Indonesia's 'Soft Approach' against

Terrorism Vetoed by US, So What's Next?

BY :ARFIN SUDIRMAN

SEPTEMBER 18, 2020

The Al Hidayah Islamic Boarding School in Deli Serdang, North Sumatra, was founded by former terrorism convict Khairul
Ghazali, after he graduated from the government’s deradicalization program initiated by the National Counterterrorism
Agency (BNPT). (Antara Photo/Irsan Mulyadi)

Indonesia's proposal to promote Prosecution, Rehabilitation and Reintegration (PRR)

as part of counter-terrorism program during the Indonesian Presidency of the UN
Security Council (UNSC) was vetoed by the United States. Why was Indonesia so
concerned in proposing the PRR?

Encouraging the PRR agenda at the multilateral forum as a follow-up to the UNSC
Resolution 2178 and UNSC Resolution 2396 to neutralize ISIS legacy was actually one
of Indonesia's goals to promote a soft counter-terrorism approach since the 2002
Bali Bombing. As a response to the US global war on terror following the Sept. 11,
2001 terrorist attacks on American cities, Indonesia appears to have taken cautious
step in combating terrorism. However, Indonesia's consistency in implementing a
soft approach such as collaborative deradicalization program between state and
non-state actors should have been considered and implemented collectively by the
UN Security Council.
Two Main Approaches
In order to understand Indonesia’s consistency in encouraging soft approach on
terrorism, we need to explore through the basic perspective of Global Security.
Theoretically, there is a debate between traditional school that prioritizes state-
centric approach in providing security and defense against non-traditional school
that prioritizes a broader and comprehensive approach and thus requires
collaboration between state and non-state actors especially in combating
contemporary transnational threats. This theoretical debate is the most common and
classical debate in the study although there are several other alternative approaches
as a result of this academic debate.

The emphasis of traditional ideas in addressing existential threats is generally

manifested in a form of militaristic approaches such as warfare and modernization of
defense technology to create deterrence effect, while non-traditional ideas are
manifested in a more proportionate and down-to-earth approach by assessing the
scale of the threat. 

Since 1945, Indonesia has been practicing a comprehensive approach in securitizing

existential threats, both domestically and externally. Although it raises lots of
criticisms, this approach has been relatively unchanged. It is due to the fact that
inter-states war has been sharply decreased since the end of the Cold War, which
opened door to the balance of power. 

However, if you look at the bigger picture, the intra-state conflicts are actually
increasing and require more complex approach.

If we look at Indonesia's efforts to push the PRR agenda ahead of the Presidency at
the UN Security Council, it seems that Indonesia's message is clear: to encourage
international community to work together in overcoming Foreign Terrorist Fighter
(FTF) among ISIS deportees and returnees in an attempt to avoid internally displaced
persons and uncontrolled refugees who could potentially spread violent ideology in
their home country.

According to the UN Secretary General's report last year, there were 70,000 people in
just one refugee camp in Syria with around 24,000-30,000 foreign nationals.
Meanwhile, according to data from the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT),
there are around 1,500 Indonesian citizens who have become FTF of the ISIS, with
approximately 700 Indonesians still in Syria and Iraq and 100 more believed to be
dead. This number is quite large and very sensitive if it is not addressed
comprehensively because most ISIS member or FTFs involve children and women.

Thus, this non-traditional PRR agenda is considered a more effective and

comprehensive approach in a hope that it will break the cycle of revenge and
violence that generally occurs in war or traditional approaches. In contrast to
developed countries that prioritize traditional approaches to counterterrorism,
Indonesia has a philosophical foundation in promoting PRR against FTF at the
international level, namely the constitution or UUD 1945, article 26 about Indonesian
Citizens, the Law no. 12 of 2006 on Citizenship and Presidential Regulation No. 2 of
2007 concerning Procedures for Acquiring, Losing, Cancellation, and Recovering
Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia. 

These policies emphasize that an Indonesian FTF who used to be an ISIS member has
never lost its citizenship because politically Indonesia has never recognized ISIS as a
sovereign state based on the Montevideo Convention in 1933. Consequently, former
ISIS members of Indonesian citizens must be repatriated and sentenced in
accordance with the laws and regulations that apply nationally such as the Law no. 5
of 2018 on Terrorism or the Law Number 35 of 2014 on Child Protection and they
must participate in a total deradicalization program before fully reintegrating with
society.

P-5’s Conservatism
In addition, there is also a political dynamic that can challenge Indonesia's diplomacy
as one of the 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, which is
related to the conservative attitude of the Council’s five permanent member states
(P-5) in their security and defense policies. It should be acknowledged that the P-5
countries have so far been well-known as countries that uphold a traditional or
militaristic approach in dealing with all kind of threats, mainly due to historical,
economic and political factors. 

In fact, in order for the PRR agenda to get approval in the UN Security Council, the P-
5 hold a decisive role because of their veto power. China, for example, has a different
idea regarding PRR. It fears that the PRR could backfire on the Uyghur issue. The US
veto against the Indonesian proposal suggests that the P-5 countries remain to have
conservative views on this particular issue.

To sum up, it is true that terrorism has never been categorized as a threat to state
sovereignty given its illegitimate nature. Therefore, conventional war cannot be
applied in the fight against terrorism because, as Ken Booth and Tim Dunne have
warned in “World in Collision” (2002): "The Problem of fighting a war against
terrorism is that one never knows. If it has been won… when, then, can the victor's
flag be raised? Terrorists can lie in waiting or they can move to cells in other
territories." 

Therefore, in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, we hope that Indonesia's

diplomacy as a non-permanent member of the UNSC on the issue of counter
terrorism can remain consistent for the sake of Indonesia's national interests which is
the mandate of the UUD 1945, namely protecting the entire Indonesian nation and
all Indonesian interest as well participate in the exercise of world order and eternal
peace.

---

Arfin Sudirman is the head of Padjadjaran University’s International Relations

Department.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Jakarta Globe.
'Pendekatan Lembut' Indonesia
Melawan Terorisme Diveto AS, Jadi Apa
Selanjutnya?

Usulan Indonesia untuk mempromosikan Penuntutan, Rehabilitasi dan Reintegrasi

(PRR) sebagai bagian dari program kontra-terorisme selama Presidensi Indonesia
Dewan Keamanan PBB (DK PBB) diveto oleh Amerika Serikat. Mengapa Indonesia
begitu peduli dalam mengusulkan PRR?

Mendorong agenda PRR di forum multilateral sebagai tindak lanjut Resolusi DK PBB
2178 dan Resolusi DK PBB 2396 untuk menetralisir warisan ISIS sebenarnya
merupakan salah satu tujuan Indonesia untuk mendorong pendekatan kontra-
terorisme lunak sejak Bom Bali 2002. Sebagai respon terhadap perang global AS
melawan teror setelah serangan teroris 11 September 2001 di kota-kota Amerika,
Indonesia tampaknya telah mengambil langkah hati-hati dalam memerangi
terorisme. Namun, konsistensi Indonesia dalam menerapkan pendekatan lunak
seperti program deradikalisasi kolaboratif antara aktor negara dan non-negara
seharusnya dipertimbangkan dan dilaksanakan secara kolektif oleh Dewan Keamanan
PBB.

Two Main Ideas

Untuk memahami konsistensi Indonesia dalam mendorong pendekatan lunak

terhadap terorisme, perlu kita telusuri melalui perspektif dasar Keamanan Global.
Secara teoritis, terjadi perdebatan antara cara tradisional yang mengedepankan
pendekatan state-centric dalam memberikan keamanan dan pertahanan terhadap
mazhab nontradisional yang mengutamakan pendekatan yang lebih luas dan
komprehensif sehingga membutuhkan kolaborasi antara aktor negara dan non-
negara terutama dalam memerangi ancaman transnasional kontemporer. Debat
teoretis ini merupakan debat yang paling umum dan klasik dalam penelitian ini
meskipun ada beberapa pendekatan alternatif lain sebagai hasil dari debat akademis
ini.

Penekanan gagasan tradisional dalam mengatasi ancaman eksistensial umumnya

diwujudkan dalam bentuk pendekatan militeristik seperti peperangan dan
modernisasi teknologi pertahanan untuk menciptakan efek deterrence, sedangkan
gagasan non-tradisional diwujudkan dalam pendekatan yang lebih proporsional
dan membumi oleh menilai skala ancaman.

Sejak 1945, Indonesia telah mempraktikkan pendekatan komprehensif dalam

mengamankan ancaman eksistensial, baik di dalam maupun di luar negeri. Meskipun
menimbulkan banyak kritik, pendekatan ini relatif tidak berubah. Karena perang antar
negara telah menurun tajam sejak berakhirnya Perang Dingin, yang membuka pintu
bagi perimbangan kekuatan.

Namun, jika melihat gambaran yang lebih besar, konflik intra-negara justru semakin
meningkat dan membutuhkan pendekatan yang lebih kompleks.

Jika kita melihat upaya Indonesia untuk mendorong agenda PRR menjelang
Kepresidenan di Dewan Keamanan PBB, tampaknya pesan Indonesia jelas: untuk
mendorong masyarakat internasional untuk bekerja sama dalam mengatasi
Fighter Teroris Asing (FTF) di antara ISIS yang dideportasi dan kembali di upaya
untuk menghindari pengungsi internal dan pengungsi yang tidak terkendali yang
berpotensi menyebarkan ideologi kekerasan di negara asalnya.

Menurut laporan Sekjen PBB tahun lalu, ada 70.000 orang hanya di satu kamp
pengungsi di Suriah dengan sekitar 24.000-30.000 warga asing. Sedangkan menurut
data Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Terorisme (BNPT), terdapat sekitar 1.500 WNI
yang menjadi FTF ISIS, dengan kurang lebih 700 WNI masih berada di Suriah dan Irak
dan 100 lainnya diyakini tewas. Jumlah ini cukup besar dan sangat sensitif jika
tidak ditangani secara komprehensif karena sebagian besar anggota ISIS atau FTF
melibatkan anak-anak dan perempuan.

Dengan demikian, agenda PRR non-tradisional ini dianggap sebagai pendekatan

yang lebih efektif dan komprehensif dengan harapan dapat memutus siklus balas
dendam dan kekerasan yang umumnya terjadi dalam perang atau pendekatan
tradisional. Berbeda dengan negara maju yang mengutamakan pendekatan
tradisional dalam penanggulangan terorisme, Indonesia memiliki landasan
filosofis dalam mempromosikan PRR menangani FTF di tingkat internasional, yaitu
konstitusi atau UUD 1945 pasal 26 tentang Kewarganegaraan Indonesia, UU No. 12
Tahun 2006 tentang Kewarganegaraan dan Peraturan Presiden, Nomor 2 Tahun
2007 tentang Tata Cara Memperoleh, Kehilangan, Pembatalan, dan Pemulihan
Kewarganegaraan Republik Indonesia.

Kebijakan tersebut menegaskan bahwa FTF Indonesia yang pernah menjadi anggota
ISIS tidak pernah kehilangan kewarganegaraannya karena secara politik
Indonesia tidak pernah mengakui ISIS sebagai negara berdaulat berdasarkan
Konvensi Montevideo tahun 1933. Akibatnya, mantan anggota ISIS warga negara
Indonesia harus dipulangkan dan dihukum sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-
undangan yang berlaku secara nasional seperti UU No. 5 Tahun 2018 tentang
Terorisme atau Undang-Undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2014 tentang Perlindungan Anak
dan mereka harus mengikuti program deradikalisasi total sebelum berintegrasi
penuh dengan masyarakat.

P5’s Conservatism

Selain itu, terdapat pula dinamika politik yang dapat menantang diplomasi Indonesia
sebagai salah satu dari 10 anggota tidak tetap DK PBB, terkait dengan sikap
konservatif kelima negara anggota tetap (P-5) DK PBB dalam menjalankan
tugasnya soal kebijakan keamanan dan pertahanan. Harus diakui bahwa negara-
negara P-5 selama ini dikenal sebagai negara yang menjunjung tinggi pendekatan
tradisional atau militeristik dalam menghadapi segala macam ancaman, terutama
karena faktor sejarah, ekonomi dan politik.

Padahal, agar agenda PRR mendapat persetujuan di Dewan Keamanan PBB, P-5
memegang peran yang menentukan karena hak vetonya. Cina, misalnya, punya
pandangan berbeda soal PRR. Dikhawatirkan PRR bisa menjadi bumerang dalam
masalah Uyghur. Veto AS terhadap proposal Indonesia menunjukkan bahwa negara-
negara P-5 tetap memiliki pandangan konservatif tentang masalah khusus ini.

Ringkasnya, memang benar bahwa terorisme tidak pernah dikategorikan sebagai

ancaman terhadap kedaulatan negara mengingat sifatnya yang tidak sah. Oleh
karena itu, perang konvensional tidak dapat diterapkan dalam perang melawan
terorisme karena, seperti yang telah diperingatkan oleh Ken Booth dan Tim Dunne
dalam “World in Collision” (2002): telah dimenangkan ... kapan, kemudian, bendera
pemenang dapat dikibarkan? Teroris dapat menunggu atau mereka dapat pindah ke
sel di wilayah lain."

Oleh karena itu, di tengah pandemi Covid-19, kami berharap diplomasi Indonesia
sebagai anggota tidak tetap DK PBB dalam isu kontra terorisme dapat tetap
konsisten demi kepentingan nasional Indonesia yang merupakan amanat UUD 1945.
yaitu melindungi segenap bangsa Indonesia dan seluruh kepentingan bangsa
Indonesia serta ikut melaksanakan ketertiban dunia dan perdamaian abadi.