President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Address Regarding the Tension of Indonesia and Malaysia

The English Translation of the Transcript.
Translated by Ananta K. Wibawa

Delivered On Wednesday, September 1, 2010 in the Headquarter of the Indonesia National Armed Forces.
Cilangkap, Eastern Jakarta.


Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,
In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh,
May peace be upon you and the Mercy of God and Its blessing.

Peace be upon us all,

My Fellow Countrymen who I love and I am proud of.

Tonight, I would like to deliver explanations to the Indonesian people about the Indonesia-Malaysia relationship. Let we begin it by reviewing the development and dynamics of both countries relationship, as one of the most important of Indonesian’s bilateral relations.

The relationship between Indonesia and Malaysia has wide coverage that is related to our national interests, our people interests.

First, Indonesia and Malaysia have historical, cultural and brotherhood relationships which are so tight and may be the tightest in comparison to other countries and it has been tied in hundred of years. We have the historic responsibility to maintain and continuing this brotherhood relationship.

Second, the Indonesia and Malaysia relationship is the most important pillar in the big family of ASEAN. ASEAN can grow so rapidly along this last four decades, among other, caused by the firm foundation in the Indonesia – Malaysia bilateral relationship.

Third, there are about 2 million of our fellows who are working in Malaysia – in various corporations, farming and other sectors. This is the biggest amount of Indonesian workforce outside the country. Of course the existence of Indonesian workforces in Malaysia is to bring mutual benefits, both to Indonesia and Malaysia.

Meanwhile, there are about 13.000 of Indonesian students and high education students who are studying in Malaysia and there are 6.000 of Malaysians who are studying in Indonesia. Those are the nation assets that we must keep to maintain together, and also our partnership capitals in the future.

The Malaysian tourists who visit to Indonesia are the third biggest in the amount of 1.18 million people, in excess of 6.3 million of foreign tourists.

The Malaysia’s investments in Indonesia of the last 5 years (2005-2009) are 285 investment projects, in the amount of US$ 1.2 billion, and the Indonesia’s investments in Malaysia in the amount of US$ 534 million. The amount of both countries trading has reached US$ 11.4 billion in the year of 2009. This shows that the economic relation between Indonesia-Malaysia is really strong.

President is delivering his address
Property of Abror Rizki - Presidential Secretary

Nevertheless, this special relationship is also very complex. This relationship is not free from problems and challenges. There is a kind of diplomatic postulate, that the closer and the tighter of both countries relationship, many more problems that are faced.
A sample of problem and challenge that we face is related to the Indonesian workforce in Malaysia. We know that the existence of 2 million Indonesian workforces in Malaysia, besides giving of mutual benefit, also emerging cases in the field that we should keep to manage. Therefore, since the early time, I try hard to struggle the Indonesian workforce’s rights, among other, in related to their wages and vacation times; to provide law protections and to build the schools for the Indonesian workforce’s children.

In my last visiting in Malaysia, we have succeeded to reach an agreement of providing and protecting rights to our workforce in Malaysia.

In relation to law cases that are faced by the Indonesian workforce in Malaysia, our government actively do of accompanying and legal advocating steps to assure our fellows got their truly rights.

Besides the Indonesian workforce’s problems and protections to the Indonesian citizens we also often find problems related to both countries boundaries. The problems need serious management from both sides.

Therefore, by realizing the mutual interests, I and the Prime Minister of Malaysia often to communicate directly, besides annual consulting forum that we conduct of, to assure that these bilateral issues can be managed by us and to find the way out in good manner.


My Fellow Countrymen,

Last days, the Indonesia-Malaysia relationship is re-examined by an incident which was occurred in around of Pulau Bintan waters on last August 13, 2010. Because of this incident has made as wide coverage from Indonesian society, in this opportunity, I would like to deliver of explanations about the real root of the matter and action steps which has been taken by our government.

Since I received the report of this incident on August 14, 2010 in the morning, I directly delivered of various instructions. First, I asked in order that our officers of the Ministry Of Marine Affairs and Fisheries are immediately returned safely.
Immediately after that, the Minister-Coordinator for Politics, Law and Security and the Minister of Foreign Affairs carried out rapid actions to manage that incident handling by taking needed steps.

In regard to this incident, we all feel concernedly and I want this problem immediate to be solved thoroughly by prioritized diplomatic steps. I would like to say that since the incident occurring, the government has carried out the actions. The system was also worked.

I also emphasized that this kind of problem must be solved rapidly, explicitly and precisely, because it is related to our national interests. Maintaining good relationship with friendly country, more over with Malaysia, is very important. Nevertheless, of course we may not ignore our national interests, more over when it is related to the sovereignty and solidity of the Unitary Nation of the Republic of Indonesia.

President and General Djoko Santoso were inspecting a domestic production of weaponry after opened Commanders Call on 2008 in Cilangkap
Property of Abror Rizky - Presidential Secretary

In regard to this, I have sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Malaysia, which is principally to deliver deep concern against the incident. I also prompted in order that the negotiation process on the maritime boundaries can be accelerated and thoroughly completed. By the way, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called the Ambassador of Malaysia to deliver a protest note.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs also has conducted intensive communicating with Malaysia Minister of Foreign Affairs. In its progress, “praise be to God” the three officers of the Ministry Of Marine Affairs and Fisheries now has returned home to the motherland.

In regard to those three officers, the Government of Indonesia has received the information of improper treatments which are suffered by them. Therefore, the Government of Indonesia asked of explanation regarding the truth of the information. Through diplomatic line is received the information that The Government of Malaysia now is conducting the investigation about the problem of treatments which have been done to the three officers.


My Fellow Countrymen,

Clearly, in the future, this kind of incident should be prevented, in order not to continue to raise problems between both countries. This effort we can do by immediate completing thoroughly of the negotiation regarding jurisdiction boundaries between Malaysia and Indonesia, and also forms of coordinating and partnership between both sides, in spirit to keep maintain good relationship between both countries.

Engaging of the handling of 7 Malaysian fishermen who entered the Indonesia jurisdiction waters, against them it has been taken actions in compliance to the prevailing regulations. After the process has been finished, they will be deported to Malaysia, as the prevailing customary in ASEAN environment through the time. It will need to be known, in similar cases, many Indonesian fishermen who were allegedly entered the friendly countries jurisdiction waters, were also deported to our country.


My Fellow Countrymen,

Learned from this experience, the government of Indonesia contends whereas the most exactly solution to prevent and overcome similar incidents is, by immediately to complete thoroughly negotiations of jurisdiction boundaries between Indonesia and Malaysia. These negotiations relate of land and maritime jurisdiction boundaries, including of the area of the Singapore Strait, and the Sulawesi Waters, or the Ambalat waters.

Indonesia contends whereas negotiations related of these jurisdiction boundaries can be accelerated and effected its implementations. Everything comes from good intention and goal, in order that similar incidents that shall interrupt both nations good relationship can be prevented and eliminated. I seriously highlight, one more time, in order that the negotiation process which shall be continued by both governments truly producing the real gained.


My Fellow Countrymen,

The sovereignty and solidity of jurisdiction is the most vital national interest. The government also deeply understand that interest, and shall work seriously to keep and enforce that. Nevertheless, not all of the problems that emerge in relationships with friendly countries are always related of sovereignty and solidity jurisdiction matters. Therefore, we must, can give the exact value to every problem that emerges.

Nevertheless, how small problem will emerge on the bilateral relation will be solved by us for the sake to support our national interests. We have to always keep our image and identity as a dignity nation in engaging of international relations, without loosing the basic principle of international relation which is freely and actively, and to be served to our nation’s interests.

As the head of state and the head of the administration, I also fell what Indonesian people fell. I truly understand the concerned, the care, even the emotion which you, fellow countrymen fell. And what government is doing now and will do to the next, also truly as the reflection of us all.

I also ask to stay away of excessive actions, just like violence actions, because those only increase of the existence problems. Violence often triggers other violence. The hope to solve this problem seriously and precisely, without destructive actions, also I received from our fellow Indonesians who exist in Malaysia.


My Fellow Countrymen,

Our method of handling the Indonesia-Malaysia relationship would be seen and followed by friendly countries in Asia region, even by the International Community. Throughout the time, as an ASEAN founder, Indonesia often becomes as the guidance of solving various conflicts emerging in the region, as well as in other earth hemisphere. Therefore, let’s while we keep struggle our national interests, the character and the international role of Indonesia that is constructive, and in spirit to keep maintain the piece, always can be kept.

Finally, the incident occurred between Indonesia and Malaysia in recent days will be solved thoroughly. Indonesia will always prompt Malaysia in truly to complete thoroughly the negotiations of jurisdiction boundaries that often trigger incidents and tensions. Therefore, by prevented unnecessary tensions and impacts, I believe that the problem, the good relationship and the bilateral cooperation between Indonesia and Malaysia will develop greater.

