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.
Questioning the military’s role in counterterrorism
The use of the armed forces in counterterrorism should be the last resort.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Force to be reckoned with: Indonesian Military (TNI) soldiers take part in a joint police-military operation codenamed Tinombala to hunt down a terrorist group under Santoso, alias Abu Wardah, in Poso, Central Sulawesi, in 2016. President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo has proposed a regulation that will give the military more powers in the counterterrorism field. (JP/Ruslan Sangadji)
T
he government recently submitted a draft of a presidential regulation (Perpres) on the involvement of military forces in the country’s fight against terrorism to the House of Representatives. The proposal shows the government’s intention to continue the militarization of counterterrorism in the country.
Controversy about the role of the Indonesian military (TNI) in counterterrorism has been ongoing since mid-2019. When the older draft of the current Perpres (dated April 18, 2019) circulated, it received strong criticism as it potentially endangered democracy and human rights in Indonesia. In addition, the older draft violated Law No. 5/2018 on antiterrorism and Law No. 34/2004 on the TNI.
The new draft is still not free of problems. Some of its content may undercut the country’s fight against terrorism. First, it grants “deterrence” authority to the TNI (Articles 3 to 7). This has no grounds. The Antiterrorism Law only stipulates three functions in counterterrorism: prevention, enforcement and recovery. The function of deterrence proposed in the draft goes beyond the key provisions of antiterrorism legislation.
In addition, Article 3 (d) of the draft states the military can conduct “other” activities and operations without a clear and rigid scope or explanation. Thus, the execution of such operations are open to any interpretation — or improvisation — and may endanger human rights.
