Parliamentary oversight

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.