Transnational challenges to Indonesia's security

Transnational challenges to Indonesia's security

Andi Widjajanto
International Fellow
National Defense University
Washington, D.C.

The global campaign against terrorism symbolizes a much larger
trend: The emerging tendency of nation-states to turn their focus
to transnational security threats. This new tendency has
important implications for international relations theory as well
as for the conduct of foreign and defense policy. One immediate
implication is the common perception that an alternative
framework for thinking about security that encompasses the
transnational agenda is required.

Another implication is that a transformation of the
policymaking process is needed to deal with this complex issue.

International relations as an academic discipline has been
dominated by "realism". Realists see world politics as a "state
of war" and they believe that the international system is best
characterized as an anarchic one.

The methods of securing or restoring the balance such as the
formation of alliances, sphere influence, intervention,
diplomatic bargaining, (dis)armament, buffer zone, and war are
recognized as the prominent strategies to create peace.

The realist's characterization of world politics is too
narrowly conceived to make sense of the transnational challenge
to global security. A new class of transnational threats is
emerging.

In the post-realist world, one dependent variable, for
example, the uncontrolled proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, global terrorism, widespread regional instability
caused by the collapse of many nation-states, or Huntington's
prophecy of a global clash of civilization, will not sufficiently
shape the nature of global politics.

The threats and crises in the years ahead seem much more
likely to be diverse in source, nature, and scale. These threats
stem from demographic pressures, resource depletion, global
warming, unregulated population movements, transnational crime
and virulent new strains of infectious diseases, and many others
not previously associated with international security.

Today, a complex multi-centric world has emerged. This world
consists of various non-state actors such as multinational
corporations, ethnic minorities, sub national governments,
professional societies, social movements, non-governmental
organizations, political parties, and individual actors.

If Indonesia is to actively address the complex character of
transnational security threats, its traditional style of
policymaking has to change.

The policymaking process is a series of concentric circles. At
the center is the president, surrounded by political advisors.
This inner circle usually includes the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, the Minister of Defense, the Minister of Home Affairs,
the Director of National Intelligence Agency, and the Chiefs of
the National Police and the military.

Beyond this circle lies the relevant departments of the
executive branch and various independent agencies and
commissions. Farther still from the center is the congressional
ring with the organizations of the legislative branch. The outer
circle consists the public arena: The media, interest groups, and
the general public.

Indonesia's security and foreign policymaking is best
characterized as highly centralized bureaucracies in which
security policy decisions are made mainly at the inner circle.
This becomes a dominant feature because traditionally security is
regarded as a high politics agenda that has immediate impact on
national survival.

This policy-making feature will make it difficult for any
agency to handle transnational threats that might appear in
several different forms in different regions at the same time.

Many of the challenges confronting transnational security
threats could be reduced if the government were to reorient its
thinking and operations and decentralize its decision making
process. This reorientation can be conducted by using three
methods.

Firstly, the government should continue to define security as
a multidimensional concept that requires a firm interagency
cooperation. A case in point is the debate about the possible
engagement of the Indonesian Military (TNI) to address
transnational threats.

Proponents for military deployment argue that transnational
security threats are the major security challenges to the nation-
state in the next decades. On the other hand, military
involvement would detract the military from its fundamental role
of defending the nation from external attacks and would create a
financial drain to military budgets.

The point of agreement of this debate could be a call for the
government to designate a particular division of its military
forces to deal specifically with transnational security threats,
or Indonesia could create units within civilian agencies that
might even have military training to acquire specific skill to
deal with transnational threats.

The second method is decentralization. Although the inner
circle will continue to design the national security strategy,
the responsibility for their conduct could be decentralized. The
inner circle could concentrate their attention on major potential
crises that pose direct and immediate threats to global and
national security.

Direct attacks on Indonesian territory, interstate aggression,
a regional arms race, and humanitarian crises are examples of
issues that would be the areas for inner circle concern. Lower
bureaucratic levels then could both undertake early warning tasks
and oversee preventive responses in local arenas.

The third method is that Indonesia's security strategy should
recognize the importance of adopting a more multilateral
approach. Indonesia must try to provide a counter-balance of
preemptive doctrine of U.S. President George W. Bush. This
counter-balance is the introduction of the global preventive
regime, which would comprise the United Nations system, regional
organizations, and non governmental organizations.

Before taking this step, Indonesia should first seek to gain
support for the initiative from other major power, who should
exercise their leadership by providing resources to multilateral
organizations and NGOs on the front lines of prevention,
providing diplomatic support behind particular preventive
efforts, and providing experienced individual representative to
mediate incipient disputes under multilateral auspices.