ANALYSIS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DEATH PENALTY TO DRUG DEALERS

TOWARD DIPLOMACY AND PUBLIC RELATIONS BETWEEN INDONESIA - AUSTRALIA

Written by
Wira Arif Budiman
Department of International Relations, University of Indonesia
E-mail: budimanarif642@gmail.com

Abstract
Enforcement of the death penalty to drug dealers in Indonesia under the leadership of
President Joko Widodo era has raised the pros and cons in the international world. Drugs
are belong to serious crime that has been agreed jointly by the United Nations (UN) based
on the Convention on Narcotics of 1961 in accordance with the amendments to the protocol
in 1972, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971, and the Convention Against
Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988. One of the main
content of the Convention of 1988 is stated that without prejudice to the legal principles of
each, the States parties of the Convention will take the necessary measures to establish as
a crime any illicit trafficking in narcotics and psychotropic substances. In other words, States
parties may impose criminal penalties to drug dealers, including the death penalty. However,
in practice, the death penalty on international drug dealers done by Indonesia was criticized
and challenged by other countries such as Australia, France, Brazil, and Philippines,
because of their citizens were sentenced to death by Indonesian court. Even after the death
sentence was conducted, Australia formally withdrew its ambassador from Indonesia where
it never happened before. The diplomatic relations between Indonesia-Australia was full of
tense. Additionally, the issue was also getting a very big concern among the community of
both countries. To analyze this phenomenon, the author uses reciprocal interaction approach
through constructivism paradigm in understanding how the implementation of the death
sentence by Indonesia to the international drug dealers from Australia, influencing on
diplomacy and public relations between them.

Keywords:
Indonesia, Australia, the UN convention, the death penalty, drugs, diplomacy and public
relations.

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
I.1 Background
Since the last few decades, Indonesia has been in a state of emergency on narcotic drugs.
Dealers and drug addicts tend to increase every year. The drugs have ruined not only the
physical but also the morale of the young generation. The danger of the drugs has become a
very sensitive issue not only among the stake holder, but also the community.
Nowadays, the drug trafficking has no boundaries. The drug dealers are not only at national
level but also international. The drug which enters Indonesia comes from land, sea and air.
Transportation that is used to supply it could be containers, fishing boats, speed boats,
passenger ships, etc.
Commitment of drug eradication in Indonesia was very low by the end of 2009. 1 It could be
proved by the weak of law enforcement and the verdict was too "soft" on the drug dealers. It
made them unafraid to what they did. Instead in some cases, it was found that some drug
dealers could run their business behind the jail.2
As mentioned above, the drug trafficking has reached international level and become the
world's attention. To address this problem, the United Nations had carried out several
conventions including the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961. This convention
was followed by 73 countries and produced three recommendations; one of them is doing all
necessary efforts to combat the spread of drugs. 3 The result of the convention was then
amended by the 1972 Protocol.
The Convention in 1961 was followed up in the Convention on Psychotropic Substances,
held in Vienna from January 11 to February 21, 1971, followed by 71 countries, plus four
countries as observers.4 The Convention was intended to control LSD (Lysergic Acid
Diethylamide), MDMA (Methylenedioxy-Methamphetamine), and a variety of psychoactive
pharmaceuticals.
After that, the UN was also having further Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 as a reaction caused by the high concern on
increased production, abuse of demand and illicit trafficking, as well as the fact that children
and adolescents was targeted as user market in illicit narcotics and psychotropic
substances, as targets for production, distribution, and trading of narcotic drugs and
1 Patrick Gallahue and Rick Lines. The Death Penalty for Drug Offences. (London: International Harm Reduction Association,
2010) pp. 30.

2 http://news.liputan6.com/read/2213946/freddy-budiman-gampang-tawarkan-narkoba-melalui-wartel-penjara (accessed on 12
of November 2015, at 01..20 pm).

3 United Nations. The International Drug Control Conventions. (New York: United Nations, 2013) pp. 8-9.
4 Ibid., hal. 71-72.
2

psychotropic substances. The convention was attended by 106 countries, including

Indonesia.5
The results of those conventions mentioned above then ratified by Indonesia. The first is the
ratification of the convention of 1961 which amended the appropriate protocol in 1972 and
1971 conventions in Law No. 8 of 1976. The second is the ratification of the convention of
1988 in Law No. 7 of 1997.6
When Joko Widodo (mostly called as Jokowi) was elected and sworn as the President of
Republic Indonesia on October 2014, the drums of war and the maximum penalty for drug
dealers was adopted; the death penalty. The Presidents commitment refers to one of NAWA
CITA, to reform the system and law enforcement, including the eradication of drugs. 7 Since
the first day served as President, Jokowi remain consistent and fully support the
implementation of the death penalty to combat drug trafficking in accordance with applicable
law in Indonesia and international law.
However, in reality, the practice of the death penalty to drug dealers has been criticized and
challenged by the international community. The criticism and challenges generally come
from the stakeholders whose citizens on death sentences such as Australia, France, Brazil
and Philippines.
The reaction was first demonstrated by the Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott (before
he was replaced on September 2015). Prime Minister Abbott threatened that if the death
penalty is still carried out to convict Australian citizen, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan,
the relations between the two countries will never be the same again. 8 Even after the
executions, Australia formally withdrew its ambassador from Indonesia, so that the
diplomatic relations between them is full of tense.
Australia considers that the death penalty violates human rights, while Indonesia argues
otherwise in accordance with the conventions described above. Australia assumption as
same as the opinion of the abolitionists who based their argument on several grounds. One
of them is the death penalty is a form of degrading punishment and contrary to human rights.
Based on the argument, then many countries abolished the death penalty in its criminal
justice system. Until now, 97 countries have abolished the death penalty. The member
countries of the European Union banned the death penalty based on Article 2 of the Charter
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in 2000. Furthermore, the UN General
Assembly in 2007, 2008, and 2010 adopted non-binding resolutions which called for a global
moratorium against the death penalty. Optional Protocol II of International Covenant on Civil
5 Ibid., hal. 113.
6 http://news.detik.com/berita/2898310/sekjen-pbb-kecam-indonesia-mk-hukuman-mati-pesan-konvensi-internasional
(accessed on 12 of November 2015, at 01.32 pm).

7 Jokowi Dodo & Jusuf Kalla. Jalan Perubahan Untuk Indonesia Yang Berdaulat, Mandiri Dan Berkepribadian: Visi, Misi dan
Program Aksi. (Jakarta, 2014) pp. 4.

http://www.bbc.com/indonesia/forum/2015/04/150429_forum_eksekusi_mati_diplomatik (accessed on 13 of November 2015,

at 08.05 pm).

and Political Rights/ICCPR finally banned the use of the death penalty in the involved
parties.9
Debates and differences of opinion on issue of the death penalty did not only occur at the
level of leadership, but also the community level. Both communities of Indonesia and
Australia were divided into two major groups; pros and cons. The issue became popular
among the people because in addition to human rights issues, it was also a matter of
national sovereignty. No one has the right to intervene another country in any field, including
the law.
Based on the phenomena, the author considers that it does necessary to conduct further
research and analysis related to the issue. It refers to the dynamics of diplomacy and public
relations between the two countries. Indonesia and Australia are members of the United
Nations and uphold the values of democracy and human rights. Both countries have mutual
respect for sovereignty and existence each other. However, the good relationship that has
been established was suddenly broken up because of the issue of the execution done by
Indonesia to the two international drug dealers of Australian citizenship.
I.2 Limitation of Problem
The limitation of problem proposed by the author in this paper is how the implementation of
the death penalty in Indonesia to Australian drug dealers influences on diplomacy and public
relations between the two countries.
I.3 Objectives
The purpose of this paper is to understand how the effect of the death penalty towards
diplomacy and public relations of both countries regarding the issue. Furthermore, the author
wants to understand the extent of the significance and implications of state to state and
people to people relations after the executions are carried out. Besides, the author is also
challenged to examine the constructivism paradigm in analyzing the phenomenon; is
constructivism relevant and can be implemented in analyzing the dynamics regarding the
issue or not.
I.4 Theory
I.4.1 Justification of Theory
Constructivism is a paradigm other than realism and liberalism to explain the phenomenon of
international relations. Constructivism is a theory that emphasizes the social aspect, not
materially as neorealism. The constructivists believe that the social world, including
international relations is the result of human construction. 10 While Reus-Smit (2001:195-196)
states that constructivism was also born to answer some interesting questions concerning
international politics such as changing dynamics of international issues, the nature of
9 http://setkab.go.id/pro-kontra-hukuman-mati-bagi-pelaku-kejahatan-narkoba/ (accessed on 12 of November 2015, at 08.35
pm).

10

Robert Jackson and Georg Sorensen. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010) hal. 307.

institutional practices, the role of non-state institutions and human rights problems.
Therefore, constructivism has a very broad sense and depth to understand.
In addition, constructivism could change a system. If the thoughts and ideas that enter into
international relations change, then the system itself will also change, because the system
consists of thoughts and ideas. That is the view behind the oft repeated phrase by
constructivist experts.11
To understand the dynamics of international relations between Indonesia and Australia
relating to the issue, the author uses the theory of constructivism called as reciprocal
interaction approach as proposed by one of the experts of social constructivism; Alexander
Wendt.
Wendt gives a new perspective in analyzing the dynamics of international relations among
countries. In his article, Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power
Politics (1992), Wendt tries to build a bridge between the two traditions, they are the realistliberalist and rationalist-reflectivist to develop a constructivist argument, taken from
structuralism and symbolic sociology interactionist, on the liberal claim that international
institutions can change the identities and interests of states.12
Furthermore, Wendt has several strategies to build his theory. They are purposed to argue
Neorealist claim that self-help is given by the anarchic structure exogenously to be then
processed. According to him, self-help and power politics do not follow either logically or
causally from anarchy and the fact that today we find ourselves in self-help world, it is all
because of process, not structure. Self-help and political strength is an institution, not an
important characteristic of anarchy. Anarchy is what states make of it. 13 In other words,
anarchy is not inherent in the international system, but only the creation of the state in the
system. Instead, based on constructivist view, anarchy is not given; it is formed by the
person itself.
The author agrees with Wendt to explore the role of constructivism in analyzing the behavior
of a country. In his article, Wendt examine the claims and assumptions of neorealism,
building a positive argument about how self-help and political forces is socially constructed
under anarchy, and then explores three ways in which identities and interests are
transformed by institution of sovereignty, evolution of cooperation, and intentional efforts to
transform the individual identity into a collective identity.14
I.4.2 Description and Operationalization of Theory

11

Robert Jackson dan Georg Sorensen. Pengantar Studi Hubungan Internasional: Teori dan Pendekatan. (Yogyakarta:
Pustaka Pelajar, 2014) pp. 365.

12 Alexander Wendt. Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. (Massachusetts: the World
Peace Foundation and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1992) hal. 394.

13 Ibid., pp. 395.

14 Ibid.
5

As described above, Wendt tries to argue the neorealist explanation about the self-help
world, in this case, a theory given by Kenneth Waltz. He develops his argument through
three stages. First, he outlines the concept of self-help and anarchy by showing that the
concept of personal interests of security is not a constitutive property of anarchy. Second, he
shows that how self-help and competition for political power may be causally created by the
interaction process between the countries in which anarchy plays only as a permissive role.
Third, he reintroduces the first and second images factor to assess their influence in the form
of identity in various types of anarchy.15
Wendt establish a chart of how the action of one state against another is a result of the
process. Suppose there are two states, ex; state A and state B. State A has an
understanding of the intersubjective and expectations possessed based on the
constitution/law that forms its identity and interest. State A has the stimulus requiring action.
Then, based on the identity, interest, and stimulus to perform an action, states A defines a
situation. The situation then followed up with action taken by state A. After that, state B
interprets the actions of state A and they have their own definition of the situation. Finally,
state B also takes an action to respond it.

The above description is called as reciprocal interaction. In other words, we create a social
structure relatively to define our identity and interest. Here is the chart made by Wendt to
illustrate it:

INSTITUTIONS

State A with identities

and interest

PROCESS

(1) Stimulus requiring action

(2) States As definition of the

situation

Intersubjective
understanding and
expectations
possessed by and
constitutive of A and B

(3) State As action

(4) States Bs interpretation of

As action and Bs own
definition of the situation
15

Ibid., pp. 396.

State B with identities

and interest

6
(5) State Bs action

FIGURE 1. The codetermination of institutions and process

Source: Wendt, Alexander. Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of
Power Politics. (Massachusetts: the World Peace Foundation and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 1992) pp. 406.

I.4.3

Model Analysis

INSTITUTIONS

Indonesia with
identities and interest

Intersubjective
understanding and
expectations
possessed by and
constitutive of
Indonesia and
Australia

PROCESS

Rampant of drug dealers

Drugs destroy the young
generation

Indonesia states the emergency

of drugs

The death penalty to drug dealers

Indonesia violates the human

rights
Drug dealers do not have to be
sentenced to death

Australia with
identities and interest

Withdrawal of the Australian

ambassador
Pros and cons of the Australian
community about the withdrawal
of the Australian ambassador
Pros and cons of the Australian
community to evaluate
cooperation, halting of funding,
and boycott the trip to Indonesia

CHAPTER II
ANALYSIS
II.1 Differences of intersubjective understanding of the Constitution and Legal Aspects Related
to the Death Penalty to Drug dealers between Indonesia-Australia
Based on article 1, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of 1945, Indonesia is a country of law.
Constitution of 1945 is the highest constitution, therefore there should be no statute or legal
product underneath that goes against it. The Constitution that force in Indonesia is shaping
the identity and interests of the Indonesian people. It is then binding on all Indonesian
citizens or foreign people who live in Indonesia.
Drugs and the circulation are illegal and contrary to law. It refers to Article 60 of Law No. 5 of
1997 and Act No. 35 of 2009 on narcotics. Therefore, whoever does the activity of drug
trafficking or distributing it will be subject to criminal sanctions in accordance with the
provisions of applicable law.
According to Law No. 35 of 2009 Article 114, paragraph 2 states that the sellers, the buyers,
intermediary or recipient drugs could be sentenced maximally and that is the death penalty.
This is in accordance with international law which refers to the UN convention on narcotics
which have been ratified by Indonesia as explained in the background. The results of the
Convention states that the drug is a serious crime, therefore, it needs to be addressed in a
serious way.

Unlike the Indonesian law that drug dealers could be sentenced to death, in Australia, the
maximum punishment is life imprisonment.16 The abolition of the death penalty in Australia
was begun in 1973 and as part of the abolition of the Death Penalty Act of 1973; the death
penalty was not applied again under the Law of the Commonwealth and Territory. Then on
October 2, 1990, Australia reiterated its opposition to the death penalty at the international
level by ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty, which is effective from July 11,
1991. Then on December 19, 2007, Australia sponsored and supported the UN General
Assembly resolution calling for a halt to death penalty as a first step towards abolishing the
death penalty completely.17
The law that force in Australia is an intersubjective understanding and expectations that are
owned by the Australian constitution. It then forms the identity and interests of the Australian
community. Therefore, it is normal if the Australian government strives to protect its citizens
that face the death penalty abroad.
However, Indonesia is a strong state that has full sovereignty. Sovereignty is a fundamental
concept in international law. The principle of sovereignty is an integral part in the principles
of equality and territorial integrity as set out in Chapter 1 Article 2 of the UN Charter. In
addition, based on the main points of the contents of the UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic
in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988, states that without prejudice to the
legal principles of each, States Parties of the Convention will take the necessary measures
to establish as a crime any illicit trafficking narcotics and psychotropic substances.
Therefore, Australia has no right to intervene the rule of law in Indonesia. Moreover, all the
rights and legal defense has been given widely to their citizens. Therefore, when the guilty
verdict has been charged by the Indonesian court, Australia should respect it.
II.2 Reciprocal Interaction Process between Indonesia-Australia regarding the Death Sentences
to Drug dealers of Australian citizenship
After analyzing the differences of intersubjective understanding between Indonesia and
Australia from the viewpoint of the constitution and the law, then the author would like to
explore the processes and dynamics that occur between the two countries. As described
previously, Indonesia has declared war against drugs. In other words, the war is addressed
to drug dealers who distribute it illegally which then sold to the public, especially the young
generation. Statistics show that by the year of 2014, the drug addicts stand at 4 million
people, where 33 people die per day.18 This is the stimulus requiring action for Indonesia in
responding the issue.

16 https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/about-sentencing/maximum-penalties (accessed on 14 of November 2015, at

00.15 am).

17 http://www.antaranews.com/berita/480901/lika-liku-australia-menghapus-hukuman-mati (accessed on 15 of November

2015, at 00.34)

18

http://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20150224051535-12-34325/bnn-pengguna-berkurang-indonesia-masih-daruratnarkotik/ (accessed on 15 of November 2015, at 07.50 am).

Then, based on the stimulus requiring action, Indonesian defines his own situation (States
A's definition of the situation) by stating that the country is in drugs emergency. It shows that
the country is very critical where drugs have been rampant and entered all ranges.
Therefore, it needs further action to overcome the situation.
To respond it, the Indonesian Government under the leadership of President Jokowi
committed to uphold the death penalty to drug dealers (State A's action). In this context, the
death penalty has been sentenced to Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, two of
Australian drug dealers. Before the execution is carried out, Prime Minister Abbott
persuaded President Jokowi directly in order to give a pardon to Myuran Sukumaran and
Andrew Chan. Spokesman for the Prime Minister said that the Australian Government has
sought to prevent the execution of two of its citizens in Indonesia. Then on January 20,
2015, Prime Minister Abbott wrote a letter to President Jokowi to receive a request for
clemency for Sukumaran and Chan. But, the request was rejected by President Jokowi on
February 2, 2015, by stating that Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan to be executed in
February although the exact date has not been set. Furthermore, on February 9, Todung
Mulya Lubis, the lawyer for both of them, was trying to sue the State Administrative Court on
the refusal of Presidential pardon. In fact, the Attorney General Muhammad Prasetyo said
that the lawsuit could not be done because the pardon is prerogative of President. 19 It
caused the tension between the two countries increased.
It triggers a strong reaction from the Australian government by stating that if the death
penalty remains to be implemented, it means that Indonesia has violated human rights. In
addition, Prime Minister Abbott also stated that "we hate the drug, but we also hate the death
penalty. Frankly, we are fed up with the possibility of the execution. 20 The statement is an
interpretation of the Indonesia action and how Australia defines the situation by itself (States
B's interpretation of A's action and B's own definition of the situation).
Finally, after some delay, the process of execution to Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan
remain to be implemented. The execution took place on Wednesday, April 29, 2015, early
morning in Nusakambangan Island.21 After the execution, Australia formally recalled its
ambassador to Indonesia. The decision was announced by Prime Minister Abbott and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs Julia Bishop in Canberra, Australia, just a few hours after the
execution. Prime Minister Abbott assesses that the implementation of the execution of eight
drug convicts, including two Australians as an act of 'cruel' and 'unnecessary actions'. Then,
Minister Bishop also said, summoning its ambassador in Jakarta was meant to show the
displeasure of his country related to the treatment received by Australian citizens in
Indonesia.22

19 http://regional.kompas.com/read/2015/04/29/06330021/Ini.Kronologi.Kasus.Narkoba.Kelompok.Bali.Nine (accessed on 14
of November 2015, at 08.00 am).

20
http://internasional.kompas.com/read/2015/03/04/05413531/Duo.Bali.Nine.Dipindah.ke.Nusakambangan.Tony.Abbott.Geram
(accessed on 15 of November 2015, at 09.37 am).

21

http://www.jpnn.com/read/2015/04/29/300913/Indonesia-Eksekusi-Mati-8-Terpidana-Mati-Kasus-Narkoba (accessed on 15
November of 2015, at 10.02 am).