Toward the future, in wider international relations, we should keep guard our sovereignty and solidity of our jurisdiction, and keep always build our self to become advance, prosperity and dignity, by keep maintain good relationship and cooperation with friendly countries.

That is all

Wassalamu’alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.
And may peace be upon you and the Mercy of God and Its blessing

General MacArthur's Farewel Address to a Joint Meeting of Congress

I always spend a little time in regard to a great speech that I’ve ever read and ever heard since I was young…

A great speech ever been delivered with no doubt.
A great speech ever been delivered with no arrogancy.
An everlasting old fashion in perform the duty.
Framed in what the so-called as sense of great pride and deep humility.


Delivered Before A Joint Session Of Congress On 19 April 1951

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and Distinguished Members of the Congress:

I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride — humility in the wake of those great American architects of our history who have stood here before me; pride in the reflection that this forum of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised. Here are centered the hopes and aspirations and faith of the entire human race. I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan consideration. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected. I trust, therefore, that you will do me the justice of receiving that which I have to say as solely expressing the considered viewpoint of a fellow American.

I address you with neither rancor nor bitterness in the fading twilight of life, with but one purpose in mind: to serve my country. The issues are global and so interlocked that to consider the problems of one sector, oblivious to those of another, is but to court disaster for the whole. While Asia is commonly referred to as the Gateway to Europe, it is no less true that Europe is the Gateway to Asia, and the broad influence of the one cannot fail to have its impact upon the other. There are those who claim our strength is inadequate to protect on both fronts, that we cannot divide our effort. I can think of no greater expression of defeatism. If a potential enemy can divide his strength on two fronts, it is for us to counter his effort. The Communist threat is a global one. Its successful advance in one sector threatens the destruction of every other sector. You can not appease or otherwise surrender to communism in Asia without simultaneously undermining our efforts to halt its advance in Europe.

Beyond pointing out these general truisms, I shall confine my discussion to the general areas of Asia. Before one may objectively assess the situation now existing there, he must comprehend something of Asia’s past and the revolutionary changes which have marked her course up to the present. Long exploited by the so-called colonial powers, with little opportunity to achieve any degree of social justice, individual dignity, or a higher standard of life such as guided our own noble administration in the Philippines, the peoples of Asia found their opportunity in the war just past to throw off the shackles of colonialism and now see the dawn of new opportunity, a heretofore unfelt dignity, and the self-respect of political freedom.

Mustering half of the earth’s population, and 60 percent of its natural resources these peoples are rapidly consolidating a new force, both moral and material, with which to raise the living standard and erect adaptations of the design of modern progress to their own distinct cultural environments. Whether one adheres to the concept of colonization or not, this is the direction of Asian progress and it may not be stopped. It is a corollary to the shift of the world economic frontiers as the whole epicenter of world affairs rotates back toward the area whence it started.

In this situation, it becomes vital that our own country orient its policies in consonance with this basic evolutionary condition rather than pursue a course blind to the reality that the colonial era is now past and the Asian peoples covet the right to shape their own free destiny. What they seek now is friendly guidance, understanding, and support — not imperious direction — the dignity of equality and not the shame of subjugation. Their pre-war standard of life, pitifully low, is infinitely lower now in the devastation left in war’s wake. World ideologies play little part in Asian thinking and are little understood. What the peoples strive for is the opportunity for a little more food in their stomachs, a little better clothing on their backs, a little firmer roof over their heads, and the realization of the normal nationalist urge for political freedom. These political-social conditions have but an indirect bearing upon our own national security, but do form a backdrop to contemporary planning which must be thoughtfully considered if we are to avoid the pitfalls of unrealism.

Of more direct and immediate bearing upon our national security are the changes wrought in the strategic potential of the Pacific Ocean in the course of the past war. Prior thereto the western strategic frontier of the United States lay on the littoral line of the Americas, with an exposed island salient extending out through Hawaii, Midway, and Guam to the Philippines. That salient proved not an outpost of strength but an avenue of weakness along which the enemy could and did attack.

The Pacific was a potential area of advance for any predatory force intent upon striking at the bordering land areas. All this was changed by our Pacific victory. Our strategic frontier then shifted to embrace the entire Pacific Ocean, which became a vast moat to protect us as long as we held it. Indeed, it acts as a protective shield for all of the Americas and all free lands of the Pacific Ocean area. We control it to the shores of Asia by a chain of islands extending in an arc from the Aleutians to the Mariannas held by us and our free allies. From this island chain we can dominate with sea and air power every Asiatic port from Vladivostok to Singapore — with sea and air power every port, as I said, from Vladivostok to Singapore — and prevent any hostile movement into the Pacific.

