Government must act on military businesses

Under an increasingly tight budget, would a trust fund, as mentioned on Tuesday by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Tyasno Sudarto, be appropriate to improve soldiers' welfare? Following is an excerpt of an interview on the subject with political researcher Ikrar Nusa Bhakti of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences.

Question: Army Chief of Staff Gen. Tyasno Sudarto said internal reforms in the military would allow the Army to set up trust funds to improve the welfare of its personnel. Your comments?

Answer: We must study the statement carefully. There's a belief among the military that a soldier is allowed to do business beyond the official duty to earn extra income for the family. In the context of military businesses, (the statement) could mean that the military is allowed to engage in business.

We have to question whether it is true that the government is unable to fund the military's equipment, operations and exercises. If the government really does not have enough funds, the real budget must be disclosed.

Q: What is the problem with this disclosure?

A: Since the 1990s, there have been questions raised by some groups in the United States about the military's real budget here. In their opinion, the funds (for Indonesia) from the World Bank in the 1980s were equivalent to the military's funds from the state budget, meaning that the U.S. indirectly supported any operations which abused human rights.

Some have presumed that the funds for the military in the state budget were only 25 percent or 50 percent of their real budget. The remainder was presumed to have come from various military foundations dealing with many businesses owned by military cooperatives.

Q: Do you think the government is able to fund the military?

A: Not 100 percent ... (so) I'm not entirely opposed to their businesses. The problem is whether there has been an international or public auditor which examines the cash flow in the military's foundations and enterprises related to the military, especially the Army.

Q: Are military budgets a secret in many countries?

A: Most countries never wholly disclose this. It's sensitive, especially when it relates to intelligence or overseas operations. There's a kind of secrecy. In some countries which deal with overseas operations, only the prime minister, state treasurer, foreign minister and defense minister have the details.

But Indonesia is quite different. We don't send the military on overseas operations as Indonesia hardly has regional and international political interests (which need the military). If there's something very secret, such as operations relating to national integrity, (the budget) is kept a secret.

Q: Does this mean that the country's military budget is a mystery?

A: I am not sure if the President knows the exact budget. The defense minister and military chief may also have no idea. It's because the military in Indonesia does not have one line of command.

Observe that the Army's Special Force (Kopassus), the Army Strategic Reserves Command (Kostrad) and the Intelligence Unit can arrange funds from anywhere for their own operations by themselves.

Who can disclose the real budget -- official and unofficial -- for operations in Aceh? Who can tell which group took part in the operations, in addition to the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and the Indonesian Military (TNI)? ... (The involvement) could be a policy from an institution, or from an individual because of jealousy toward other units.

Q: So very little is in the open...

A: Yes. We can calculate the amount of (military funds for) welfare, but not for operations. We'll never know the real financial data from the military's foundations. A student of mine is researching the foundations, which shows that a lot of cash rushes easily to top ranking officers but only a small amount to the lower ranks. This is so unfair.

Q: What should be done with the military's businesses when TNI returns to its defense function?

A: The government must decide. China and Thailand are examples; the governments have taken over various assets from the military businesses. It's not a purchase as the assets belong to the country. The government can arrange a kind of compensation, such as extending a payment in the form of a trust fund or eternal funds for soldiers' welfare.

Q: What is the specific problem of funding soldier's welfare?

A: In Indonesia, the military does not mean soldiers for the state but also backers for some segments in the country. Say that the garrison in Jakarta is funded by particular Chinese- Indonesian businessmen. Many soldiers become undisciplined after realizing their superiors are corrupt.

Q: So lack of welfare is not the main factor of indiscipline.

A: Far from it. Many thefts by military officers are the best examples. Many high ranking officers are involved in bigger cases. Just investigate fuel smuggling. It's a game with the (business people) in Singapore, not only in Indonesia. I wonder why the minister of mines and energy (former military officer Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono) has not clarified the case before the House of Representatives.

Q: How do you see the relationship nowadays between President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) and the military?

A: Gus Dur said recently that he didn't want to intervene in personnel appointments in the military. He reportedly said he would just ask the chiefs of staff for some positions. This means he will be able to assign someone he likes below the military chief, to which his prerogative as president does not extend.

This will upset the merit system and will cause favoritism. Then it won't be any different from practices under (former presidents) Soeharto and B.J. Habibie. (I. Christianto)