Interagency cooperation needed in countering terrorism

Interagency cooperation needed in countering terrorism

Bantarto Bandoro
Jakarta

We can make assessments anytime we want. We can also make
probability judgments and build scenarios of what might happen in
the future. But there will always be surprises, no matter how
carefully we protect our environment. The recent Bali bombings
reflect the fact that even with the most sophisticated
intelligence network and architecture -- if the government ever
claimed to have one -- terrorist attacks cannot always be
prevented.

In the weeks that followed the attacks on Bali, extensive
debate took place over the role intelligence should play in
preventing future acts of terror. The public would agree that the
bombings in Bali were a clear reflection of another series of
failures by our intelligence system.

Intelligence is often referred to as a thankless profession
because it garners attention only through its failures. It has
been almost two weeks since the bombings, but the authorities
have so far found no clues yet as to who was actually behind the
attacks. Now our policymakers seem to be preoccupied mostly by
the need to craft a strategy for combating terrorism.

Counterterrorism policies and strategy is not only about
effective intelligence. It is also about the reliability of
interagency cooperation and effectiveness. Weeks after the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks in 2001 in the United States, for example,
exhaustive international meetings were conducted to discuss ways
of combating international terrorism.

There was also a call from the UN for the international community
to redouble their cooperation in campaigning against terrorism. On
the regional level, ASEAN, for instance, launched an even more
solid regional cooperation after series of terrorist bombings in
Jakarta. So, the key word here is cooperation.

In these two cases, reference to multilateral cooperation is
at the global and regional level. But true and effective
multilateral cooperation, which will be subject to national
interests, needs to work first and foremost at home. Meaning that
only then are multilateral efforts likely to make real progress.

On the domestic front, we cannot fight terrorism simply
through the unilateral action of individual agencies. Internally,
we should not allow ourselves to get bogged down by the issue of
which agency is most appropriate to counteract terrorism.
Terrorism is an evil to be extinguished and must therefore be
tackled collaboratively.

The intelligence function certainly has a role in this, but
terrorism also has relevance to other agencies. The bombings in
Kuta and Jimbaran area prompted many to realize that closer
cooperation, coordination and sharing of information between
agencies is indeed necessary if similar attacks are to be avoided
in the future.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's idea that the military
should be involved in the fight against terrorism is assumed to
be based on this rationale. The majority of population look to
the government to provide a safe and secure environment in which
they can go about their normal daily lives.

Acts of terrorism will not only ruin the international image
of Indonesia, as recognized by the President himself, but also
undermine the stability of the nation. The fear of the unknown or
known, the when, where and how the terrorists will next strike,
should drive domestic agencies to act in concert. This is to say
that effective interagency cooperation can help strengthen the
nation's stand against terrorism.

The point of controversy here however is the suggestion that
the military be a part in preventing and acting against terrorism
by reactivating the concept of the territorial command. But if
one looks at the indiscriminate effect of the bombing and the
grave threat the terrorist attacks might pose to national
security, the involvement of certain functions of the military in
interagency cooperation is not an impossible option.

If terrorism is seen as affecting national security, as
implicitly stated in the President's speech on the occasion of
the 60th anniversary of the TNI, it is political and military
issues that could perhaps end with responses by military forces
to prevent and deter terrorist acts.

If future counterterrorism policy and strategy in Indonesia is
to be effective and credible, it should involve the military,
diplomats, police, judiciary, the intelligence community as well
as logistical and legislative dimension.

Combating terrorism in Indonesia is a tough business that
calls for tough, comprehensive and coordinated national measures.
The call by the President for the military to help fight
terrorism is not wrong if it was truly meant to be part of
interagency cooperation and to strengthen the fight against
terrorism, and not because of any perceived inability of the
police.

The writer is director of the Scientific Infrastructure and
Publication; and chief editor of The Indonesian Quarterly, Centre
for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta. He can be
reached at bandoro@csis.or.id.