*Any predatory attack from Asia must be an amphibious effort.* No amphibious force can be successful without control of the sea lanes and the air over those lanes in its avenue of advance. With naval and air supremacy and modest ground elements to defend bases, any major attack from continental Asia toward us or our friends in the Pacific would be doomed to failure.

Under such conditions, the Pacific no longer represents menacing avenues of approach for a prospective invader. It assumes, instead, the friendly aspect of a peaceful lake. Our line of defense is a natural one and can be maintained with a minimum of military effort and expense. It envisions no attack against anyone, nor does it provide the bastions essential for offensive operations, but properly maintained, would be an invincible defense against aggression. The holding of this littoral defense line in the western Pacific is entirely dependent upon holding all segments thereof; for any major breach of that line by an unfriendly power would render vulnerable to determined attack every other major segment.

This is a military estimate as to which I have yet to find a military leader who will take exception. For that reason, I have strongly recommended in the past, as a matter of military urgency, that under no circumstances must Formosa fall under Communist control. Such an eventuality would at once threaten the freedom of the Philippines and the loss of Japan and might well force our western frontier back to the coast of California, Oregon and Washington.

To understand the changes which now appear upon the Chinese mainland, one must understand the changes in Chinese character and culture over the past 50 years. China, up to 50 years ago, was completely non-homogenous, being compartmented into groups divided against each other. The war-making tendency was almost non-existent, as they still followed the tenets of the Confucian ideal of pacifist culture. At the turn of the century, under the regime of Chang Tso Lin, efforts toward greater homogeneity produced the start of a nationalist urge. This was further and more successfully developed under the leadership of Chiang Kai-Shek, but has been brought to its greatest fruition under the present regime to the point that it has now taken on the character of a united nationalism of increasingly dominant, aggressive tendencies.

Through these past 50 years the Chinese people have thus become militarized in their concepts and in their ideals. They now constitute excellent soldiers, with competent staffs and commanders. This has produced a new and dominant power in Asia, which, for its own purposes, is allied with Soviet Russia but which in its own concepts and methods has become aggressively imperialistic, with a lust for expansion and increased power normal to this type of imperialism.

There is little of the ideological concept either one way or another in the Chinese make-up. The standard of living is so low and the capital accumulation has been so thoroughly dissipated by war that the masses are desperate and eager to follow any leadership which seems to promise the alleviation of local stringencies.

I have from the beginning believed that the Chinese Communists’ support of the North Koreans was the dominant one. Their interests are, at present, parallel with those of the Soviet. But I believe that the aggressiveness recently displayed not only in Korea but also in Indo-China and Tibet and pointing potentially toward the South reflects predominantly the same lust for the expansion of power which has animated every would-be conqueror since the beginning of time.

The Japanese people, since the war, have undergone the greatest reformation recorded in modern history. With a commendable will, eagerness to learn, and marked capacity to understand, they have, from the ashes left in war’s wake, erected in Japan an edifice dedicated to the supremacy of individual liberty and personal dignity; and in the ensuing process there has been created a truly representative government committed to the advance of political morality, freedom of economic enterprise, and social justice.

Politically, economically, and socially Japan is now abreast of many free nations of the earth and will not again fail the universal trust. That it may be counted upon to wield a profoundly beneficial influence over the course of events in Asia is attested by the magnificent manner in which the Japanese people have met the recent challenge of war, unrest, and confusion surrounding them from the outside and checked communism within their own frontiers without the slightest slackening in their forward progress. I sent all four of our occupation divisions to the Korean battlefront without the slightest qualms as to the effect of the resulting power vacuum upon Japan. The results fully justified my faith. I know of no nation more serene, orderly, and industrious, nor in which higher hopes can be entertained for future constructive service in the advance of the human race.

Of our former ward, the Philippines, we can look forward in confidence that the existing unrest will be corrected and a strong and healthy nation will grow in the longer aftermath of war’s terrible destructiveness. We must be patient and understanding and never fail them — as in our hour of need, they did not fail us. A Christian nation, the Philippines stand as a mighty bulwark of Christianity in the Far East, and its capacity for high moral leadership in Asia is unlimited.

On Formosa, the government of the Republic of China has had the opportunity to refute by action much of the malicious gossip which so undermined the strength of its leadership on the Chinese mainland. The Formosan people are receiving a just and enlightened administration with majority representation on the organs of government, and politically, economically, and socially they appear to be advancing along sound and constructive lines.

