TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Military involvement in combating terrorism
There are two arguments that justify public concerns over an active TNI role in counterterrorism. First, the ineffectiveness of military involvement in ending terrorism.
Undeniably, the military has adequate capability and resources to combat terrorism. But a RAND report in 2008 clearly showed that of the 268 terrorist groups that were ended between 1968 and 2006 worldwide, only 7 percent was because of operations carried out by military forces.
Most of the groups were dissolved through political accommodation (43 percent) or were eradicated by police and intelligence agencies (40 percent). So, the effectiveness of using military force to defeat terrorists is still questionable.
Change Size
Indonesian Military Commander Gen. Gatot Nurmantyo (right) shakes hands with Army Chief of Staff Gen Mulyono, after a transfer of office ceremony on July 15. Mulyono replaced Gatot, who got promotion to become the military commander. (tempo.co/Imam Sukamto)
A
fter months of work, the country’s most-wanted figure Santoso, alias Abu Wardah, was recently killed during a gunfight with personnel from the Army Strategic Reserves Command’s (Kostrad) Raider 515 Infantry Battalion. Santoso was believed to be the leader of the East Indonesia Mujahidin (MIT) terrorist group.
A joint police and military operation of 3,500 personnel targeting the terrorist fugitive and his MIT group had entered its seventh month after being launched in early January.
Following Santoso’s death, the idea of giving the Indonesian Military (TNI) a greater role in fighting terrorism has become increasingly popular. The House of Representatives special committee revising the Terrorism Law has been divided over a plan to insert articles on the military’s role in counterterrorism measures. The committee is expecting the draft revision of Law No. 15/2003 on combating terrorism to be finalized by the year’s end.
(Read also: Military in counterterrorism: Restraining collateral damage)
The government also tends to support the expansion of the TNI’s role in combating terrorism. By involving the military in counterterrorism operations, the government through then chief security minister Luhut B. Pandjaitan believed the TNI could also minimize the threat of future terrorist attacks.
Article 43 of the bill states, “Policies and national strategy on combating terrorism are implemented by the National Police, TNI and related agencies which will be coordinated by a non-ministerial government institution that conducts antiterrorism activities.”
The article adds that the role of the TNI is providing assistance to the National Police.
Human rights watchdogs have strongly criticized the plan to give the TNI a greater counterterrorism role. Besides being prone to human rights violations, the involvement of the TNI in combating terrorism could undermine the country’s criminal justice system.
There are two arguments that justify public concerns over an active TNI role in counterterrorism. First, the ineffectiveness of military involvement in ending terrorism.
Undeniably, the military has adequate capability and resources to combat terrorism. But a RAND report in 2008 clearly showed that of the 268 terrorist groups that were ended between 1968 and 2006 worldwide, only 7 percent was because of operations carried out by military forces.
Most of the groups were dissolved through political accommodation (43 percent) or were eradicated by police and intelligence agencies (40 percent). So, the effectiveness of using military force to defeat terrorists is still questionable.
(Read also: The soft but effective approach to terrorism)
Second, the lack of a clear mechanism regarding military involvement in combating terrorism. Indeed, referring to the 2004 TNI Law, the force may be involved in non-military operations including antiterrorism operations. However, the government does not provide a set of derivative rules to support this notion. Thus, the lack of regulations specifying a clear mechanism, including when and how the military is involved in counterterrorism activities, is vulnerable to manipulation or abuse.
More than that, without proper procedures and strong oversight, the use of excessive force in combating terrorism might lead to a lack of accountability and transparency, among other things. There are some basic principles that should be applied in the new Terrorism Law if the House and government insist on a greater role for the TNI in combating terrorism.
First, the use of military force should be a last resort. Although the military has ample capability, this does not mean it is skilled in carrying out law enforcement missions. The primary task of the military is to defend the country from external threats.
As a country with a criminal justice system in effect, the military should only provide assistance to the National Police regarding terrorism matters. Thus the government and House should retain their focus on maintaining military capability and readiness in protecting the country from external enemies. Any additional military mission should not undermine and disrupt the main focus.
Second, the TNI should be prioritized to deliver military missions abroad. Considering the emerging regional threats including the recent piracy and hostage incidents in the Southern Philippines, the new Terrorism Law could authorize overseas missions for the TNI. Besides helping it maintain and assess its capability, overseas missions would also strengthen the TNI’s commitment to protecting Indonesian citizens.
Third, the use of the TNI in counterterrorism missions should be ruled by a clear and unambiguous mechanism. This mechanism should include rules of engagement, rights and duties of the assigned personnel and strong oversight. Creating a well-defined mechanism will help the military to be more responsible in its public budget spending. Failure to establish such a mechanism will lead to the perception that the military will regain its power and authority in domestic affairs.
Last, the use of TNI personnel should be ruled by an adequate derivative legal framework. As scholars have pointed out, the military may face difficulties in carrying out counterterrorism missions due to the lack of a clear legal framework and proper legal protection for the personnel involved, not to mention civilians. Furthermore, this framework will provide a chain of responsibility regarding possible violations during such missions.
Nevertheless, as the terrorist threat is multifaceted, combating terrorism requires many tools including military. But, without solid directives and guidelines, the use of an active military in combating terrorism risks excessiveness and human rights abuses. As consequence, the terrorist groups would gladly achieve one of their goals: “provoking government overreaction”.
***
The writer is a graduate of the Marshall Center’s Program on Terrorism and Security Studies, Germany, and is currently a PhD research student at the Center for International Security and Resilience, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, UK.
---------------
We are looking for information, opinions, and in-depth analysis from experts or scholars in a variety of fields. We choose articles based on facts or opinions about general news, as well as quality analysis and commentary about Indonesia or international events. Send your piece to community@jakpost.com. For more information click here.
