Kamis, 07 Februari 2013

The national security bill and human rights


The national security bill and human rights
Mimin Dwi Hartono ;  An Investigator
at the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights
JAKARTA POST, 06 Februari 2013


Draft national security bills have been deliberated by the House of Representatives for a long time. However, they have continued to be rejected by lawmakers, principally on fears that the bills might trigger human rights violations if enacted. Meanwhile, according to the government, a bill is needed to establish a comprehensive and integrated national security system that supports the nation’s development agenda. 

One of the most recent drafts of the bill calls for the central government to establish a National Security Council (NSC), to be chaired by the President and with a ministerial-level official as its chief executive. The NSC would have the authority to determine strategy and national security policy, which would overlap the current remit of the National Police, the Indonesian Military (TNI), and the National Intelligence Agency (BIN) and violate the independence of the judicial system.

The draft also calls for the national security system to be decentralized to governors, regents and mayors. Regional head would be given the opportunity to respond to various threats to national security. A liberal interpretation of what constitutes a threat will lead to biased interpretations that might favor certain social, economical and political groups in the region. Moreover, in the era of regional autonomy, almost all local heads come from political parties that pursue their own economic and political interests. Further, too many local leaders have been convicted of corruption. 

The bill defines a threat to national security, in part, as things threatening sustainable national development. The definition and elaboration of sustainable national development provided in the bill is broad, subject to multiple interpretations and prone to exploitation by biased people. If enacted, it could be used by the central and regional governments to repress civil society groups and political parties for the sake of national development.

National development is a vague term. The problem is that policy at national and local levels remains politically motivated and lacks transparency and community participation. As a result, national development very often conflicts with the interests of society. 

One national development program that has been aggressively promoted by the government is the Master Plan for the Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia’s Economic Development (MP3EI), which aims to make the nation an advanced country and propel it into the ranks among the 10 largest economies in the world by 2025. Many projects under the MP3EI in fact collide with the interests of society and might adversely impact environmental sustainability, such as the Trans Papua highway. 

As of November, the government has realized 84 MP3EI projects with a total investment of Rp 536.3 trillion (US$55.86 billion). These projects comrpised 38 private projects valued at Rp 301.6 trillion, 20 projects run by state-owned enterprises worth Rp 90.3 trillion, 15 projects run by the government worth Rp 66.2 trillion and 11 projects jointly funded projects run by various agencies worth Rp 78.2 trillion. MP3EI projects are spread across multiple “corridors” under the plan in Java, Sumatra, Sulawesi, Kalimantan, Bali-Nusa Tenggara and Papua-Maluku Islands, with adjustments made for the potential and needs of each region.

Furthermore, the law grants the regional governments of Aceh wide authority to mobilize local resources to increase their revenues to self-finance their development programs. Exploitation of natural resources has since proceeded without controls and without considering the sustainability of social, economic, cultural, environmental and human rights. Thousands of investment permits in the mining, plantation and forestry sectors have been issued by regents and mayors all over the country, without any control and accountability from the central of provincial governments or from the community (downward accountability). 

As a result, agrarian conflicts have arisen everywhere, causing violations of social, economic, cultural rights and even human lives, as occurred in Lampung and South Sumatra. If the central and local authorities are free to determine what constitutes threats to national security, then any form of opposition and any action considered deleterious to the local investment climate, especially in the extractive industries, plantations, and infrastructure, could be criminalized due to disturbing the national development agenda.

Therefore, opposition to the national security bill is justified for various reasons. The bill will legitimize involvement of security forces in order to sustain national development by violating the civil and political liberties of the people.

Before the current draft national security bill is endorsed, the government should guarantee the right of participation and the public’s access to information through public consultation at the central and local levels. In addition, the government must ensure accountability of the state security system based on human rights with reference to the Constitution, national laws and international laws that protect human rights. Thus, instead of violating the enjoyment of human rights, the national security bill would reflect the state’s obligation to respect and protect human rights. 

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar