Defending RI's homeland expensive, but necessary
Defending RI's homeland expensive, 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Indonesia is susceptible to foreign attack, has outdated weaponry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foreign countries due to the outdated weaponry systems possessed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.