With this brief insight into the surrounding areas, I now turn to the Korean conflict. While I was not consulted prior to the President’s decision to intervene in support of the Republic of Korea, that decision from a military standpoint, proved a sound one, as we — as I said, proved a sound one, as we hurled back the invader and decimated his forces. Our victory was complete, and our objectives within reach, when Red China intervened with numerically superior ground forces.
This created a new war and an entirely new situation, a situation not contemplated when our forces were committed against the North Korean invaders; a situation which called for new decisions in the diplomatic sphere to permit the realistic adjustment of military strategy.

Such decisions have not been forthcoming.

While no man in his right mind would advocate sending our ground forces into continental China, and such was never given a thought, the new situation did urgently demand a drastic revision of strategic planning if our political aim was to defeat this new enemy as we had defeated the old.

Apart from the military need, as I saw It, to neutralize the sanctuary protection given the enemy north of the Yalu, I felt that military necessity in the conduct of the war made necessary: first the intensification of our economic blockade against China; two the imposition of a naval blockade against the China coast; three removal of restrictions on air reconnaissance of China’s coastal areas and of Manchuria;four removal of restrictions on the forces of the Republic of China on Formosa, with logistical support to contribute to their effective operations against the common enemy.

For entertaining these views, all professionally designed to support our forces committed to Korea and bring hostilities to an end with the least possible delay and at a saving of countless American and allied lives, I have been severely criticized in lay circles, principally abroad, despite my understanding that from a military standpoint the above views have been fully shared in the past by practically every military leader concerned with the Korean campaign, including our own Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I called for reinforcements but was informed that reinforcements were not available. I made clear that if not permitted to destroy the enemy built-up bases north of the Yalu, if not permitted to utilize the friendly Chinese Force of some 600,000 men on Formosa, if not permitted to blockade the China coast to prevent the Chinese Reds from getting succor from without, and if there were to be no hope of major reinforcements, the position of the command from the military standpoint forbade victory.

We could hold in Korea by constant maneuver and in an approximate area where our supply line advantages were in balance with the supply line disadvantages of the enemy, but we could hope at best for only an indecisive campaign with its terrible and constant attrition upon our forces if the enemy utilized its full military potential. I have constantly called for the new political decisions essential to a solution.

Efforts have been made to distort my position. It has been said, in effect, that I was a warmonger. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes. Indeed, on the second day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-five, just following the surrender of the Japanese nation on the Battleship Missouri, I formally cautioned as follows:

Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful. Military alliances, balances of power, Leagues of Nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past 2000 years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.

But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.

War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

In war there is no substitute for victory.

There are some who, for varying reasons, would appease Red China. They are blind to history’s clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace. Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only other alternative.
“Why,” my soldiers asked of me, “surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field?” I could not answer.

Some may say: to avoid spread of the conflict into an all-out war with China; others, to avoid Soviet intervention. Neither explanation seems valid, for China is already engaging with the maximum power it can commit, and the Soviet will not necessarily mesh its actions with our moves. Like a cobra, any new enemy will more likely strike whenever it feels that the relativity in military or other potential is in its favor on a world-wide basis.

The tragedy of Korea is further heightened by the fact that its military action is confined to its territorial limits. It condemns that nation, which it is our purpose to save, to suffer the devastating impact of full naval and air bombardment while the enemy’s sanctuaries are fully protected from such attack and devastation.
Of the nations of the world, Korea alone, up to now, is the sole one which has risked its all against communism. The magnificence of the courage and fortitude of the Korean people defies description.

They have chosen to risk death rather than slavery. Their last words to me were: “Don’t scuttle the Pacific!”

I have just left your fighting sons in Korea. They have met all tests there, and I can report to you without reservation that they are splendid in every way.

It was my constant effort to preserve them and end this savage conflict honorably and with the least loss of time and a minimum sacrifice of life. Its growing bloodshed has caused me the deepest anguish and anxiety.

Those gallant men will remain often in my thoughts and in my prayers always.

I am closing my 52 years of military service. When I joined the Army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all of my boyish hopes and dreams. The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barrack ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that “old soldiers never die; they just fade away.”

And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty.

Good Bye.

When the General Must Obey

By Ananta K. Wibawa

At last, on Thursday 24th June 2010, the US President, Barack Obama issued an assertive decision to replace the US Forces Commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal with General David Petraus.

