JP\/6\/PHILIPS<\/p>\n
No reason to give
\npower back to the Army<\/p>\n
Philips J. Vermonte
\nCentre for Strategic and
\nInternational Studies (CSIS)
\nJakarta
\npjvermonte@csis.or.id<\/p>\n
The statement made by the Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ryamizard
\nRyacudu last week clearly showed the lack of understanding on the
\npart of the Indonesian Military (TNI) about the nature of
\nobjective civilian control over the military.<\/p>\n
The main reason for this is that the statement had bypassed a
\nchain of command within the military, and may have disrupted the
\nstate of our healthy civilian-military relationship. Such a
\nstatement, which entails a supposedly formal political stance of
\nthe TNI, should have first come from the highest in command.<\/p>\n
In a democratic country, a civilian government would only
\ndiscuss important matters with the Armed Forces' highest in
\ncommand, not with the chief of staff, and not during a press
\nbriefing. Of course no civilian authority has the right to
\nprevent the Army from holding a meeting to discuss the fate of
\nthis country. But it needs to be understood that the TNI, be it
\nthe Army, Air Force or Navy, should channel its ideas to the
\ncivilian authority in a democratic manner.<\/p>\n
It was reported that the statement was made after Gen. Ryacudu
\nheld a closed-door meeting that brought together hundreds of
\nactive and retired top Army officers (The Jakarta Post, Feb. 21).
\nSince it seems that those who attended the meeting were officers
\nthat were building up their career during the New Order regime in
\nwhich the Army enjoyed a great political role, it can be said
\nthat the Army's current leadership, despite all its rhetoric that
\nit was committed to gradually reforming itself, is still longing
\nfor the power that once gave them so many privileges.<\/p>\n
It is interesting to note that instead of consulting with
\nyounger Army officers, such as colonels, Gen. Ryacudu chose to
\ndiscuss the matter with his former superiors. To a certain
\nextent, the statement does not mean anything but the fact that
\nour Army has not really adjusted itself within the new democratic
\nenvironment that has been gradually installed in this country
\nsince the fall of Soeharto's authoritarian regime in 1998.<\/p>\n
Although Gen. Ryacudu stated that the Army's security role had
\nto be reinstated due to threats of separatism and other
\ndisturbances, he seems to forget the very important fact that the
\ntwo issues were adequately dealt with by two laws that were
\nenacted last year by our legislature, namely the laws on defense
\nand the National Police.<\/p>\n
We clearly need to first differentiate the role of the
\nmilitary, not only the Army, during times of peace and war. Law
\nNo.3\/2002 on defense stipulates that during peace, it is the
\nregional governments that are given the role to continuously
\nprepare the resources and infrastructure necessary for national
\ndefense.<\/p>\n
In other words, the territorial function is being seen as a
\ngovernmental function carried out by regional governments, and
\nnot by the Army as it was in the past. In August 2001, a seminar
\norganized by TNI Headquarters and attended by military officers
\nand civilian academics concluded that even if the Army needed to
\ncontinue its territorial function, it would have to be limited to
\nonly training and preparing the soldiers without any right to
\nreach the people in any way.<\/p>\n
The two laws also regulate how to position the military during
\nan emergency. If an emergency, such as a separatist movement,
\nescalates to an open-armed conflict and becomes a military threat
\nto the country, the military might be given a role in handling
\nit.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, the right to define an emergency is held by the
\ndemocratically elected civilian authority, not the TNI. In the
\ncase of Aceh, for example, the Megawati government has so far
\ndecided to pursue diplomatic channels, instead of taking military
\naction, to solve the problem.<\/p>\n
With regard to disturbances, as long as it concerns
\nmaintaining law and order within society, it is the police who
\nhave been authorized to deal with them. However, Law No.2\/2002 on
\nthe National Police stipulates that police officers have to
\nassist the military during an emergency situation.<\/p>\n
Several civilian experts on defense and security-related
\nissues helped draft the two laws, which set a very good precedent
\nin our effort to establish democratic civilian control over the
\nmilitary. However, some circles in our Armed Forces tend to think
\nthat the two laws greatly undermine TNI's power on the one hand,
\nwhile giving more substantial power to the police. In fact, the
\ntwo laws are only following the commitment of the TNI to reform
\nitself.<\/p>\n
In the early days of reformasi, TNI announced what it called a
\n"new doctrine" that, among other things, guaranteed it was ready
\nto share various roles with other state components. It is in this
\nspirit that the two laws were agreed upon, tasking the police
\nwith maintaining domestic security, while the TNI has the
\nresponsibility of safeguarding our country's sovereignty and
\nterritorial integrity and to deal with external threats.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it can be concluded that at the political level,
\nthe issue raised by the Army chief of staff last week had in fact
\nbeen settled long before the statement was made.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/jp6philips-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}