Al Araf – Every act of terrorism will be followed by the government's desire to reassess and strengthen the role of state security institutions. This was the case after the first and second Bali bombings, the JW Marriott attack and the Australian Embassy bombing.
Following a terrorist attack in Cirebon in April and the spate of book bombs sent to prominent figures in March, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono recently called on the Armed Forces (TNI) to cooperate with other state institutions to prevent terrorism. The president had in January already officially instructed the TNI to be ready to assist the National Police in the fight against terrorism.
The state's desire to beef up its anti-terrorism efforts is not wrong-minded considering the complexity of the issue. And certainly every effort must be made to prevent terrorism. But we must also make sure that the fight against terrorism does not lead to abuses of authority and an assault on human rights in the name of security.
In the past decade, terrorist groups have developed broad but secretive networks working to commit suicide bombings based on the belief that all means are acceptable in their religious quest. This decision to pursue asymmetric warfare is based on their inability to directly and openly challenge much stronger enemies. As a consequence, it has become very difficult to predict when and where a terrorist group will strike next.
The complexity of terrorism makes it impossible to tackle only on a national level, or by any one institution. Fighting terrorism must be done comprehensively and involve a variety of actors, such as the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Religious Affairs, the immigration office, religious leaders, the media and more.
When it comes to the military, the TNI's role in tackling terrorism falls under the heading of "Military Operations Other Than War" in the 2004 Law on the TNI. The weakness of the law is that it does not explicitly explain the military's role and tasks in dealing with the threat of terrorism.
The military has in the past assisted the police in addressing threats related to internal conflicts and terrorism. So far, the mechanisms and procedures for these operations have been based on the standard operational procedures of the police and the military themselves. But the problem with these SOPs is that they are not recognized in the national legal system, and thus are not legally binding for those involved.
Neither the government nor the House of Representatives have yet to establish formal and binding rules of engagement for military operations other than war. The absence of such rules could leave undesirable room for security forces to make unilateral interpretations of the SOPs.
This weakness has also had a negative impact on the relationship between security institutions. The rivalry between the TNI and the National Police is a public secret.
A member of the police's elite anti-terror unit, Densus 88, told Tempo magazine in 2005 that a bombing suspect in Bali eluded capture because there were too many intelligence units and no sharing of information among them. The operation went awry because of the rivalry among the various agencies involved and a lack of communication, the officer said.
To make matters worse, the president stressing the importance of the TNI's role in dealing with terrorism has been interpretation by the military as a recommendation to strengthen its influence at the local level throughout the country.
The military could be trying to enhance its power by giving its territorial commands more responsibilities. The problem is, this not only creates the potential for an overlap of authority between security institutions because of a lack of clear rules, it also raises questions about the effectiveness of the various territorial commands in dealing with an issue as complex as terrorism.
Additionally, there are concerns that greater involvement by the TNI, and especially its territorial commands, in the fight against terrorism will lead to more human rights violations. There was a reason why the 2004 Law on the TNI aimed to limit the power of the territorial commands.
Giving the TNI greater responsibilities in combating terrorism without explicitly providing clear rules about its role and its tasks will create tremendous problems for the state, which needs to maintain security on the one hand and to guarantee civil liberties on the other.
The situation should remind us of what happened in terms of human rights in states all over the world during the so-called War on Terror that followed the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, in the United States. Civil liberties have been limited, states' powers to monitor citizens have been increased, there have been abusive arrests, cases of torture and discrimination against entire social groups, including here in Indonesia.
An International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group report stated that basic rights and freedoms have been sacrificed in name of the War on Terror. Stricter anti-terrorism and immigration laws and regulations have contributed to an increase in institutionalized racism. Prosecution based on guilt by association has negatively affected the basic rights to free expression and association, the freedom of movement and also the basic democratic right to protest and express opinions.
The threat of terrorism has in many places been countered with draconian policies: increased powers for intelligence and military institutions, routine checks on personal documents, control of movement, control of mass media and mass communication, the drafting of laws targeting political enemies and so on.
The War on Terror has prioritized security over freedom as the main object that needs to be protected by the state. In the name of security, freedom can easily be lawfully limited by the state.
To prevent us from plunging into a draconian war on terror in Indonesia, it is important to remember that the policies aimed at tackling terrorism must respect the balance between two of our most essential needs: the need for security and the need for freedom.
Indeed, we need to strengthen the state so it can safeguard both security and freedom, but this does not mean that the state is no longer obliged to respect and maintain human rights.
The War on Terror must be embedded in democratic policies and be based on the principle of the rule of law, and fighting terrorism should remain chiefly the domain of the police. The involvement of the TNI should not lead to it gradually taking over the role of the police. The military's role must remain limited to providing assistance.
Moreover, our dealing with terrorists should not only focus on coping with attacks, but also on ways of preventing them. This means the state should concentrate on policies that are intended to preclude the spread of radicalism by weeding out social discrimination, corruption, injustice and poverty.
[Al Araf is the program director of the rights group Imparsial.]