Editorial: Drugs cases demand diplomacy

Indonesia invariably receives a bad press in the West, and much of that criticism is valid. It is chided over East Timor, Aceh, the corruption of the Suharto era and beyond, its inconsistency in dealing with Islamic extremists and a belligerent nationalism which can turn, unpredictably, on neighbours and competing regional powers. In diplomatic terms, however, its size, volatility and pride make it a nation to be handled with utmost care. Australia has learned the importance of treating its vast syncretic neighbour with respect. The two countries' interests intersect frequently and, at times, uncomfortably closely. Now is one of those times. Not through geopolitics or economics but narcotics.

The twin cases of Schapelle Corby and the Bali Nine, young Australians jailed in Indonesia on drug smuggling charges, present the Australian authorities with competing political demands. In both cases public opinion expresses horror at the prospect of these men and women facing the death penalty, or even life sentences in Balinese jail cells. There are calls in Australia for Government intervention and disquiet over why, in the case of the Bali Nine, Canberra knowingly allowed its nationals to be trapped in the act in a country which boasts: Drugs = Death.

The Corby case has become a cause celebre. Implausibly, she stands accused of importing cannabis into Bali. Her defence is that the drugs must have been added to her unlocked luggage after check-in between Brisbane and Bali. She has sworn her innocence and after seven months in jail now awaits the court's verdict. The plight of the attractive and physically and emotionally vulnerable Corby has fanned a Free Corby campaign, and death threats to Indonesian officials in Australia. Outrage about the Bali Nine does not rest so much on belief in their innocence as in a sense of fair play betrayed. Many Australians believe the federal police ought not to have assisted the Indonesians in capturing the smugglers on Indonesian territory; in essence not to have put Australians at risk of death by firing squad.

At an official level, the heat of public opinion has not yet soured relations between the countries. For Corby, the Foreign Minister Alexander Downer promised to seek clemency if a death sentence was imposed. For the Bali Nine, it is reported that federal police have been restrained from providing further information which might increase the chances of death penalties.

Australia is right to take a considered approach. It must be seen to seek justice in both cases but not to compromise its close relationship with Indonesia in, among other things, fighting cross-border crime, including terrorism. The Government might prefer less extravagant criticism of Indonesia on the airwaves in Sydney or Brisbane, if only not to antagonise the Indonesian judges, but it cannot control public feeling.

This is a time for the deeper workings of diplomacy. There has been talk of a "prisoner swap" in which the countries would perhaps allow these and others to serve their time in their home countries. There would be merit in that if it spares the innocent and foolish from the threat of death. Indonesian justice, so often derided internationally, is unlikely to accept a soft line on Westerners without good cause. The death sentence, in all its repugnance, is seen in that country and throughout much of Southeast Asia as the only way of preventing narcotic anarchy.

Australians and others have criticised Indonesian courts for soft sentences in the Bali bombing cases. It serves no purpose now to put the boot on the other foot and demand softer treatment for these Australians. The Bali Nine, at least, must have known that arrest and conviction could lead to death. Their best hope now is their very number and the diplomatic agility of their Government. For Indonesia, shooting nine of your neighbour's sons and daughters is beyond the pale. Both countries will hope a solution presents itself before it comes to that.