Democracy needs a capable military and a free press

Kusnanto Anggoro

Senior Researcher Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Jakarta

The media have long been key players in the drama of war. The Spanish-American War of 1898 was provoked in part by a jingoistic American press. Seventy years later, the media played a large role in the Vietnam. The lack of public support for the U.S. war effort was blamed in part on correspondents who adopted a skeptical attitude towards Pentagon war claims.

However, rarely has the work of war correspondents come under the kind of scrutiny that it does today. Expanded war coverage, according to a Harvard professor and former CBC journalist Michael Ignatieff, transforms journalists from observers into protagonists. "More importantly, the manner in which a conflict- related story is covered can influence the course and outcomes of conflicts."

War is inherently volatile and uncertain; and the battle over the hearts and minds of the public occurs not only on the ground, but also in papers, and on radios, and TV screens. Information becomes an important instrument in the war of propaganda. The wider the reach of the media, the more impact the journalist's reporting is believed to have. Those who controls the "facts" that the public receives have an advantage in forming domestic and foreign public opinion.

Let's add the media to the strategist Karl von Clausewitz's trinity of the state, the military, and the people. The role of the media is to be an independent and impartial intermediary between the people and the state by providing objective information. But just as confusing as the politics involved in a counter insurgency operation are the attempts to cover the campaign properly.

The consequences of damaging their credibility can be severe and long-term for both the government and the military. President Megawati Soekarnoputri may face serious problems during her campaign for re-election; the military may be humiliated by a retreat and/or a loss. The government and the military both need to use all available avenues to express their views, but this also carries with it the danger that belligerent groups may misuse the information.

Thus, a battle emerges between the media and the military, resting respectively on arguments about the citizens' "right to know" versus "the right to win". The media argue that people should be kept informed of what the military is doing. The military claims that the public's right to know cannot be placed above, or allowed to threaten, their right to win.

Such differing perspectives are commonplace, even in democratic countries, and there are good reasons for the disparity. Firstly the military needs "secrecy and surprise" for successful operations. They gather information for specific purposes, and tend to withhold material from those not authorized to receive it. The job of the media is to gather information for the widest possible audience, and to disseminate a range of interpretations.

Second, the military values patriotism and loyalty, in part because they work for the state. Meanwhile, the media's loyalties differ because they do not represent government, but seek to provide information, and a record of what happened. The journalist's obligation is to report the news as they see it, not necessarily as government officials, politicians, diplomats and the military would prefer to have it reported.

Such a conflict in professional attributes should not occur. Democracy requires both a capable military and a free press. The first protects, militarily and under government direction, the sovereignty of the state and its democratic values and national interests; and thereby the safety and democratic freedoms of its citizens.

The second performs a similar, if more disputed function, independent of the government, in opposing threats to democratic society and the freedom of its citizens.

In the context of Aceh, these principles appear to be in opposition, in part due to the different agendas that the military and the media hold in the post-Soeharto era. The military has lost its credibility to wage a "clean war", and thus would prefer to publicize only its successes. The media may attempt to influence policy, perhaps even to the point that they appear to form a movement challenging the military.

As a result, the military is eager to call for journalists to slant their reporting deliberately in favor of, say, the unitary state of the republic. They insist on limiting sources of information. The media are wary of restrictions. To them, for information to be more than simple propaganda, citizens should be informed through sources independent of the government.

It has always been difficult to strike a balance between the military and the media. On a basic level, the media may demand that humanity, peace and prosperity be respected. In fact these properties are found in the military, although different qualities may be emphasized in the vocabulary of a just war, unnecessary suffering, and minimizing casualties.

Reporting war has always posed challenges. The guiding principle of the journalist is to tell the truth. Trying to identify what news is helpful or harmful is secondary. This can give the media an aura of benevolence and righteousness. The media therefore should not follow those who report a mythic war simply to sell papers and boost ratings.

For the military, the guiding principle is to win the war while using minimum force. Whether an army is an invading army or an army of liberation can be easily determined by the way it conducts its military operations. An invading army will plan and execute its operations with little regard for the civilian population in the area. In contrast, an army of liberation will plan and execute its operations with due care to limit civilian casualties.

A soldier requires a sense of urgency. Generals should be concerned with the political consequences surrounding conflict. Military force alone will never win a war against rebels, so the military leadership has a broader responsibility than winning the battle. One of the basic principles of the military role in an integrated counter insurgency operation is to create an alternative political space, thus helping fulfill their government's function.

In all such circumstances, people and governments should be unflappable and cautious. Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister during World War II, may be right, in saying that "In wartime, truth is so precious she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." However, restricting the work of the media will only make things worse and possibly lead to the justification of "what is often nothing more than gross human cruelty and stupidity."

The writer also lectures in Strategic and Security Studies at the Postgraduate Studies Program, the University of Indonesia, and is a member of the Propatria, the Indonesian Working Group for Security Sector Reform.