Global war on terror and car bomb in Jakarta

Global war on terror and car bomb in Jakarta

Shafiah Fifi Muhibat, Jakarta

As we commemorate the third anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001
tragedy in New York, the conduct of a more visible global "war on
terror" requires a reassessment. High profile acts of terrorism
change how governments and their leaders see the world.

After Sept. 11, a war with a clear objective was waged by
states, in this case a United States-led coalition against al-
Qaeda, which is a non-state actor, and its state sponsor, the
Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Today, this "war on terror" is a more
shadowy contest.

Three years after Sept. 11, the world has once again been
shocked by acts of terror. A week before today, the world was
preoccupied by a series of catastrophes in Russia.

After the two commercial plane crashes and the Moscow metro
station blasts, the climax of the incidents in Russia was,
undoubtedly, the Beslan hostage tragedy which killed more than
300 people, many of whom were school children.

Two days ago, the world was shaken once again. This time, the
incident happened right here in our neighborhood. A powerful car
bomb exploded outside the Australian Embassy in central Jakarta
on Thursday, killing at least seven people in the vicinity and
injuring more than 100. The incident followed alerts by the
United States and Australia warning that Islamic extremists
blamed for other attacks in Indonesia could strike again.

What we can learn from the Jakarta and Beslan incidents is
that terrorism operates on many fronts. A wide range of different
terror acts have occurred during the past three years, as
different as Bali and Madrid. Terrorism, indeed, has a long arm,
stretching anywhere, and it is quite possible new fronts will
emerge in the future.

Moreover, from the past incidents and the way that governments
under attack handle the situation, the enemy of the war against
terror has also learned a key lesson: That states are vulnerable
to transnational threats. The enemy has also learned that it,
too, is vulnerable if it depends on static headquarters and
bases.

These recent incidents will heighten absolutely the anxiety
about terrorism. People will consequentially become more
paranoid, and will do all it takes to make sure they and their
families are secure. This could encourage citizens and countries
to be more willing to condone precarious preemptive policies in
the name of the war against terror. From the Iraq War lesson, it
can be seen that such policies do not exclusively result in their
intended aims. This state of willingness, moreover, actually
weakens public scrutiny towards the government's policies, which
means that vested interests within the government (and in some
cases from outside the government as well) become the sole
driving force of these policies.

For weaker or unstable states, global terrorism can have even
more dramatic consequences. Fragile states, with generally weaker
law enforcement, judicial systems and permeable borders, become
hot-spots for the growth of terrorist cells and the opening of
new fronts of terrorist activities. In such cases, global
cooperation needs to go hand-in-hand with capacity-building to
build up the institutions that tackle terrorist cells.

This is the course of action that Indonesia must continue to
take. Although joint cooperation, especially regionally within
the framework of southeast and east Asia, has been adopted,
internal solidity must be achieved in order to effectively play a
role in the cooperation.

The incident in Kuningan, Jakarta, two days ago is stark proof
of the weakness in the national security system in Indonesia. The
failure of intelligence, the poor management of early warnings,
and the mishandling of past terrorism-related catastrophes helped
enable the attack to occur. This situation strongly needs
improving.

Moreover, the problem in Indonesia is not only institutional.
The government must also be watchful in its policy-making on
terrorism, because it can be dangerous on the domestic political
front to make accusations certain groups are involved in
terrorism. This is not as easy as it may seem, since foreign
policy and domestic interests are intertwined and may at certain
times push the government in different directions.

These internal challenges must be met by Indonesia before it
can cooperate properly in a larger grouping. Without making
improvements in national security, making regional cooperation
agreements with neighboring countries would be a waste of time
and energy because nothing would be achieved by them.

Recognizing the many fronts of terror, it is only natural that
the calls for unity to fight the enemy also intensify. The
momentum for global cooperation against the enemy cannot loosen.
What is imperative is to always keep in mind that the enemy is a
global terrorist network, not a state, which implies that the
same rules of engagement do not necessarily apply. The enemy is
neither a single enemy, rather, it is a tactic employed by
various groups and regimes. It is the tactic of preference for
self-obsessed radical movements.

The recognition by states of a globally networked non-
traditional security threat has led to intelligence sharing that
would not have been otherwise so forthcoming. Such cooperation is
still impossible between the many nations that remain suspicious
of each other.

However, global cooperation and unity is more essential now
than it ever was. This is a moment in which the response of
civilized people must be governed by alliances stretching across
cultures, religions and systems. Although states are guided by
their own experiences and circumstances, unilateralism cannot
prevail.

Sept. 11 has encouraged increased security cooperation between
and among states, including ASEAN. Due to the reality of the
terrorist threat, the need for joint cooperation and action to
meet it effectively, and since southeast Asia has been regarded
as a significant front on the issue, multilateral and bilateral
agreements between ASEAN states to combat terrorism are
indisputable.

ASEAN states have already started an ongoing exchange program
and are conducting combined military exercises.

Although we may question the commitment to these agreements or
the degree of cooperation that will be reached, most people would
agree now that it is necessary to enhance professionalism and
solidarity among ASEAN states' security systems.

The Jakarta incident served as a strong reminder of the threat
that terrorist networking presents. In this regard, global unity
is imperative in confronting terrorism on its numerous fronts.

If there is anything that one can learn from the Sept. 11
tragedy and the subsequent terror attacks it is that terrorism
can only be minimized and controlled, and this can only be
achieved with a worldwide strategy, participated in by all of the
world's prudent and peaceful countries.

The writer (shfifi@csis.or.id) is a researcher of the
Department of International Relations of the Center for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS).