Combating terrorims in RI

Combating terrorims in RI

Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly', Centre
for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta,
bandoro@csis.or.id

The past few months have seen serious discussion on the
dangers of terrorism. Much has occurred to convince the public
here that the threat of terrorism is a serious matter, to be
taken up at every level of public policy. This includes the
bombing of JW Marriott hotel, the debate on whether Indonesia
should adopt antiterrorist legislation like the Internal Security
Act (ISA), and the capture of suspected terrorist mastermind
Hambali, together with competing claims for legal jurisdiction
over him. Most recently, there was the "antiterror trip" of
President Megawati Soekarnoputri, which is believed to have
bolstered antiterrorism cooperation with neighboring countries.

The threat has become even more serious, given that Indonesia
is listed as one of the countries most likely to be targeted in
terrorist attacks.

Among issues of current debate on terrorism here is the
government's demand that it be given direct access to Hambali and
that Hambali be tried here, and the earlier notion that Indonesia
should adopt an ISA-type law, as in Malaysia and Singapore. The
sentiment over the need for both seemed to have been encouraged
by the feeling in government circles that Indonesia wished to be
perceived as being more serious than before in combating
terrorism.

Regarding Hambali, the government argued that the Indonesian
intelligence services linked Hambali specifically with last
October's Bali terrorist attack. Indonesia hopes that Hambali
will reveal the extent of links between Jamaah Islamiyah (JI) and
the international terrorist network al-Qaeda, and help
investigators uncover fully what is behind the Bali bombing and
other past bombings in Indonesia, apart from possible future
terrorist acts here.

The government believes that it can claim Hambali from U.S.
custody although it has no extradition treaty with the U.S., as
the U.S. side has at least promised Indonesian investigators
access to Hambali.

The continued detention of Hambali by the U.S. authorities and
the demand by Indonesia, and some other neighboring countries,
for an independent interrogation of Hambali and, if possible,
that he be brought here for justice, reflect how the fight
against international terrorism has caused differences in the way
Jakarta and Washington conduct their antiterror policy.

The U.S. is likely to maintain its current policy and stance
on Hambali until it genuinely feels that it has gleaned enough
information about the linkages between Hambali and other
terrorist acts against the U.S., especially the tragedy of
September 2001.

Completion of Hambali's interrogation would not mean that the
U.S. would later automatically send him to countries that also
had an interest in him.

It is rather a "foolish assumption", as stated by our foreign
minister Hassan Wirayuda (in the australian.news.com), that the
U.S. would reach a point where it did not need Hambali anymore
before it finally handed him over to Indonesia.

If Hambali were to be sent to Indonesia, it would rather be
more of a political gesture by the U.S., which might feel the
need to share the prize of its catch with other Southeast Asian
countries affected by terrorist acts suspected to have involved
Hambali and JI.

The U.S. is worried that sending Hambali back to the region
would invite a repeat of what happened in the Philippines, when
Fathur Rohman al-Ghozi managed to escape from detention. The U.S.
may argue that Hambali's arrest was only made possible due to
close cooperation between its Central Intelligence Agency and
Thailand security authorities.

The U.S. probably has the strongest claim to put him on trial.
Hambali was, as U.S. sources stated, among the most sought-after
figures suspected of responsibility in the planning of the Sept.
11 attack, including through his involvement in arranging an
early meeting with the airplane hijackers.

Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand have little choice
but to acquiesce over Hambali's custody by the U.S. The U.S.,
however, should not monopolize the process of interrogation.

Hambali's detention should not cause a diplomatic rift between
the U.S. and Indonesia and other Southeast Asian countries. We
will see how Indonesia can give its best shot in its diplomacy
with the U.S. in trying to get Hambali back. The appearance of
Hambali in an Indonesian court, though hopes are dim, would help
convince the public that JI exists here, contrary to the denial
of some religious leaders.

Trying Hambali in Indonesia would also help refute the
conspiracy theory that JI is a fabrication of the U.S. and that
the U.S. is behind a string of bombings in the country.

What is perhaps more important for Indonesia to do now is to
better coordinate the fight against terrorism and also to
initiate tougher antiterror policies, which may have been
unthinkable only a year ago.

An Indonesian-specific, ISA-type law would perhaps be
appropriate to preempt terrorist acts, meaning that the
government should be mandated to implement, indiscriminately,
stricter antiterror policy. Despite criticism from advocates of
human rights and democracy, such authority would certainly enable
the security apparatus, including the military and intelligence
services, to quell terrorism.

Terrorism, after all, is a national security issue and the
government and opposing parties must be united in confronting
this real threat. The danger of terrorism is something that we
can no longer underestimate.