TNI: A loose cannon

TNI: A loose cannon

Maj. Gen. Sudradjat's interpretation of the 1945 Constitution
has confirmed what many people in this country fear: The
Indonesian Military (TNI) has become a loose cannon which is
accountable to no one but itself. In an interview with Republika
daily last week, the TNI chief spokesman says Article 10 of the
Constitution does not automatically make the president supreme
commander of the military the way it has always been assumed, or
in the same way that the American president is.

Sudradjat points out that Article 10, which states "The
president holds the highest power over the Army, the Navy and the
Air Force", does not give the president the right to interfere in
the internal affairs of the military. The president's power, he
argues, is limited to appointing the chief of staff of the three
services, "in consultation with the TNI leadership".

In order to understand Sudradjat's remarks, one must look at
the background and context in which they were made. They came
amid a flurry of rumors, and of course denials, of an impending
coup d'etat by TNI last week. It came amid signs of a rift
between President Abdurrahman Wahid and Coordinating Minister for
Political Affairs and Security Gen. Wiranto, who until last
October was TNI commander but remains influential in the military
to this day. It came at a time when TNI was coming under strong
pressure to let its past and present leaders face investigation
in connection with human rights violations in East Timor in
September, and to face trial for atrocities in Aceh.

Sudradjat argues that Soeharto, who ruled Indonesia for 32
years until May 1998, had abused the supreme commander status
vested upon him by the Constitution by turning the military into
his tool of repression. Learning from that experience, Sudradjat
has called for a new interpretation of Article 10 that would
prevent the military from becoming an accomplice to oppression of
the people in the future. From now on, he says, TNI will give its
loyalty to the people and the state, but not automatically to the
President.

Sudradjat's argument with regard to Article 10 of the
Constitution sounds plausible, but for one very big omission: the
question of accountability. To whom is TNI accountable? If the
president is supreme commander, the question becomes irrelevant
because the military would then be put firmly under a person who
is, at least by constitution, accountable to the people. But if
he is not supreme commander, then we have virtually removed any
mechanism that allows the public to indirectly control the
military, and it becomes accountable to no one but itself.

With troops and weapons at its disposal, plus the political
power it has jealously guarded, TNI has become an omnipotent
political force unequaled even by the highest state institutions.
The president and vice president, members of the People's
Consultative Assembly (MPR) and House of Representatives (DPR),
are all subject to public control and scrutiny, including the
elections that they have to go through every five years. To
suggest that the president does not have control over the three
services is tantamount to placing the military beyond the
Constitution, let alone the law.

This lack of accountability on the part of the military is
already clearly felt today, with the nation having technical and
legal difficulties as well as political obstacles in bringing to
court perpetrators of human rights violations within the
military. Not a single senior TNI officer has been brought to
court to this day for past abuses clearly committed by the
military. More than a year since Gen. Wiranto personally
apologized for atrocities his men committed in Aceh, only a
handful of junior soldiers have been convicted in military
courts, mostly for violations of procedures. The current
investigation of human rights violations in East Timor has been
stalled, with TNI putting up a big legal fight on the pretext of
defending the human rights of its officers. If worst comes to the
worst, TNI would use its infamous line of absolving guilt: That
everything it did was in the line of duty, that if anyone was to
be held responsible, it should be the president -- Soeharto or
Habibie -- who gave the orders.

TNI, or ABRI as it was known until April, however could not
have been that naive not to know what it was doing. It reaped
immense political and economic benefits from its complicity with
the powers that be -- Soeharto, Habibie and Golkar -- and at
times, as in Aceh and East Timor, played the leading role in this
conspiracy. To completely absolve TNI of its past actions would
be tantamount to literally letting it get away with murder.

For what it is worth, Sudradjat's remarks have opened up a new
debate about TNI's role in society, particularly about the
interpretation of the Constitution's Article 10. Since the nation
is in the process of reviewing the Constitution, reformist forces
should seize on this opportunity to raise questions about TNI's
accountability, which is essential in any democracy. They must
find a way to bring this loose cannon firmly under control once
and for all.