Indonesian military officers look at a German tank, 62 ton-MBT Leopard Evolution, during the 2012 Indodefense expo in Jakarta on Nov. 8, 2012. The concept of national security is a highly complex one, which is defined differently at different times in a country’s history, according to Bantarto Bandoro, a senior lecturer at the Indonesian Defense University. (AFP Photo/Bay Ismoyo)
The presidential debates are not over yet. The first debate on June 9 saw the pairs overwhelmed by critical issues that are in dire need of real solutions.
The first debate addressed the theme of building democracy, good governance and law certainty. The second debate on Sunday saw a discussion on economic development and social welfare, while a third dialogue scheduled for June 22 will go over internal politics and national resilience. The fourth debate on June 29 and July 9’s final face off will raise the issue of human resource development and science, and technology and food, energy and environment respectively.
Though none of these topics are not specific to national security, they can still be framed within that context.
A draft bill on Indonesia’s national security was introduced by the government in 2006, which as yet, has not been passed by parliament. While a country’s national security is defined principally through domestic issues, a wider concept also relates to external threats, which — according to a statement made by chief of Indonesia’s defense forces on July 20, 2011 — have become widespread.
We would like to know just how deeply each presidential candidate understands the importance of national security and what it entails. The concern may be that the new government taking power may lack the will, if not competence, to handle the security situation effectively. Should it fail on that score, Indonesia risks experiencing domestic turbulence and conflict.
We expect to see the presidential hopefuls air their perspectives on national security when they address the issue of internal politics and national resilience in their third debate. We are also curious to know how they will frame all of the issues addressed in the debate within the scope of national security policies.
The concept of national security is a highly complex one, which is defined differently at different times in a country’s history. Under President Sukarno for example, national security seemed to focus on expelling elements of colonialism and imperialism from the country.
Sukarno was anti-colonial in his personal as well as his policy outlook, and he took the strong position that viewed foreign powers as direct threats to Indonesia’s independence. Thus, national security during his administration mobilized domestic resources towards complete independence from the outside world, even at the expense of economic growth.
In contrast, the New Order regime under General Suharto perceived the major threat as internal. In seeking economic development and political stability, his policy measures aimed at strengthening the country’s foreign relations in order to secure external resources — a prerequisite for resolving internal problems.
In 1975, following Western military boycotts in light of Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor, the concept of national resilience was introduced to express the comprehensiveness of this notion.
The administrations led by Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie, Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid, Megawati Soekarnoputri and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono have tended to perceive national security as equivalent to maintaining territorial integrity.
Habibie also seemed to follow his predecessor’s thinking that political stability and overall national development were key to national security. His major concern may, therefore, have been the release of East Timor from Indonesian control.
The presidency’s salient characteristic after Gus Dur assumed power in 1999 grew from his rash handling of national issues, which not only led to his downfall, but also to a belief that his government did not prioritize national security.
The crucial security issues Gus Dur’s successor, Megawati, faced were the Bali bombing, sectarian conflicts in Maluku and Poso, and Aceh’s increasingly rebellious nature. However, Megawati’s government received praise for a national law on combating terrorism.
After gaining the presidency in 2004, Yudhoyono went much further in addressing the spectrum of challenges to national security. It was during his two terms in office that various documents directly related to the matter were published, reflecting the administration’s attempt to address areas of concern comprehensively.
This brief outline on how national security issues were perceived by Indonesia’s six previous governments shows substantial differences in both the handling of salient issues and also the country’s degrees of alertness toward possible threats to the country.
Whoever the president-elect of Indonesia will be, he will be working in a completely different national setting. The new president’s perspective of national security will be shaped by the issues he encounters during his five years of presidency, suggesting that he will act very differently from his predecessors.
A student recently asked me whether there has been or will be a national debate or an open dialogue between the presidential hopefuls on the subject of national security, to which I replied: “No, not really.”
But if the candidate is smart enough to relate the issues raised during the national debate to national security, then one can assume they have at least given the matter a thought. So far, neither has gone as far as to suggest that the mismanagement of those issues will have serious repercussions on national security.
For now then, one has to wonder how the presidential candidates will frame national security in their political programs.
Perhaps, a priority would be for the next government to initiate fresh and concrete steps toward passing the 2006 national security bill. The next administration, however, must make sure that the draft bill, if passed by parliament, would in no way sacrifice human rights, prevent the growth of democracy and ignore the Indonesian people.
Not only that; the next government should know that a “national security threat list” was absent from the current administration’s policies. If the next government can develop such a list, it would help security forces and the public in general to fully understand the various activities that are a danger to our national security, regardless of the sources and who the acting agents are.
Bantarto Bandoro is a senior lecturer at the Indonesian Defense University and founder of the Institute for Defense and Security Research (IDSR) in Jakarta
By Bantarto Bandoro on 11:01 am Jun 16, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment