Military bill: No significant changes at the front

Military bill: No significant changes at the front

The draft of the military bill currently being deliberated by the
House of Representatives has spurred controversy with the
inclusion of several contentious articles. To better understand
the substance of the debate, The Jakarta Post's Soeryo Winoto
recently spoke with military observer Kusnanto Anggoro of the
Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) about the
bill.

Question: How do you see the tug-of-war between those who
object and support the military bill?

Answer: Regulations for the Indonesian Military (TNI) are in
fact urgent, not only in the context of democratic consolidation,
but also for the professionalism of the TNI itself. These
regulations cannot be poured together into such a military bill.
Furthermore, such a bill requires abundant directives and
subordinate regulations like government regulations and
ministerial decrees.

The tug-of-war has become so blatant because the bill being
discussed by Commission I of the House does not meet political
and substantial requirements. Politically, the bill is being
deliberated by an outgoing legislature whose term of office is
about to end, meaning that the House is considered by some as not
having the legitimacy to process a bill that will have long-term
effects.

Public participation in the preliminary process and the
preparation of the military bill was very limited. Those outside
the TNI and the defense ministry were not involved in drafting
the bill. The involvement of outsiders in such an issue depends
on mutual trust, and that remains a big problem in civilian-
military relations here.

Substantially, the material of the military bill reflects a
stronger orthodoxy. Look at Article 1 on the "personality" of the
TNI, and Paragraph 1 of Article 7 on the placement of the TNI as
the main component tasked with facing threats (without mentioning
the type of threats).

Paragraph 2 of Article 8 on the TNI's territorial role also
looks orthodox. Another weakness of the bill is that it lacks
regulations regarding the welfare of soldiers.

Which articles are the most contentious?

Article 1 on the general explanation about the TNI, Article 8
on the primary duty of the TNI, Article 9 on the Army, Article 10
on the Navy and Article 11 on the Air Force. And also articles 43
and 45 on the employment of military officers in civilian
positions.

Viewed from the paradigm, concept and spirit behind the draft
bill, I would say most of these articles are problematic.

Also look at Article 18, which states that the president has
the authority and is responsible for the deployment and use of
the TNI. It violates the Defense Law, which stipulates that the
president has the authority to deploy troops but it is the TNI
chief of staff who is authorized to use them.

What are the long-term implications if the bill is passed in
its present format?

We can mention a quite a few, but I am most anxious that it
will result in the TNI never evolving to become a modern and
reliable force. The organization of the TNI will remain
independent from public control, and the welfare of the soldiers
eventually will depend on the generosity of the military elite.

Should the House be in such a rush to pass the bill?

Returning the bill to the government for further review would
be the wisest policy. If House members were honest in sharing
their views, like they were during the Aug. 2 hearing, I would
say that the House is in no rush to pass the bill without further
study.

What they've been doing so far is merely an effort to confirm
the credibility of Commission I.

The deliberation of the bill should be delayed. This is the
only way to review things and get a more reasonable and
acceptable law. The new law should become the foundation for the
TNI as an organization, with more professional and prosperous
personnel.

Are people still suspicious of the military, including the
possibility of a coup?

There have been many achievements in the TNI's effort to
achieve reform. We have seen the police separating from the TNI,
the prohibition of double positions for active officers, the
eradication of the police/military faction at the House, the
neutrality of the TNI in the elections and the punishment of
undisciplined soldiers.

However, people remain very suspicious. This is understandable
within the context of political transition. It is not easy to
erase the trauma. People' suspicions at this juncture are not
really due to fears of a coup, but more a result of the timing of
the deliberation of the draft bill.

My concern is that the TNI will remain stagnant in the years
to come. Once again, as I mentioned before, Article 18 clearly
hints that the full operational authority, with calculation of
military strategy -- which so far has been the prerogative of
military generals -- will be transferred to the president. Please
reflect and contemplate the significance of this.

Public debates about the bill will likely be futile since both
presidential candidates seem to prefer the current draft. What do
you think?

I don't want to be prejudiced, but the candidates' should be
politically consistent in their platforms. The current draft bill
goes against Megawati Soekarnoputri's policy to modernize the
defense doctrine and strategy. The bill is also against Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono's pledge to depoliticize territorial
operations.

I am of the opinion that if the current draft bill is passed,
there will be no significant change (to the TNI) in the next two
years. The law will not make obsolete People's Consultative
Assembly decrees No. VI and VII/2000, as many points are not
explained or clarified, such as the regulation on TNI officers'
involvement in nondefense affairs.

The House will have no increased oversight of the TNI. TNI
generals entering retirement age will probably benefit from it
(the Assembly decrees). I don't expect Megawati, Susilo or House
members to risk their statesmanship by taking advantage of the
situation.