10

In addition, the Australian people also showed mixed reactions after the death sentence was
carried out. Most deplores the execution, while others support. Even the public response
over the withdrawal of the Australian ambassador was also varied, not all public support the
measures of Prime Minister Abbott. However, for people who denounced the death
sentence, they argue that the Australian government should review the some cooperation
and financial aid to Indonesia, as well as there is the plan to boycott travel to Bali. The
reaction of the various measures is actions taken by Australia (State B's action).
II.3 Significance of Implementation of the Death Penalty against Drug Dealers toward Diplomacy
and Public Relations between Indonesia-Australia
In general, most of the Australian people do not oppose the execution. According to a survey
conducted by Roy Morgan on 2,123 Australians during 23 to 27 January 2015, there was 52
percent of respondents agreed the execution to be done, which 48 percent disagree. What
was also surprising, it turned out that 62 percent of respondents requested the Australian
government to stop blocking efforts the policy of Indonesian government regarding the
execution.23
It means that the survey which represents the Australian people has the same page with the
majority view of Indonesian people. Referring to a survey conducted by Indo Barometer from
14 to 22 September 2015 showed that the majority people (84.9 percent) agreed to the
death sentence given to drug dealers, disagree by 8.6 percent, and the rest (6.5 per cent)
did not know/no answer.24 It indicates that the people of both countries agreed that the
enforcement of the death penalty was required and the Australian people respect the law
enforcement in Indonesia.
However, what happens at the community level (people to people) is different from what
happened at the state level (government to government). Not long after the execution,
Australia formally withdrew its ambassador in Jakarta, Paul Grigson. Withdrawal of the
Australian ambassador did not make the Indonesian government worried. Even President
Jokowi responded by stating that this is the rule of law Indonesia, the sovereignty of law is
fixed price.25 It means that even though Australia withdrew its ambassador, it would not
change the minds of the people and government of Indonesian and the practice of the death
penalty remain to be done in the future.
Furthermore, there was an issue that Australia would stop assistance to Indonesia as a
protest. However, the Indonesian government again did not bother on the news. Spokesman
22 http://setkab.go.id/australia-tarik-dubes-presiden-jokowi-ini-kedaulatan-hukum-kita/ (accessed

on 15 of November 2015,

at 11.15 am).

23

http://www.jpnn.com/read/2015/01/29/284383/Survei-di-Australia-Dukung-Hukuman-Mati-Terpidana-Bali-Nine (accessed
on 16 of November 2015, at 00.22 am).

24 http://news.detik.com/berita/3040771/survei-84-persen-publik-mendukung-jokowi-eksekusi-mati-pengedar-narkoba
(accessed on 16 of November 2015, at 00.51 am).

25

http://news.detik.com/berita/2901234/australia-tarik-dubes-jokowi-ini-kedaulatan-hukum-kita (accessed on 16 of November

2015, at 01.15 am).

11

for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Arrmanatha Christiawan Nasir, said that Indonesia is a
country that purely construction funds come from internal budget. Indonesia is no longer a
country that needs assistance for development costs. Nevertheless, Indonesia appreciates
the assistance provided by Australia as an effort to increase cooperation between the two
countries.26 It means that the development of Indonesia uses its own expense, but still
always respecting assistance from other countries, including Australia.
Conversely, the withdrawal did not affect the economic cooperation between the two
countries. Vice President Jusuf Kalla stated that the withdrawal is only temporary, only takes
about one or two months. The recall only signifies a protest. The Vice President added that
Indonesia imports more from Australia. It means that Australia will lose more than
Indonesia.27 It indicates that Australia is in need of Indonesia, especially in terms of
economic cooperation.
In fact, the thing was also recognized by Australia as stated by Minister Bishop. According to
her, Australia and Indonesia are close friends and neighbors. The two countries cooperate in
various fields such as human trafficking, drug trafficking, trade, education, commerce,
scientific research, law enforcement, and many others. 28 The statement shows that the
cooperation with Indonesia has a very important meaning for Australia.
Some people in Australia were concerned about the extreme attitudes of Australian
government who withdrew its ambassador. According to a survey conducted by the Lowy
Institute for International policy shows that the vast majority of Australians wanted a limited
response related to the execution and concerns over damage of Australia's relations with its
closest neighbors. In a poll conducted from 1-3 May 2015, there were only 42 percent of
respondents who agreed with the withdrawal. Further, only 28 percent of respondents who
support the delay of Australian aid projects in Indonesia and only 27 percent of respondents
who agreed with the postponement of military cooperation with Indonesia and law
enforcement. Then, only 24 percent of respondents who agreed that the Australian
government gives trade sanctions to Indonesia. The more appropriate way that get a lot of
support is limited of diplomatic protests which supported by 59 percent of respondents.
When the respondents were asked with the choice of the duration of the delay extension of
normal diplomatic relations with Indonesia, 51 percent of respondents chose the time
between 1-4 months and 34 percent chose a longer time. Even as many as 71 percent of
respondents clearly stated that the execution of the duo "Bali Nine" would not make them to
boycott the travel to Indonesia or buy various products from Indonesia. 29 It indicates that the

26

http://www.cnnindonesia.com/internasional/20150507182104-106-51936/isu-australia-hentikan-bantuan-kemlu-ri-kitatidak-butuh/ (accessed on 12 of November 2015, at 02.00 am).

