Human rights and terrorism

Human rights and terrorism

Although deliberations in the House of Representatives on the
government-proposed draft law on terrorism are far from over,
fears currently circulating among the Indonesian public that the
new law, if or when it is passed and enacted, will to some lesser
or greater degree herald a return to the days of military-
dominated authoritarian rule are difficult to quell. And little
wonder.

It was little more than three years ago that Indonesians
managed to throw off their shackles after more than 32 years of
authoritarian rule under president Soeharto's New Order. Having
paid the price in much bloodshed and suffering, Indonesians seem
to find little consolation in the fact that the revised draft
currently being debated in the national legislature promises that
"local" terrorists -- that is to say, Indonesians involved in
activities defined as acts of terrorism but with no political
motives and with no links to foreign or international networks --
will be tried in accordance with the stipulations of the
Indonesian penal code.

The stark reality, however, is that acts of terrorism are
difficult to define with precision, although the effects are
tangible enough, and Indonesians are understandably reluctant to
delegate too much power to the government, given their experience
of the recent past.

In the draft currently before the legislature, the definition
of terrorism includes endangering or threatening the lives of
others, destruction of property, depriving others of their
personal freedom and creating widespread fear in the community.

Abductions are punishable with prison terms ranging from four
to 12 years. Spreading fear in the community for political
purposes is punishable by five to 15 years in prison, and
politically motivated acts of violence that cause the death of
others or the destruction of property are threatened with prison
terms of five to 20 years or in extreme cases with the death
penalty.

Another reason for much concern and misgivings is the proposed
establishment under the law of a so-called anti-terrorist task
force with wide-ranging powers. This task force would be formed
by presidential decree and led by the chief of the national
police. Among other things, the task force would be empowered to
tap telephone conversations of suspected terrorists and detain
people, without due legal process, for up to 90 days, extendible
to three times that period. In short, for many Indonesians the
proposed task force is an unwelcome reminder of Kopkamtib, that
all-powerful security agency of the Soeharto era.

On the other hand, Indonesians hanker after a return to the
old days of peace and tranquility, when sectarian violence was as
good as unknown and life for the majority of people was by and
large easy. Most Indonesians do see the need for some kind of
legislation to enable the authorities to keep troublemakers in
check -- but not at the price of losing their newly acquired
democratic reforms once again.

Besides, Indonesia is a signatory to the UN anti-terrorist
convention and is therefore obliged to take concrete actions in
the global fight against terrorism. Indonesia, in short, is
caught in the same dilemma being faced by most other countries in
the civilized world. It must find the right balance between
democratic freedoms and national security.

This is not an easy task. The one thing we can hope for is
that wisdom and good statesmanship will prevail among both our
legislators and the authorities in order to arrive at a
formulation that benefits both the nation and the individual
citizens of this country. Let us not forget that the fight
against terrorism is an extension of the fight to uphold the most
basic of human rights of the population as a whole.