Howard used this line many times to support executions in Indonesia, the United States and Iraq. The idea we would agree with a penalty simply because it was part of another country’s legal system showed a soft spot for post-modern cultural relativism that he never betrayed in his speeches on education and history.
In Howard’s case, his comments on the death penalty were more a matter of clarifying his position, inconsistent as it was. In Rudd’s case, it has been a slow retreat from his rhetoric in Opposition.
In October 2005, in the wrenching lead-up to the hanging of Australian citizen Nguyen Tuong Van in Singapore - as shadow minister for foreign affairs - he addressed Parliament in ringing tones. Rudd told members they were speaking to a clemency motion because they held “one fundamental human value to be true, and that is the intrinsic dignity of all human life”.
Advertisement
“For our policy to be credible, we must apply it universally,” he said. “We must be credible in our opposition to capital punishment as a matter of policy wherever it occurs, whether in the United States, China or Singapore.”
The day after Van Nguyen’s execution, Rudd again stressed it was important our policy on the death penalty was consistent. He said “whether we are talking about individuals in Iraq or Indonesia or elsewhere, our policy has to be consistent”.
Rudd, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Minister for Foreign Affairs Stephen Smith have repeatedly said the Government would only intervene in cases involving Australian citizens.
This would be fine, if it was only a comment about when Australia makes diplomatic or political representations. But in practice it seemed to mean the government would only say a death sentence was inappropriate if an Australian was involved.
Now that Rudd has indicated his satisfaction the Bali bombers will get what’s coming to them, he has effectively said there are times when the death penalty is justified. He is giving a nod and wink to Indonesia to execute the bombers, while arguing only Australian citizens should be spared that punishment.
But he is taking us down one of two dead-ends. One is the argument that Australia and many Asian countries actually agree on the fundamental position that some people, and some crimes, deserve execution. All that is left is to politely disagree on where to draw the line.
Advertisement
The other is the more dangerous road of hypocrisy, where all representations from the Australian Government are dismissed as double standards and special pleading.
Asian countries are sensitive to being lectured by Western governments, but they are just as sensitive to the taint of hypocrisy in the positions taken by those same governments.
If Australia took a consistent position on the death penalty, it would not be committing itself to intervening in every case, including sending in diplomats to argue for the lives of terrorists who killed our people. And it is not megaphone diplomacy to state what Australia believes, as a matter of official policy.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
22 posts so far.