Return of military conservatism, public ignorance

Return of military conservatism, public ignorance

The public should watch out for military control of civilian
institutions, says political analyst Kusnanto Anggoro of the
Jakarta-based Center of Strategic International Studies and a
lecturer of post graduate studies at the University of Indonesia.

Question: The proposed appointment of top officers to the
defense ministry such as former spokesman Maj. Gen. Sudradjat to
be in charge of intelligence, and the hardening of stances
regarding alleged war crimes seem to point to more conservatism
in the military. Has this happened because of the slow pace of
reform?

Answer: It is more because of Gus Dur (President Abdurrahman
Wahid) worrying about pressure from the legislature, political
anarchy ... which has led to more accommodation of the military.
But, there has also been an opportunity for the military to
consolidate itself once (former special forces commander) Lt.
Gen. Agus Wirahadikusumah left the scene, not that he's really a
reformist ...

Now, we're seeing the rise of the conservative groups.

In the case of Sudradjat, he is professionally capable.

But, the problem in a transitional period is not only
professionalism. There are other problems -- one being vision. He
has rather progressed now in that he seems to accept public
input, but he's still conservative.

We cannot have skilled, nonpolitical people either for the
post. The person must have the political commitment to change the
defense ministry into a professional, civilian institution.

The risk (in Sudradjat's appointment) would be in defense
strategy; it would be inward looking, focusing on how to mobilize
domestic resources to increase defense capability -- that would
include economic and human resources.

The other danger here is in Indonesia's political system,
characterized by the informal relations of actors through formal
channels.

As director general of national defense Sudradjat would have a
certain clout, which would open opportunities for him to expand a
power base leading to political maneuvers.

So the job description of the post should be very clear. The
new post is largely identified as intelligence; so a vague job
description could be dangerous.

The next requisite for the new post is opening access to
public scrutiny. The problem with all bureaucracies lies in (lack
of) transparency.

But civilian capacity for the overseeing of the strategic
Ministry of Defense is low, as seen from the ignorance and
disinterest of the legislature (on this issue).

What is the danger of focusing on domestic resources?

Garnering national resources including economic and human
resources based on the current civilian defense hankamrata
doctrine could lead to justifying the establishment of militias.

Sudradjat's appointment must be seen in the context of a few
other appointments of conservative officers: that of Maj. Gen.
Mahidin Simbolon replacing the late Trikora commander and that of
Maj. Gen. Bibit Waluyo as Jakarta's military commander.

So this (development) is partly because of Gus Dur, but there
may have also been a deal with the military in return for their
support for him. Gus Dur is in a more difficult position than
last year, though he might survive the grilling by the
legislature.

Will these trends lead to the return of the military to the
political scene?

They would not likely dare to mainly because of international
pressure, which is related to economic and financial support.

On the domestic scene, they have also lost much credibility so
an outright coup would be impossible.

But the problem would be with civilian institutions controlled
by military concepts both in organization and in personnel. It
would be a "military regime in disguise," though that may be
putting it too harshly.

Acts of terror like bomb threats are suspected of being one
maneuver by some in the Indonesian Military (TNI) to get back
power.

No; the military's interests are so diverse. Sudrajat's
motivation may be merely to return TNI's credibility. Then, there
are other political moves solely concerned with protecting
personal interests like resisting charges of human rights abuses.

Still others are merely stalling for breathing space.

Acts of terror would be expressions by mere spoilers without
any long-term political objective.

How should military control over civilian institutions be
avoided?

Drawing up laws would be one way. Changing the defense law is
now being discussed, but this is related to others. The law on
the state police is near completion but without having regard to
the law on defense; we also need a law on the intelligence
service.

Former CIA chief Stanley Turner once said that intelligence is
an anachronism in a democracy. But others say there is no country
without an intelligence service. So how can we set up an
intelligence service in line with democracy; how can we make it
accountable?

There is no way the Bakin intelligence service could be made
transparent as its set-up was based only on a presidential
instruction instead of a law, under which it might have been made
accountable to the legislature.

Is Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri responding to
overtures from TNI?

She is. This stems from the realistic needs of all the
civilian elite here to accommodate the military; all feel that
the TNI's support for them is still crucial ...

The problem now is what sort of coalition emerges between the
military and civilians ...

So will Gus Dur stay on with the support of the military?

This depends on the public and the civilian elite ... I see
all this as a phase of "permanent transition" of some eight
years. Chile and Argentina had two or three years like this ...
(anr)