Defending RI's homeland costly, but necessary

Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly', Center for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta

Indonesia straddles one of the world's busiest sea and air communication zones, and while it is relatively weak in economic terms, its location makes it a significant geostrategic actor in the Asia Pacific region. However, this advantage has its vulnerability when matched against its geographic fragmentation. Indonesia is susceptible to foreign attack, has outdated weaponry and, worse, the bulk of this year's military budget of about Rp 9.3 trillion goes to the army, leaving the air force and the navy almost without capital for new sophisticated weaponry.

This lesson was learned following last week's hearing between the Navy and Air Force bosses with Commission I of the House of Representatives.

In an unprecedented blunt manner, the two chiefs of staff painted a bleak picture of the current reality in Indonesia's defense posture and capability. Simply said, the national territory is highly vulnerable to air and naval attack from foreign countries due to the outdated weaponry systems possessed by the country's Navy and Air Force.

Perhaps, it was a kind of embarrassment for the Indonesian political and military leaders and the public at large that the complaint came from two chiefs of staff who serve to defend the air and sea jurisdictions, an area considered highly vulnerable to external threat.

But disclosures of weakness in Navy and Air Force capability sent a clear signal that the nation has to act quickly in redesigning the country's defense posture.

Not only that, the confession by the chiefs should mean that the Air Force and Navy be given an appropriate role in defending the country. Consequently, the Air Force and the Navy should receive more budget than they used to in the past. It is time to reassess the allocation of the budget and the present mapping of the tasks of defending the homeland.

Because the army receive more of the budget so far, there is a perception that the nation's defense would focus on land only, thus leaving the army the main task of defending the nation.

Were such a perception true, it clearly ignores the fact that Indonesia consists of thousands of islands surrounded by a lengthy coastline, meaning that the country's defense planners must critically consider the geographical factor in their defense policy. The air and maritime dimension in our defense policy seems to be missing.

What was interesting from the above hearing was the blunt assessment by the two chiefs of staff that Indonesia might face external threats. To be precise, it might be in the form of air and naval attacks from foreign countries. Were this assessment valid, it would be a departure from the present policy of developing the armed forces chiefly to deal with suppressing internal insurgents rather than with external threats.

Having examined the external strategic environment of the country, it is not irrational to adopt such assessment. Current development in the region indicates an increase in piracy, hijacking, illicit trafficking in arms, smuggling of people, and worse perhaps, a hidden intention from external countries to create turbulence in our country.

Being a country with a vast geographic area and thus vulnerable to foreign attack, it is perhaps important for the Indonesian Military (TNI) to identify areas that must be critically defended and protected in case of external attacks, namely: (1) military deployment which includes radar sites, naval bases and air bases and other supporting military sites; (2) critical national infrastructures; (3) the population; (4) sovereignty - border and coastal areas; (5) constitutional authority, meaning a continuity of government; (6) economic resources.

Defending the homeland is indeed a very expensive business as it involves all national components, primarily the military, either at the planning, budgeting or operational level. The confession by the two chiefs of staff before Commission I is a shift in the military paradigm which suggests that the navy and the air force may play a bigger and important role in national security; and that the air and naval forces cannot perform well in defending the nation from whatever form of external threats unless the budget is allocated sufficiently to their services.

Indonesia is indeed in dire need to beef up its military capability. Such capability should be built on the bases of our long-term national interests and projected to protect among other things the democratic process and economic development, and to uphold internal stability and deter any possible external intruders. But the present condition of our economy does not seem to guarantee the fulfillment of such promise.

What is perhaps embarrassing is that being the largest and most influential country in the region, Indonesia now has zero- power projection and this would make the sprawling archipelago even more difficult to defend in case of a conventional attack.

It has always been a dream that Indonesia possess the capability to project amphibious assault battalions into trouble areas in eastern and western part of the republic. But the aging equipment and obsolete weaponry systems does not permit Indonesia to take that course.

Through the above hearing, the navy and air force have gone public with the information on the weaknesses of our defense capability. Such disclosure should serve as a kind of warning to the country's top military leaders that if Indonesia wants to have a military it is better to build one that is credible, reliable and capable.

Thus complaints by the chiefs of staff must not be viewed in negative terms, but perhaps as a starting point to rethink our defense policy. And it is within such thinking that the navy and air force should be given a special place in the defense planning process as well as a more strategic role in defending the homeland. After all, defending the nation is expensive, but necessary, and is the responsibility of all.