The changing of the security strategy and system in a state is something that we cannot deny. Security strategies and systems are dynamic, where changes are highly influenced by the context of the strategic environment.
Changes such as the wave of democratization, the shifting of inter-state conflicts into intra-state conflicts, globalization, technological advances and the increased flow of information and the recognition of human rights have all directly and indirectly forced many countries to rearrange their respective security systems.
In Indonesia, although some positive achievements have been reached through the security sector reform period since 1998, reforms remain insufficient.
These changes include reforms in the levels of regulations, as well as changes to roles and functions of security actors.
However, these changes are inadequate to develop a proper national security system, especially considering the complexity of threats and the evolution of the security concept.
In security studies, the concept of security can roughly be categorized into traditional and non-traditional approaches. In general, the two have encountered a debate about the referent object of security (Barry Buzan: 1991).
In the traditional approach, security is simply defined as security of the state, which may be threatened by military force from other states, and must be defended through military power itself.
Meanwhile, in the non-traditional approach, the concept of security is wider and places greater emphasis on non-state actors’ interests.
This approach was developed following the decline of military threats to state sovereignty and the emergence of other threats to human security such as infectious diseases, natural disasters, environmental damage and others.
Furthermore, the referent object of security becomes more widespread and is no longer focused on the state but also human security. The United Nations Development Program’s (UNDP) Human Development Report (1994) affirmed seven dimensions that should be considered related to human security, namely: economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, individual security, community security and political security.
From the above explanation, we can conclude that security is no longer related only with protecting the territory of a state (national sovereignty), but also includes efforts to ensure, fulfill and protect the security of citizens (human).
In that context, building national security should be able to cope with some security problems, both in the traditional sense and non-traditional, in order to protect and ensure public safety.
Indonesia faces security issues and threats of both a “traditional and non-traditional” nature. However, the real problems the government is facing every day are more non-traditional threats rather than traditional threats.
But this does not mean the government can ignore development of military capability because the acts of aggression or war may yet emerge in the future.
Furthermore, an Indonesian defense white paper indicated that threats to security included military and non-military threats.
Military threats included threats to use armed forces that could jeopardize the country’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the safety of the entire nation, such as military aggression, territorial violations, armed rebellion, sabotage, espionage, terrorism, maritime and air security threats and communal conflicts. Non-military threats can take the forms of ideological, political, economic, social, cultural, technological and information challenges.
In ASEAN, the non-traditional threats are considered the main issues that could endanger regional security. These threats consist of the issues of terrorism, small arms smuggling, armed separatism, women and children trafficking, forest fires, piracy, money laundering, and drug trafficking.
The evolution of the security concept and the complexity of threats actually reflects the way the national security system should be built, as integrative not partial.
Our national security system should be comprehensive, and serve to coordinate all the involved components of national strength. Coordination becomes important in order to maintain the national security despite the differentiation of functions and tasks of each component.
Admittedly, at a more operational level, the government has issued some legislation related to the security sector such as the Law No. 3 / 2002 on state defense, Law No. 34/2004 on the TNI and Law No. 2/2002 on the police in order to strengthen the legal basis for the national security system.
Before some of these laws were issued, the People Consultative Assembly (MPR) through its decrees No.VI/2000 and MPR Decree No.VII/2000 was the first institution to bring about changes to the national security system.
However, a number of laws related to security reform are insufficient to overcome future problems, especially those in “grey areas” of security matters.
Undeniably, we need a comprehensive system to face escalating threats that require strong cooperation and coordination among security actors.
In other words, the national security bill should emphasize interagency cooperation among security actors in a critical or emergency state.
The national security bill recently proposed by the government does not reflect what we really need to improve our security. In addition, some articles in the bill threaten freedom and human rights.
The bill describes national security threats widely and opens the door for potential abuses of power. The explanation of Article 17, for example, states that non-violent threats include mass strikes, decadence of moral values and national ethics, stupidity, injustice and disobedience of law. Such categorizations would allow the state to classify pro-democracy groups as a national security threat.
Besides, by authorizing the Indonesian Military (TNI) and State Intelligence Agency (BIN) to conduct inquiries and arrest people (explanation of Article 54, Point E and Article 20), the bill clearly puts democracy, human rights and law enforcement in jeopardy.
BIN and TNI are not part of the criminal justice system. So, giving them the special authority means destroying criminal justice system and legalizing the use of abduction as happened in the past.
The national security bill should assign new tasks or duties to security actors, because their main tasks are already stated in specific laws such as the TNI Law, Police Law and State Intelligence Law.
Related to the National Security Council (DKN) issue, this bill should strictly authorize the council to assist the President by providing alternative policies regarding national security matters.
The council should not hold power to control the national security arrangement.
It is important for the House of Representatives and the government to revise the bill and drop controversial articles. We have to move forward in managing our national security and leave practices inherited from the New Order where they belong — in the past.
The deliberation of the bill should respond to criticism and engage with civil society, so that we can produce a good national security system.
Al Araf is program director at Imparsial Human Right Monitor Group. Anton Aliabbas is a lecturer at Indonesian Defense University.