27

http://news.okezone.com/read/2015/04/29/337/1141867/jk-penarikan-dubes-australia-enggak-ngefek (accessed on 17 of
November 2015, at 04.10 pm).

28 http://indonesia.embassy.gov.au/jaktindonesian/TR15-003.html (accessed on 16 of

November 2015, at 04.30 pm).

29http://internasional.kompas.com/read/2015/05/07/18382351/Survei.Sebagian.Besar.Warga.Australia.Sesalkan.Penarikan.D
ubes.dari.Indonesia (accessed on 17 of November 2015, at 09.15 pm).

12

majority of Australians people wanted diplomatic relations between Indonesia and Australia
become normal again just like before.
The pressure of majority of Australian people to their government got a good result.
Australia's ambassador to Indonesia, Paul Grigson, had returned to Jakarta five weeks after
he was pulled by Prime Minister Abbott. According to the Australian government, Grigson
arrived in Jakarta on Monday, June 8, 2015.30 Grigson returned to continue his duties as
usual. Prime Minister Abbott stated that relations between Indonesia after the execution
become even stronger. It is based on the very importance of the relationship between
Indonesia and Australia. Even Australia has considered Indonesia as a good friend for
Australia.31 In addition, according to Minister Bishop, the reassignment of Grigson is a good
intention of Australia to restore the relations with Indonesia.32
Finally, relations between the two countries was completely recovered once Malcolm
Turnbull replaced Tony Abbott as Australia's New Prime Minister after winning at the internal
vote in the Liberal Party on Monday, 14 of September 2015 at Parliament House, Canberra,
by a margin of 10 votes. Turnbull received 55 votes, while Abbott only 44. According to
ambassador Grigson, Turnbull's election as the new leader in the Australian government
could actually strengthen the relationship between two countries. Prime Minister Turnbull is
very keen to establish a strong relationship with Indonesia. 33 Same like Australia, Indonesia
is committed to continue to work together and build friendships closely with Australia, such
as in the field of economics and diplomacy.

30

http://www.bbc.com/indonesia/berita_indonesia/2015/06/150610_indonesia_dubes_australia (accessed on 18 of
November 2015, at 10.00 pm).

31 http://news.liputan6.com/read/2249405/pasca-eksekusi-duo-bali-nine-hubungan-ri-australia-semakin-kuat (accessed on 19
November 2015, at 04.15 am).

32

http://international.sindonews.com/read/1010762/40/australia-kembali-kirim-paul-grigson-ke-indonesia-1433857021
(accessed on 20 of November 2015, at 04.30 am).

33

http://news.liputan6.com/read/2319778/dubes-australia-pm-turnbull-ingin-mempererat-hubungan-dengan-ri (accessed on
21 of November 2015, at 05.00 am).

13

CHAPTER III
CONCLUSION
The dynamics of international relations between Indonesia and Australia that happened after
the execution to Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, only occur at the state level. On the
other hand, the relations at the people level did not have a significant impact. It was based
on mutual respect for the sovereignty of both countries. In fact, the withdrawal of the
Australian ambassador to Indonesia was only about five weeks. After that, Paul Grigson was
sent back by the Australian government to assume his duties as ambassador. Furthermore,
Prime Minister Tony Abbott declared that after the executions carried out, the relations
between the two countries even more powerful. Australia considers that Indonesia is a close
friend to them.
When Tony Abbott was replaced by Malcolm Turnbull as Australia's New Prime Minister in
September 2015, the relations can be said to be completely recovered. Prime Minister
Turnbull stated that Australia wants to boost economic cooperation and diplomatic relations
with Indonesia. It indicates that the execution of drug dealers will not have a significant effect
even at the state level when the leadership is changed.
The author assume that the reciprocal interaction approach which proposed by Wendt in
analyzing the dynamics of the relationship between Indonesia and Australia through
constructivism paradigm based on the thoughts and ideas related to this issue is very
implementable, relevant and accountable. When insistence that emerged from the Australian
people itself to restore the relationship with Indonesia, the policy of the Australian
government was finally changed. The actions taken by a country occurs because of a
process. This proves that anarchy is not happening because of the structure or given, but
anarchy is what states make of it.

