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.