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).