This decision was an aftermath of McChrystal’s remarks in a dramatic interview with Rolling Stone Magazine (22/6/2010) which was considered as humiliated the President and his top officials who engaged in Afghanistan War Policy.

At least there were 3 quotes delivered by McChrystal himself and considered as scornful in the magazine article. First, to consider Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was and he didn't seem very engaged in this war matters. Second, to consider Karl Eikenberry, US Ambassador of Afghanistan, betrayed him and anytime awaiting to see his failure to run his war strategy. Third, to declare Vice President, Joe Biden, who was skeptic of the commander's war strategy and joked sarcastically to Biden’s name as “Bite Me”. All quotes tightly related to McChrystal’s efforts to struggle his war strategy in Afghanistan.

As it was released in the Associated Press report (24/6/10) that President Obama get upset upon those who remarked by the general who well known as an expert in combat intelligence warfare and told it bluntly as "undermines the tradition of civilian control of the military that is at the core of the US democratic system."

Civilian Control of the Military in US

I see that this problem is not solely based on President Obama’s disappoint to McChrystal’s remarks in the magazine, but further more, it is closely related to the President’s authority as the Commander in Chief to determine some military policies of war handling in Afghanistan.

This action to relieve a commanding general in a war mission was the first time since General Douglas MacArthur was relieved by President Harry S. Truman during Korean War Mission on 1951. Nevertheless, as noted in US history, there had been conducted some relieving actions of commanding generals related to similar matter that is insubordination and or disobedience against the President’s policy.

The US tradition has been conducted in many years to determine military status is merely one of the nation’s functions that must be controlled under the civilian. Basically, it is inherited of the US Founders' genuine fear to see the existence of large military forces as an extraordinary power which shall endanger democracy someday, if it is not fully managed under civilian control.

The Founders' genuine fear largely based on their outlook over some practices done by regular armies of Europe in 17th century under the control of vassals and kings for some interests which may seem contradictory to democracy, such as collecting taxes and keeping the population under control.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution Convention

Michael F. Cairo, in his paper “Civilian Control of the Military,” appoints four basic things which result the perspective of civilian control of the military become stronger in the Founders’ minds. First, large military forces were viewed as a threat to liberty. Second, large military forces threatened American democracy. Therefore, the military may not be established as an elite power as well as the British autocratic military class, instead of citizen militia which is enrolled when the nation is threatened of war and demobilized after the war is over. Third, large military forces threatened economic prosperity, because it shall need very large budget to maintain the army and its equipments. Finally, large military forces threatened peace, because the existence of military forces, either from the view of the number or the primary weapons will be depended on the existence of war.

Thus, the tradition of civilian control of the military emerged from the strong US historical situation and then established in democracy life through some traditions, trusts, customs and laws.

President as the Commander in Chief

The stronger establishment of the tradition of civilian control of the military is constituted in the US Constitution. It declares the president as the commander-in-chief over the nation's armed forces, thus maintaining civilian control over the military.

The laws and regulations in the Anglo-Saxon legal system nations, such as the US, generally rule the things specifically, thus, it won’t be need the explanation of law, as usually found in the laws and regulations in the Continental Legal System (Civil Law) nations. Those are also found in the US Constitution. Nevertheless, we may not find any clause in the constitution that rules in detail about the president’s power as a Commander in Chief.

the Official Seal of the Commander in Chief

Although the president is named commander in chief, there is nothing further about his power to command the military, primarily in related to decision making in war, or about his role in the general staff or about his relationships with the uniformed officer corps or other detailing in military matters. It is likely that the US Founders tend to determine an absolute power for the President to command over the armed forces and also control them as a full representative of the civilian supremacy.

Here it is that motivates some President, in its history, to have various experiences in command of the military to face the war. George Washington, as the first President, actually was a general, and also had to command of the US Revolutionary Forces to defend the fledgling nation. Nevertheless, President James K. Polk, a politician, during America-Mexico War in 1840’s, did not only command his generals through general instruction delivering, but also determined some battle strategies and giving tactical direction in detail, similar in what Abraham Lincoln, a lawyer and fully a politician, did during Civil War in 1861-1865. President Kennedy, tactically giving his daily operational direction about what should US military did facing the Soviet Union in Cuba Crisis during October 1962.

In Post-Kennedy era, there is no President who gives day to day strategy to the generals in face of the war, even George Bush Sr., who is also a navy retirement, more over Obama. But there is a value that never changes at all, that is, the president’s policy and order in a military action, at any scale of intensity, must be obeyed by his generals.

