Intelligence agencies must be held to account

Intelligence agencies must be held to account

Aleksius Jemadu, Bandung

Building an effective intelligence service in a fragile
democracy like Indonesia may be problematic. The recent series of
bomb attacks has built an awareness among government officials of
the need for an effective intelligence service.

Responding to terrorism fears, President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono has asked for the revival of the Regional Intelligence
Coordinating Agency (Bakorinda). Human rights activists have been
quick to reject the idea, fearing the misuse of the agency to
repress those who oppose government policy. On top of that, the
prospect of a regional-level intelligence service triggers
memories in the public of past human rights abuses by the ruling
power.

The heart of the matter is the issue of how to make our
intelligence service subject to democratic accountability. In the
post-Sept. 11 vocabulary of security studies, democracy and
effective intelligence service can be made compatible with each
other. In other words, it is possible to build a sophisticated
intelligence service without jeopardizing democracy and human
rights. In fact advanced democracies like the United States and
the United Kingdom have strengthened their intelligence service
while at the same time safeguarding their commitment to
democratic ideals.

It should be noted that terrorism is a clandestine activity.
The terrorist groups carry out their activities in secrecy. If
they want to explode a bomb in a busy market the executor will
camouflage himself as a regular market visitor. Therefore, a
terrorist threat cannot be dealt with by capitalizing on the
normal functioning of government agencies. Clandestine political
violence should be dealt with through clandestine intelligence
operations. In this case, transparency as a desirable principle
of good governance is no longer relevant and must thus be
abandoned for the sake of the effective and timely prevention of
terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately, Indonesia has no experience of a democratically
accountable intelligence service. Even the current functioning of
the State Intelligence Agency (BIN) has been tainted by its
failure to accurately assess terrorist threats. To make things
worse, security officials themselves are involved in various
crimes, particularly in conflict areas like Aceh, Papua, Central
Sulawesi and Maluku. Thus, public suspicion over the plan to
revive intelligence service at a regional level is well-founded.

The government should regard this criticism as a warning that
it is high time to introduce a new kind of intelligence service.
Old ways of doing things should be abandoned and new codes of
conduct should be adopted. The following guidelines may be useful
preparation for policymakers in building an accountable and
professional intelligence service.

First, intelligence service is just another continuation of
the executive power with the special purpose of gathering and
analyzing information to come up with an accurate assessment of
threats against national security. As such, it should be based on
a mandate given and controlled by the law. Indonesia really needs
a new legislation on intelligence service as a legal umbrella.
Public participation in the formulation of the law should be
endorsed. Political parties in power may not be allowed to
monopolize the deliberation of the legislation as they could use
it for partisan interests.

Second, as power tends to corrupt, multi-layered oversight
should be developed. According to Hans Born and Ian Leigh (2005)
there are four layers of democratic oversight of the intelligence
services. The four layers are interrelated and each layer of
oversight is encapsulated by the next layer. In the first layer
the intelligence service should have its own internal control.
For instance, the head of the intelligence service is expected to
control the use of special powers by its members.

The next layer is the oversight conducted by the executive
power whose task is to give direction to the intelligence service
in accordance with its security policies. Then the executive
power is controlled by the government to make sure that laws are
fully respected. Finally, democratic oversight can be conducted
by independent actors in society. The media, for instance, may
disclose scandals and power abuse by the intelligence service.

Last but not least, there is a popular belief that the
government's determination to fight against terrorism will only
serve the global interests of the United States and its allies.
The fear of losing popular support may weaken the government's
determination in mobilizing its full strength in cracking down on
terrorist activities. The government needs to enlighten the
public that it is the Indonesian people who bear the political
and economic costs of Indonesia's failure to prevent the spread
of terrorism on its soil.

Unfortunately, some Western governments and media tend to
exaggerate and generalize the terrorist threat in Indonesia with
the effect that it is becomes easy for them to issue travel bans.
Indonesia will not be able to promote its tourism and attract new
foreign investment while these travel bans are in place. The
peace-loving majority of the Indonesian people do not deserve
this unfair punishment. By building an effective and accountable
intelligence service in dealing with the issue of terrorism the
government can liberate them from the frustrations of this
situation.

The writer is Head of the Department of International
Relations Parahyangan Catholic University Bandung and member of
the Indonesian Working Group for Intelligence Reform. The views
expressed in this article are his own. He can be reached at
aleks@home.unpar.ac.id