Protecting secrecy without jeopardizing democracy

Protecting secrecy without jeopardizing democracy

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Who shot the four Trisakti students to death on
May 12? Will we ever know the truth? Or will it remain a "buried
secret" like the Marsinah and Udin cases?

I do not think that anyone among the lay public can answer
these questions. And I do not think that those who have the facts
will volunteer to answer these questions. I think that the facts
will emerge to the surface only if there is tremendous public
pressure on the military establishment.

I do not think I am alone in my skepticism. People like me
feel that the military is not being quite honest to the public. I
feel personally that the military has been trying to cover up
something big in this case.

Against the background of the firm promises made by the
generals in the Armed Forces (ABRI), including Gen. Wiranto, that
this case will be investigated in a thorough and objective
manner, the performance of the military tribunal is very, very
disappointing. Based on ABRI's promises, the public expects that
the military tribunal will open the case by examining those
suspected of doing the shootings. But what the public has
witnessed instead is the prosecution of police officers accused
of not obeying an order given to them.

My immediate reaction to this was disbelief. "What is this? Is
this a joke? What does 'disobeying an order' have to do with the
death of the four students? Is this the most important element
that caused their deaths?"

Until today, I am still disappointed and frustrated. I know I
am illiterate in matters related to legal proceedings, but my
common sense has prompted me to conclude that the military has
decided to conceal many secrets in this case, and resist any
attempt to uncover them.

Every good citizen realizes that there are things which cannot
be revealed to the public. We know there are secrets that must be
tightly guarded for the sake of maintaining public security and
preventing chaos.

Experiences show, however, that too much secrecy can lead to
too little accountability, and that this in turn can lead to
excessive practices among intelligence "professionals".

The torture of people kidnapped by intelligence officers is
one testimony of such excesses. The mysterious death of Marsinah
is another testimony. And the prosecution of Dwi Sumaji, an
entirely innocent man, in the case of the mysterious death of
Udin is still another testimony.

Something must be inherently wrong when the intelligence
apparatus has so much freedom to do so much harm, and all to no
advantage to the country.

I think there are too many unnecessary secrets, too many
unexplained events in Indonesia. In addition to the Marsinah and
Udin cases mentioned above, there are many other events that
until today remain unexplained. They have become buried with
time.

The recent kidnappings, riots that seemed to be quite well
organized and the physical assault on Indonesian Democratic Party
(PDI) Megawati supporters at the PDI headquarters on July 27,
1996 are all secrets that the military seems unwilling to
uncover.

These are not trivial events, but events of great significance
for the rehabilitation and cultivation of democracy in Indonesia.

These are practices that flatly deny and reject respect for
the people, the highest political authority in any well-
functioning democracy.

The very important question ABRI has to answer in this respect
is: "How should intelligence work be carried out effectively
without betraying the principles of democracy?"

It should not be forgotten that ABRI is a part of Indonesian
society. And if the promises to carry out total reform are
genuine, then it should reexamine its definition of "secret" and
rethink the present classification of its secrets.

According to Adm. Stansfield Turner, director of the CIA
during the Carter administration from 1977 to 1982, there are two
kinds of secrets that are truly important in intelligence work:
secrets concerning the identity of the people who risk their
lives spying on "hostile" territories, and secrets concerning
technical means used to conduct spying.

This definition can be employed to raise a number of
questions, the answers of which can then be used to reclassify
Indonesia's existing secrets into two groups: secrets that are
really vital for protecting the country and the nation, and
secrets that stand in the way of the nation's efforts to generate
a clean and just society.

We can ask in this regard, for instance, what or which should
be considered as "hostile" territory. Are university campuses
"hostile" territory?

If the answer is yes, it was a very grave mistake on the part
of ABRI to leak signals concerning their operations within
campuses. It was truly unprofessional conduct.

If, on the other hand, university campuses are not considered
"hostile", then it was also a grave mistake to spy on them. It
was again totally unprofessional conduct.

It must be admitted, I think, that public esteem toward
certain elements of ABRI has sunk to a very low point. The word
"intel" -- short for "intelligence" -- has a very bad connotation
in the public's mind.

To restore the reputation and trust of the military,
especially that of the intelligence apparatus, Adm. Stansfield
Turner prescribed the following two principles: objectivity and
legality.

The principle of objectivity requires that all "reporting and
analyses coming from intelligence community must be scrupulously
free of bias, either conscious or unconscious". And the principle
of legality demands that "intelligence agencies, like all arms of
government, must reflect the mores of the nation and abide by its
laws".

To restate our main question, the essential issue in this case
is whether or not the military will allow the public know the
entire truth.

Will the military let the public know who did the shootings
and for what reason? Or will ABRI treat the answer to this
essential question as a "secret" that must be guarded at all
costs, even at the risk of killing once again the seeds of
democracy in our society?

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.