Reports of huge payments by US mining company PT Freeport-MacMoran to Indonesian soldiers in Papua have caused controversy, with critics saying such payments erode the professionalism of soldiers. Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono spoke with The Jakarta Post's Tiarma Siboro about the government's plan to formulate a legal umbrella that will address this issue.

Question: How will the Defense Ministry respond to the military leadership's request for clearer guidance on troop deployments to guard vital installations?

Answer: The issue is being discussed at the Office of the Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs. Currently, the military deployments to guard vital installations, especially those belonging to joint venture companies, are governed under a 2004 decree issued by the Energy and Natural Resources Ministry. It says the involvement of either military or police personnel depends on the companies themselves.

Now that people are questioning the presence of troops at the compound of PT Freeport, the TNI (Indonesian Military) chief (Gen. Endriartono Sutarto) wants the government to set clearer guidelines for these kinds of security arrangements. The regulation we are drafting will not only concern Freeport, but also other vital installations elsewhere, including in Aceh. Data from the Energy and Natural Resources Ministry show there are no fewer than 8,000 joint venture companies operating nationwide. This is a big number.

The guidelines will consist of two principles. First, the companies must provide any support voluntarily. Second, the police will take the lead, but military backing is possible.

What is the level of the regulation? Will it be a ministerial decree?

A directive from the coordinating minister for political, legal and security affairs is enough. This means all government officials in charge of political, legal and security affairs will take responsibility for securing vital installations.

People are questioning the transparency of direct payments from companies to military commanders in the field. Will the directive respond to this?

The directive will also address this issue, stressing the point that the companies must provide the support voluntarily in the form of facilities, such as trucks or other vehicles, dorms and health facilities for the security personnel and their families. All the support must be approved by a civilian agency. At the moment, we are considering asking BP Migas (Upstream Oil and Gas Executive Agency) or state oil and gas company Pertamina to manage the financial support. This, of course, would rule out direct payments from the companies to commanders or soldiers.

Will military or police personnel on duty at vital installations receive additional payments?

Of course, the duty is an ordinary deployment (which is funded by the state). Therefore, any additional support voluntarily provided by companies shall not be perceived as a payment. Transparency is a must in the disbursement of any extra funds. Because the security arrangements are made in the interest of the companies, there should be no pressure on the firms to provide the support. And the rules of the game are clear: the companies must provide security guards to cover the area inside the company compound. Outside the compound, security arrangements can be entrusted to either the police or the military, especially in areas where there is insurgent activity.

Does the existing legislation, including the law on the military, fail to provide such guidelines?

We are drafting new guidelines because people, as well as lawmakers, have repeatedly requested a legal umbrella to justify the involvement of troops in guarding companies. They are not aware of the existing legislation, including the law on the military and the Constitution, which requires the involvement of all Indonesian citizens to guard every inch of this country's territory. It is also quite clear that Article 27 of the Constitution stipulates the participation of all citizens in defending the state. Actually, we already have an adequate legal basis, but still, clearer guidelines are needed.

People are concerned about human rights violations in the areas around companies that are guarded by troops.

The problem is that we need tough action against armed disturbances that may threaten the companies' day-to-day activities. But if an incident occurs, people will accuse the troops of perpetrating human rights abuses without blaming the armed groups. As these groups commit violations, the police have a right to take action. We cannot allow demonstrators or separatist groups to perpetrate violence because that is a crime.

Will the directive prevent corruption among state officials, including security authorities?

It totally depends on the three parties involved: the companies, the civilian agency and the security authorities. They play a key role in determining how much money will be spent on support funds for security personnel who guard companies' property. They also decide on when the support should be disbursed and who will responsible for it. These decisions, of course, should be in line with the guidelines. For the sake of transparency, the public can question these parties about anything relating to the security arrangements.