From this perspective, Singapore has been a haven for corrupt
Indonesian bankers. If Singapore, with its relatively clean
government reputations has less interest in eradicating
corruption, it is her business. Nonetheless, with the
interdependence brought by globalization, corruption is a problem
for all nations. It is very difficult for Singapore just to
repeat its old arguments about signing such a treaty with
Indonesia.

Widjojanto and Al'Afgani proposed that the planned extradition
treaty with Singapore shall exclude acts of terrorism as an
extraditable offense. The provisions of each nation in the treaty
may differ.

Extraditable offenses, in practice are a source of dispute
between parties. The United States, for instance requires
evidence that the accused has violated the laws of both the
United States and the country demanding that the person be
extradited to face trial in their own country. Meanwhile for most
nations in the European continent they will surrender the accused
upon a simple demand and will try their own nationals
domestically for crimes committed abroad.

The international law on treaties was set out in the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties, on May 23, 1969. Indonesia is
a party to this convention and so it applies to each treaty
concluded by Indonesia. Could it be possible to exclude acts of
terrorism as an extraditable offense under the treaty?

Where the Vienna Convention does not apply to a treaty, a
state may refer to customary international law. The Vienna
Convention itself codifies customary law and thus is evidence of
the law on the subject. I agreed with Widjojanto and Al'Afgani
that the case of Mohamad Al Farouq's extradition to Guantanamo is
a violation of habeas corpus rights; an infringement of an
individual's rights in obtaining access to justice.

But the planned extradition treaty with Singapore and the case
of Ba'asyir are two different cases. The international community
has honored Indonesia's sovereignty in bringing Ba'asyir before a
local court. Therefore it is unreasonable to link the case of
Ba'asyir with the proposed extradition treaty with Singapore.

The writer is an Indonesia diplomat. The views in this article
do not necessarily reflect the government's position. She can be
reached at patriciabandoro@hotmail.com.