The Death Penalty, The War on Drugs, Rule of Law and National Sovereignty

Today we hear that China has executed Akmal Shaikh for drug smuggling.

Firstly Mr Shaikh was executed. He was not presenting an imminent threat to life or limb but was taken from a cell or secure room in a facility well capable of containing him and killed in cold blood. Like an individual, the State can, in certain circumstances, take life. But this is usually limited to situations of immediate ongoing threat to existence, as in a defensive war against an external aggressor. This is no such case. Had there been no death penalty, any discussions about mental health could go on and, hopefully, be resolved. Now it cannot.

Secondly, Mr Shaikh was smuggling drugs. The whole war on drugs is irrational and counter-productive. It enriches drug lords, impoverishes and criminalises users who, frankly, probably have enough on their plate as it is, and drives up crime to fund habits and maintain "turf". It should not have been a crime outside that of, possibly, tax evasion of duty or VAT.

Thirdly, China is a sovereign nation. It has poor and sometimes non-existent Rule of Law, but that fact remains. It is the role of the Chinese people to effect change in that dimension and not for "Western governments" to demand anything*. Having said that, it is NOT the right of the Chinese authorities to, in turn, demand that no criticism be made of their actions. Such protests sound shrill.

If people outside of China want to make a stand then make it as individuals using the means available within the Rule of Law. Some call for a boycott of Chinese goods, but then again is it the responsibility of private companies in China? Even if China had multi-party democracy, how would one know that a particular manufacturer and their hapless employees (and suppliers, come to that) were supportive of the regime and policy and so be responsible? Collective punishment is disgraceful. Period. One must be very clear about who is being targeted and the unintended consequences of such actions.

So, we have a man convicted of a non-crime, convicted without due process and sentenced to an illegitimate punishment, but by a Sovereign Nation.

What would a Libertarian government do? We would put our case against the death penalty and the futility of the "war on drugs". We would put our case for the Rule of Law. This was not some extra-judicial outrage, however. I would ask all those who want the State to "do something" to consider how you would react if a foreign power or group tried to dictate or use force to control how our courts dealt with a case in the UK. Not acceptable. For us. For China.


* As for Brown and our embarrassing, quisling, limp and routinely toadying F&CO response...one wonders if certain elements intentionally act to weaken our position and undermine influence, so eager to play in a bigger pond.