Reform Project in Security Sector 2008

Reform process in Indonesia has been ten years long since 1998. However, we have not seen significant result during the ten years in legislative, institutional level as well as behaviour of the security officers. In general, up to 2007, civilian political authority is playing “safe” in maintaining relationship in security sector. As a result, policy in security sector stops in producing regulations only.

We need to appreciate some achievements in security sector such as (1) The army and the police are excluded from legislative body, (2) Separation in institutional level between the army and the police, (3) APBN is the only budget source for security affairs and the money will be audited by the Audit Supreme Board as they are in charge for auditing and (4) time line for taking over business run by the army

However, it is a pity that some achievements mentioned above are only in regulations level. That is to say, articles in the law already mention the four issues above but no implementation to date. For instance, (1) as mentioned in Law No. 34/2004 on the Armed Forces, article 76, about the time line in taking over military business is getting closer but the president has not issued presidential decree on the issue, (2) the state budget as the one and only budget for security sector has not been implemented. The regional government budget and BRR are still allocating money for security sector. In addition, military businesses, formal or informal, are still running. (3) the idea to place the armed forces under Ministry of Defense has been opposed by the idea to place the police under a ministry and not directly under the President. (4) lack of budget is still main problem with no solution to date. (5) as welfare issue for main soldiers is still looking for solution, the government is planning to have more soldiers for to supplement the main ones. This will require a lot of money. (6) Strategic Defense Review and National Security Council have not been established. (7) there is no political willingness to produce state intelligence policy. (8) violence and crime rate are still high including conflict between the army and the police.

National security should be designed by considering geographical condition of Indonesia as archipelago. The navy then should be the main characteristic of the Indonesian armed forces. Until now, developing security capability with that framework has not been seen. Taking small budget as the reason, focus is given now to the army. In addition, a number of territorial command are established in Papua and Ende, Flores.

In addition, the tradition of appointing a civilian for Ministry of Defense position, started since President Gus Dur and President Megawati administration, should continue as a parameter of civil supremacy implementation. There is a need to increase this by integrating Ministry of Defense and the Headquarters of the Army as mentioned in article 3 verse 2, Law No. 34/2004.

As a result, we are proposing a number of projects in security sector for the year of 2008:

• Reform process in security sector should create professional security actors in line with basic value of democracy and good governance. It is hoped that the security system are able to take care state security and provide human security to all the citizens.

• Security actors should be neutral, despite efforts to influence them by political elite.

• The government should develop grand strategy of national security. The stratetgy Pemerintah harus segera menyusun grand strategi pertahanan Indonesia, sehingga should be well-planned, well-measured and based on priority and capability. A bad grand strategy will only show weak commitment of the government in doing reform for security sector.

• The budget for security sector should be gradually added with commitment to reduce ineffective and ineffective expenditure systematically. Reducing security budget is possible by doing efficiency of maintenance cost of weapons in particular by destroying old weapons (arms disposal) already out of date and irrelevant with modern technology.

• The agency in charge for auditing the armed forces, the Audit Supreme Board (BPK), should expand their field of audit such as in the procurement of main weapons system which mainly requires big money. We are also strongly asking the BPK to perform audit for the army activities in conflict areas, to identify if there is human rights violations financed by the State Budget money. The role of the Corruption Eradication Comission (KPK) in investigating corruption and economic crime involving military officers should also be there.

• Full evaluation on the performance of the police after the separation. Consistency in necessary when it comes to formulate a professional body of the police. In the future, the police should abandon project based development and focus on international issue as well as competition.

• Providing rules and regulations to improve the performance of the intelligence. An umbrella of law for the State Intelligence Agency and coordination mechanism for working units of intelligence are really crucial. This is to avoid the use of intelliegence for crimes and to improve the capacity in anticipating international crime and threat as in terrorism case.  

• The House of Representatives should maximize its parliament oversight in particular with regard to regulations and the use of budget in security sector. The DPR should see the link between the two and its impact on professionalism and performance improvement of security actors.

• Public opinion should be the main characterictis in decision making process when it comes to make decision on security sector policies. This is because security issues has linked not only with military and intelligence matters but also on issues such as poverty, food security, climate change, natural disaster , etc.

Jakarta, 08-01-2008

INFID, Imparsial, KontraS, HRWG, IDSPS, YLBHI, DEMOS, LBH Pers, ITP, JATAM, WALHI, ICW, Lespersi, Praxis, ELSAM , and LBH Jakarta