The consistency of the Americans in this matter is insusceptible, whether the president or the general is the right. Say the most popular feud in history is happened between General MacArthur and President Harry S. Truman during the first half time of Korean War in 1951. MacArthur who never believed in the Red China’s status quo condition regarding North Korea, intended to extend the invasion down to the mainland of the People Republic of China’s territory to assure a thoroughly security condition in Korea Peninsula. It was objected by President Truman because he considered it would trigger world war, but MacArthur insisted and ever kept his plan among his general staffs. Although, finally, it was as precise as MacArthur’s assumption, that China got intervened the war and successfully forced the United Nations Forces to retreat back out of the North Korea’s territory, but President Truman did not care and considered MacArthur’s insistence as an insubordination action and undermined the tradition of civilian control of the military.

President Truman and General MacArthur
property of Associated Press

Although, US public later complimented and supported MacArthur, and even the US Congress awarded the Medal of Honor regarded his heroic leadership in Korea, but there was no charge of impeachment against President Truman, more over military resistance to the action taken by the president.

Reflection in Indonesia

Our history also notes that since the declaration of independence, it was happened frequently conflict between the President and the military commanders, either in determining of military strategy to face the war or in the matters of implementing policy in the military management and other political policies.

Noted on 27th June 1955, it was happened some boycott against the inauguration of Colonel Bambang Utojo as the Chief of Staff of the Army. It was resulted by dissatisfaction of some high rank officials within the army who disagreed to the parliament’s decision. Some other time, Major General Soeharto ever refused of the President’s Executive Order dated on 13th March 1966 which meant to repeal the previous Executive Order dated on 11th March 1966. The most clearly seen, however, when TNI (the National Armed Forces) refused of the President’s Decree declared by President Abdurrahman Wahid on 23rd July 2001, thus the refusal became as a power support to the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) to relieve President Abdurrahman Wahid from the office.

President Soekarno and General Soeharto in 1966
property of NYTimes

President Abdurrahman Wahid before the parliament in 2000

Nevertheless, a conflict which is most similar in US manner is what was happened between President Soekarno and General Soedirman during Independence War in 1948. It was started from the difference in outlook about how President’s supposed to be in confronting the Dutch aggressor. Previously, it was agreed in the original tactic that President Soekarno would assume command in guerrilla warfare himself confronting the Dutch aggression, but the President eventually getting another kind of way in being caught by the Dutch purposed to raise international empathy in diplomatic area.

President Soekarno inaugurated General Soedirman
as the Commander of Tentara KeamananRakyat in 1945
Property of Kepustakaan Kepresidenan RI

Even Soedirman disagreed to the president’s decision, but he remained stand firm to implement president’s directions and orders, further more willing to submit to the authority and to show the obedience of the Emergency Government of the Republic of Indonesia (PDRI) that was established in Sumatera by order of the Indonesia’s President who had been a prisoner of the Dutch aggressor.

---AKW---

The Indonesian Press and National Security

By Ananta K. Wibawa


No one can deny that press’s roles and status are very significant in national life. Its strategic role, broadly include information transformation to the society and public scrutiny. Therefore, the press has natural capital to become as one of social change agents. Nevertheless, when we reflect once again to various discourses that appeared related to Department of Defense’s efforts to struggle the draft of National Security Law in legislation period of 2007, there was something’s left in the discussion that is how national security concept regulates press’s roles and status.

The Indonesia’s government finally decided to review the draft of National Security Law. One of its revisions is a draft of the Law of the Indonesia National Defense Forces (TNI) Support to the Indonesia National Police (Polri) that was a part of the early draft of National Security Law before.

The Basic Concept of National Security

Actually, the concept of national security exists at any nation in the world, either explicitly written in a law regulation or implied in any similar kind of concept just like “National Awareness”. Nevertheless, it can’t deny that the early history of the concept clearly derived from some nations which were formed based on Westphalia System, commonly known as nation-states.

In the concept of nation-state, a nation is identified as a state, thus from here would appear what the so-called as the national interests and the national objectives. Both have higher value to be prioritized than personal or group’s interests. The consequence is a negative approach against national interests and objectives would be considered as a threat to the nation-state itself. Therefore, it will need a proper system to protect the national interest from various threats.

Since the 20th century, the system commonly known as National Security and then conform to society's norm and developed as a methodology which is need to protect the national interests and objectives and also become a measurement of security conditions in every nation.

For Indonesia, however, the nation-state concept had been determined its basis by the founding fathers through some discussions directed in Agency for Investigating Efforts for the Preparation of Indonesian Independence ( BPUPKI ) which resulted the concept of Indonesia Constitution. As well as common character of nation-state, here in Indonesia is also applied common sense principle whereas national interest surpasses personal or group’s interests.

