Democracy needs a capable military and a free press

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.