14

Bibliography
Gallahue, Patrick; and Rick Lines. 2010 The Death Penalty for Drug Offences. London:
International Harm Reduction Association.
Jackson, Robert; and Georg Sorensen. 2010 & 2014. Introduction to International Relations:
Theories and Approaches ed 3 & 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jokowi Dodo & Jusuf Kalla. 2014. Jalan Perubahan Untuk Indonesia Yang Berdaulat,
Mandiri Dan Berkepribadian: Visi, Misi dan Program Aksi. Jakarta.
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2001. Constructivism, in; Scott Burchill, et al. Theories of International
Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
United Nations. 2013. The International Drug Control Conventions. New York: United
Nations.
Wendt, Alexander. 1992. Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of
Power Politics. Massachusetts: the World Peace Foundation and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
http://news.liputan6.com/read/2213946/freddy-budiman-gampang-tawarkannarkobamelaluiwartel-penjara
http://news.detik.com/berita/2898310/sekjen-pbb-kecam-indonesia-mk-hukuman
pesan-konvensi-internasional

mati-

http://www.bbc.com/indonesia/forum/2015/04/150429_forum_eksekusi_mati_diplomatik
http://setkab.go.id/pro-kontra-hukuman-mati-bagi-pelaku-kejahatan-narkoba/
https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/about-sentencing/maximum-penalties
http://www.antaranews.com/berita/480901/lika-liku-australia-menghapus-hukumanmati
http://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20150224051535-12-34325/bnnpenggunaberkurang-indonesia-masih-darurat-narkotik/
http://regional.kompas.com/read/2015/04/29/06330021/Ini.Kronologi.Kasus.Narkoba.Kelomp
ok.Bali.Nine
http://internasional.kompas.com/read/2015/03/04/05413531/Duo.Bali.Nine.Dipindahke.Nusa
kambangan.Tony.Abbott.Geram
http://www.jpnn.com/read/2015/04/29/300913/Indonesia-Eksekusi-Mati-8-TerpidanaMatiKasus-Narkoba
http://setkab.go.id/australia-tarik-dubes-presiden-jokowi-ini-kedaulatan-hukum-kita/
http://www.jpnn.com/read/2015/01/29/284383/Survei-di-Australia-Dukung-Hukuman-MatiTerpidana-Bali-Nine
15

http://news.detik.com/berita/3040771/survei-84-persen-publik-mendukung-jokowi-eksekusimati-pengedar-narkoba
http://news.detik.com/berita/2901234/australia-tarik-dubes-jokowi-ini-kedaulatan-hukum-kita
http://www.cnnindonesia.com/internasional/20150507182104-106-51936/isuaustraliahentikan-bantuan-kemlu-ri-kita-tidak-butuh/
http://news.okezone.com/read/2015/04/29/337/1141867/jk-penarikan-dubes-australia
enggak-ngefek
http://indonesia.embassy.gov.au/jaktindonesian/TR15-003.html
http://internasional.kompas.com/read/2015/05/07/18382351/Survei.Sebagian.Besar.WargaA
ustralia.Sesalkan.Penarikan.Dubes.dari.Indonesia
http://www.bbc.com/indonesia/berita_indonesia/2015/06/150610_indonesia_dubes_australia
http://news.liputan6.com/read/2249405/pasca-eksekusi-duo-bali-nine-hubungan-riaustraliasemakin-kuat
http://international.sindonews.com/read/1010762/40/australia-kembali-kirim-paul-grigson-ke
indonesia-1433857021
http://news.liputan6.com/read/2319778/dubes-australia-pm-turnbull-inginmempererathubungan-dengan-ri

16