JP/ /tni
JP/ /tni
War on terror benefits only TNI, or the nation?
Tiarma Siboro
The Jakarta Post/Jakarta
Despite the precious little progress the Indonesian Military
(TNI) has achieved in the area of internal reform, it has does
have something to be proud this year: the lifting of the arms
embargo by the United States.
The U.S. decision last November was linked to George W. Bush's
global war on terror. It came after President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono met Bush and ordered the TNI to actively assist
National Police in fighting terrorism.
It was clear however that the lifting of the 14-year embargo
on arms sales to Indonesia had nothing to do with the TNI's
achievement in boosting its track record in human rights issues.
Aside from that, some analysts believe the decision might have
been a U.S. move to prevent Indonesia from seeking military
supplies from other countries, especially Russia.
The arms ban was imposed in 1991 after TNI soldiers shot dead
hundreds of mourners in Timor Leste (formerly East Timor). It was
extended due to human rights violations linked to the military-
backed militia rampage also in East Timor after the 1999 autonomy
plebiscite.
The involvement of soldiers in the national campaign against
terror has raised strong criticism from human rights activists
and others, who said the government should have instead further
empowered the police to handle such matters.
A retired police general says that "certain forces" within the
military institution have close ties with radical Muslim groups,
including the Islam Defender's Front (FPI) and Laskar Jihad.
"This fact is part of the reason why the government involved
the military in the domestic war to crack down on terrorist
cells," he added.
Another reason was power. The government had been warned to be
cautious in attempting to strip power from the military,
otherwise it could create social disturbances in retaliation.
"We should not keep cornering the military because they will
not stop playing terror games until they can seize back power,"
said the police general.
President Susilo issued orders for the military to join the
national terror war in response to the second Bali attack on Oct.
1, 2005, which killed 23 people including the three suicide
bombers. The resort island had also been bombed on Oct. 22, 2002,
in which 202 people, mostly Western tourists, were killed. Terror
also rocked Jakarta when bombers attacked the Australian Embassy
in 2004 and the J.W. Marriott Hotel in 2003.
The President didn't give clear guidance on how the military
should deal with terror threats, but TNI chief Gen. Endriartono
Sutarto quickly responded to it by saying he would reactivate the
much-criticized military territorial role to collect information
from the community and to set up an early warning system aimed at
preventing more terrorist attacks.
According to Endriartono, the territorial role would give
military intelligence officers the ability to "infiltrate"
communities where terrorist groups had developed their networks.
Should that be the argument, why has the military been
singularly unable to stop violence in conflict-torn areas where
it had established territorial commands? In fact, the military
has often been accused of actually being behind or involved in
communal clashes.
It is still fresh in many minds that the scrapping of the
military's territorial function was one of the strongest demands
raised by the pro-democracy movement in 1998, which was marked by
the ousting of former authoritarian president Soeharto.
Analysts and human rights campaigners say the revival of the
territorial role shows that the military has not been at all
serious in undertaking its internal reform programs.
During the Soeharto era, the military abused its socio-
political function to intimidate and subdue government critics,
even kidnapping and murdering them.
Officially, this role was scrapped after Soeharto's fall,
but in fact the military remains politically very influential as
evidenced by the victory of many of its former officers in
certain local direct elections.
Civilian and military intellectuals have repeatedly warned
that civilian incompetence could give the military an excuse to
come back to the political fore.
There seemed to be a little good news when the military
allowed its generals to be tried in a human rights tribunal for
their roles in the 1999 carnage in East Timor after it voted for
independence from Indonesia.
The same court had also tried senior military officers on
charges of serious human rights violations in connection with the
1984 shooting incident in Tanjung Priok, North Jakarta.
But the good news quickly evaporated when none of those tried
were convicted of any wrongdoing.
Also, all military officers were exonerated by a human rights
court in Makassar, South Sulawesi, from all charges resulting
from the Abepura shooting incident in Papua province.
Other progress seemed to be made by the TNI when it allowed
civilians to design national defense policy, allowed its seats in
the House of Representatives to be scrapped, and for some of its
businesses to be taken over by the government.
However, with regard to these issues the military has been put
to the test as to whether it is really serious about bowing to
civilian control, of abandoning politics and of handing over all
its businesses.