Indonesia’s national interest is the achievement of its national objectives as described in preamble of The Republic of Indonesia Constitution, those are to protect the whole people of Indonesia and the entire homeland of Indonesia, and in order to advance general prosperity, to develop the nation's intellectual life, and to contribute to the implementation of a world order based on freedom, lasting peace and social justice,

The basic idea of the arrangement of national security law, however, is an effort to do a comprehensive approach in constructing national defense and security system including some synergy efforts between functions of national defense, national intelligence, environment security, law and order enforcement and a national security decision making system at the national level. If the early draft was considered improper in its process of the last legislation period, I am sure that this kind of law and/ or similar kinds will keep emerge in the future period.

It is inherited from four basic things. First, that our nation character as a nation-state. Second, there is an interest in achievement of its national objectives as described in preamble of The Republic of Indonesia Constitution. Third, that national defence and security system clearly need a comprehensive integral management system. Fourth, that national defense and security system which is regulated in article 30 of the constitution can not be reduced from the fact that the existence of Indonesia Nation is a manifest of Indonesians to implement their national objectives.

Commonly, national security to cover four scopes, those are human security, public security, environment security and national defense. The first three scopes are commonly identified as the internal security area and the last scope is identified as the external security area.

In internal security area, functions involved are public protection, law and order enforcement, information and communication, and financial and economic. While in external security area, functions involved are international relation, information and communication, financial and economic, intelligence, and defense.

The Press’s Roles

From the description above, it can be seen that information and communication functions, which press is one of its performer, have significant status, because these functions exist either in internal or external security area. Information is related to the knowledge level of human or an agency in understanding an object or some problems faced. While communication is closely related to some efforts to engage inter human and interagency relation in order to gain a properly understanding to one and others, so that will be gathered some agreement and some harmonic steps to achieve the objectives.

The inability to manage information and communication correctly will cause the emerging of understanding bias and will mess up anything which is done, including national security thing with all of its scopes.

The mass media is an important tool for information and communication management. This tool is owned and managed by the press and natured massively, either in using or in its impact. The purpose is very clearly seen from the media development itself.

Through what the so called as the new media in forms of internet, cable TV, interactive TV, video on demand, high definition TV, so the various information of politic, life style, entertainment and commercial will be delivered easily into private home environment without selected. The process of delivery surpasses normal velocity of printed mass media and its filtering process is more complicated.

If it is related to the interest of national security, then must be some effort to define precisely about some kinds of information and communication which are fit to it.

Commonly, from the perspectives of information and communication, the interest of national security imposes two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the government. First, to the need for a far greater public information and second, to the need for far greater official secrecy Some requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled in order to avoid conflict of interest in managing the interest of national security.

The government and the press should have mutual understanding that national security can not be anticipated in authoritarian ways, remembering stream of change in the public that urged by information acceleration will need some clear mind and some broadly outlook to attitude accurately and proportionally. On the contrary, the stream of change as a big potential in values transformation also can’t let in concessive attitude without some wise thinking and the ability to sort both of good or bad impacts.

In the case of the assassination of an Indonesian human right activist, Munir, as an instance, some conflict of interest that appear could be distorted as if the government through our National Intelligence Agency ( BIN ) was confronting our public because the government used repressive ways in maintaining national security interest. Actually, the case clearly set a national strategic establishment in decaying condition inflicted by some irresponsible elements. This decaying could be happened because there is no proper law in intelligence field, thus inflicts some abusing power activities without can be reached easily by the positive laws. The inability of the intelligence agency to put forward a judicial approach, clearly become a hard knock for the strategic establishment.

From here, the press should be sharp enough to cover “the empty area” of the case in order to prompt the government and the public to understand the essential existence of proper law in intelligence field.

In our attitude toward the future, when this nation is going to start fixing various laws in national defense and security field which are more comprehensive e.g. national security law, thus national press should immediately form a working group for an effort in constructing an academic paper which shall accommodate some points of thinking by the press regarding the concept of national security with all of its attributes. Determine relevant conditions in freedom of information and national secrecy which are appropriate in the interest of national security.

The press’s base of thinking should start from the existence of a national society which is dynamic, responsive and tended to criticism, so that may consider some positive or negative factors. A society viewed as the information subject and also the citizen who understand about their rights and duties through empowerment of properly information and communication and primarily not to humiliate their dignity.

***