INTELLIGENCE CHALLENGES IN COUNTER-TERRORISM IN
UNITED STATES
Introduction
Terrorism has transformed into a global threat since the September 11, 2001 attacks in the
United States. Whereas in the past, terrorism only affected certain countries with a limited
scale of operations, now terrorism has the potential to threaten the majority of countries in
the world through a global scale of operations. The advancement of information technology
has made it easier for terrorist groups to communicate, even though all available means of
communication are always under the supervision of security forces. The raging conflict in
several Arab countries known as the Arab Spring has also become a fertile ground for
terrorism, where terrorists from all over the world come to fight to achieve their goals (IHS,
2012).
The threat of terrorism faced by United States has evolved compared to 16 years ago.
The terrorists have regenerated where the latest generation of terrorist networks now have
stronger links to the global network of terrorist groups. The shift of global terrorism
leadership from Al Qaedah to ISIS has also affected the terrorism network in United States
(IHS, 2015). This has led to a network of terrorist groups in United States pledging
allegiance to ISIS (BBC, 2016). ISIS itself is very intensive in spreading and propagating its
teachings through social media on the internet to attract new followers who are faced with
being able to carry out attacks in their respective regions independently. (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2015: 8-13).
The conflict in the Arab world that led to the emergence of ISIS has implications for
United States efforts to implement counter-terrorism. Law enforcement actions against
terrorists in United States are considered not yet balanced with the success of
deradicalization programs (Kompas, 2016). In addition, from the legal aspect, United States
laws and regulations related to terrorism are considered unable to cover all aspects of
terrorism activities (Antara, 2016). In other words, there are still loopholes in terrorism laws
that can be utilized by terrorists to escape the law.
This is also the case with the role of intelligence in counter-terrorism, where there is
still a strong view that the United States intelligence community always experiences
intelligence failure in terrorism cases (Setyawan, 2016). This view always arises when an
act of terrorism occurs, including in the case of the M.H. Thamrin area, Jakarta on January
14, 2016. This paper will review the views on intelligence challenges in counter-terrorism in
United States, where the discussion is limited to the capacity and capability of the
intelligence organization itself.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
Terrorism
The world is currently facing the threat of terrorism, including United States. Terrorist
groups have launched a number of deadly attacks with large numbers of victims to
emphasize their political goals. The attacks occurred both in developed countries such as the
United States, the United Kingdom and Spain, as well as in developing countries including
United States. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington DC and New
York, there were also terrorist attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and London on July 7,
2005. Similarly, terror attacks in United States have occurred in several places since 2000
until now with a significant number of victims.
Terrorism is actually a part of war. No matter how bad it is, war is a part of human
civilization. War is the last resort of humans to defend their lives through mass acts of
violence involving a certain amount of military power. Terrorism has a main characteristic,
namely the use of violence which includes hijacking, kidnapping, suicide bombing, and so
on (Winarno, 2011: 171).
Lindemann (2010) in Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition, reveals that in
war, the military plays a very important role in determining goals, directions, strategies,
operations, tactics, and it is an arena that is carried out in support of what is called national
security. After all, the goal of hard work and struggle in war is to gain recognition,
especially political recognition, for both sustainability and national security reasons.
Terrorism that is now developing is a form of asymmetrical warfare, where terrorists
who are weak in quantity and quality are faced with state actors in various ways trying to
exploit the weaknesses of state actors so that their position is even stronger in order to
achieve predetermined goals. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon and therefore there is no
single explanation that can satisfactorily answer the motives of terrorism (Winarno,
2011:175).
Terrorism as an international security issue requires cooperation between countries to
deal with it. A number of international organizations have defined terrorism in accordance
with their common interests.
ASEAN itself on January 13, 2007 signed The ASEAN Convention on Counter
Terrorism (ACCT). The ACCT defines terrorism on various UN conventions that
criminalize acts of terrorism, such as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft 1970, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the
Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988.
When examined further, there is no single definition of terrorism. So far, countries
around the world have only agreed on four criteria of terrorism. These criteria include the
target, purpose, motivation and legitimacy of the act of terrorism. For example, the UN has
at least two definitions of terrorism.
First, UN Security Council Resolution No.1566 (2004) which defines terrorism as
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages, with the aim to provoke a state of terror in
the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or
compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act. (Azdema, 2015).
Second, the UN Panel on March 17, 2005, describes terrorism as any act "intended
to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to
do or abstain from doing any act." (Azdema, 2015).
Similarly, a number of countries in the world have their own definitions of terrorism.
The UK through the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism to include an act "designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".i The United States
has more than one definition of terrorism. In the Patriot Act 2001 terrorist activities include:
(Azdema, 2015)
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other
vehicles.
⮚
threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected"
persons, such as government officials
⮚
any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the
intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or
substantial property damagerather than for "mere personal monetary gain.
Meanwhile, the FBI, which is one of the United States law enforcement agencies,
defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. (Azdema, 2015).
Disagreement about the definition of terrorism also surrounds experts. In fact, there
are experts who do not specifically define terrorism, but rather put forward the types,
objectives and characteristics of terrorism. For example, Wilkinson (2001:59) divides
terrorism into four forms. They are epiphenomenal terrorism, revolutionary terrorism,
subrevolutionary terrorism, and repressive terrorism.
According to Wilkinson, epiphenomenal terrorism is terrorism without a clear goal.
Revolutionary terrorism has a specific goal, which is to radically change a situation or
system. Meanwhile, subrevolutionary terrorism is terror that aims to pressure the
government to change certain policies. Furthermore, repressive terrorism is an act of terror
that oppresses other people or groups.
Intelligence and Information Technology
In discussing counter-terrorism, one of the critical points is the role of intelligence. It is
everyone's wish that intelligence attacks be thwarted from the planning and preparation
stages, but even the intelligence services of developed countries equipped with vast
resources still experience intelligence failure. A recent example of intelligence failure is the
terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015. Intelligence failure occurred at the
European Union level despite the organization's intelligence sharing mechanism (IHS Jane's
Intelligence Review, 2016: 8-13).
Intelligence according to Kent (1965) is: "The knowledge which our highly placed
civilian and military men must have to safeguard the national warfare". While according to
Admiral William F. Raborn: "Intelligence refers to information which has been carefully
evaluated as to its accuracy and significance". The difference between "intelligence" and
"information" lies in the process of evaluating its accuracy and assessing its significance to
national security (Ransom, 1971:7). As is well known, intelligence plays a key role in
decision-making, as the input from intelligence will determine the color of the decision
taken.
Intelligence is synonymous with secrecy, including its sources of information.
However, according to Admiral Ellies M. Zacharias: "95 per cent of peacetime intelligence
came from open sources, 4 per cent from semi-open sources, and only 1 per cent, sometimes
less, from secret agents". (Ransom, 1971:19). Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Samuel
Wilson stated that: "ninety percent of intelligence comes from open sources. The other ten
percent, the clandestine work, is just the more dramatic". (Friedman, 2004:285).
It is no exaggeration to state that intelligence is threat knowledge, where threat is the
product of intention, capability and circumstance. If any of the three elements is zero, the
threat does not exist. In the context of counter-terrorism, intelligence cooperation is a
longstanding spectrum. Today, the scope of intelligence cooperation has expanded so that it
is not only to deal with state actors, but also non-state actors. Through intelligence
cooperation, it is expected that the parties involved in cooperation can early detect the
emergence of threats so that they can take preventive measures before the threat is realized,
including the threat of terrorism.
One of the activities in intelligence cooperation between countries is intelligence
sharing. Sharing in intelligence cooperation is a challenge in itself, because it can only be
implemented if trust is established. The issue of trust in intelligence cooperation is basically
a classic problem that arises from time to time. Sparago (2006) states that, "In order for
intelligence cooperation to work, there must be an established trust between the
governments and intelligence services". Furthermore, Sparago adds, in intelligence
cooperation, there are costs that must be borne by all parties involved in the cooperation.
Walsh (2009:7) describes trust in information sharing well. Walsh sees intelligence
as a commodity, which states share out of mutual interest or to extract things like foreign
aid and security assurances.
Intelligence does not work in a vacuum, where now one of the challenges of
intelligence is how to respond to advances in information technology. Today, most
intelligence agencies pay special attention to the world of information technology, as much
information can be extracted from the cyber domain. It is undeniable that terrorist groups
also utilize the cyber domain to achieve their goals as seen in the case of ISIS which exploits
the cyber domain.
Information technology is basically a technology related to the generation,
recording, distribution, storage, representation, retrieval, and dissemination of information
(William and Sawyer, 2011). The development of information technology partly originated
from invention activities for defense and military purposes, such as computers whose history
is related to the Allied efforts to break the codes of the German Enigma cipher machine or
the internet which was originally an internal communication network of the United States
Department of Defense.
Over time, advances in information technology have been widely used in civilian
sectors. The use of information technology in various sectors of human life at a certain level
turns out to have a negative impact, especially regarding the misuse of information
technology for criminal interests and violence-based political interests. In other words,
information technology has now become a weapon of choice for weaker actors to launch
asymmetric attacks, including terrorists.
In addition to hacking, information technology, especially the internet, is now also
used to build the power of terrorist groups. An example is the spread of religious writings
that call for the use of violence against others who are considered to disagree on internet
sites. This is seen to give birth to self radicalization that gives birth to lone wolves who have
the potential to threaten national security. (IHS Jane's Intelligence Review, 2013). Similarly,
the spread of writings on how to make bombs from materials available around.
In the context of terrorist groups, the threat posed by them through the use of
technology such as information technology cannot be underestimated. In their actions, there
may not be many casualties. However, the action has caused fear among the public and that
fear is the goal of the action carried out.
Cyber attacks have now turned into another threat not only to international security,
but also to the world economy. Unlike physical terrorist attacks, cyber attacks are aimed at
stealing and or damaging data systems owned by state and non-state actors such as
companies. The motive of cyber-attacks can be political, as well as economic, i.e. wanting to
steal competitors' business secrets. (IHS, 2015). As an example of cyber attacks against
various US government and corporate targets, according to Mandiant, were carried out by
hacker entities in China who are members of Unit 61398 in the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) General Staff Department's 3rd Department. (IHS, 2013).
Faced with threats and challenges originating from the cyber domain, the world's
intelligence institutions have established specialized cyber units. The function of the unit is
to carry out offensive and defensive at the same time. In the context of counter-terrorism,
one of the tasks of the cyber unit is to continuously monitor the activities of terrorist groups
and their sympathizers in cyberspace. For example, social media such as Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube have become effective media for terrorist groups to recruit new members as
well as encourage terror attacks carried out by sympathizers independently/lone wolf.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it is agreed that intelligence institutions must
have a deep understanding of the advances in information technology and at the same time
utilize it to achieve their goals. Counter-terrorism efforts that ignore or at least do not give
proportionate attention to the cyber domain will contribute to intelligence failure.
United States Intelligence Challenge
Countries in the Southeast Asian region have had intensive cooperation in the field of
intelligence in the context of counter-terrorism. The effectiveness of this cooperation is
quite significant, because not a few terror attack plans have been successfully prevented due
to intelligence sharing between countries. However, the problem is that the success of
intelligence cooperation between countries is not always directly proportional to intra-state
intelligence cooperation. This means cooperation between different intelligence institutions
within the same country. This is one of the critical challenges faced by United States in
implementing counter-terrorism today and in the future.
There are several challenges to United States intra-state intelligence cooperation in
counter-terrorism. There are at least three challenges to such cooperation. Such challenges
are not new, but over the years they have never been resolved in accordance with United
States national interests.
First, inter-agency trust. The level of trust between United States intelligence
agencies is not in good condition. It can even be said that there is a trust deficit. Competition
between intelligence institutions is a fact, although it does not surface in a clear light due to
the nature of intelligence that works in the dark.
The trust deficit between United States intelligence institutions cannot be separated
from inter-agency rivalry and the residue of the past. Rivalry between intelligence
institutions seems to be a given in the world of intelligence in every country, but it can be
minimized if there is a strong political directive from the highest level of national leadership.
In this context, the rivalry is particularly between BIN, BAIS and Police Intelligence as
implied after the terror attacks in Jakarta at the end of January 2016.
Counter-terrorism efforts in United States are still not optimal due to such rivalry,
where it is suspected that each intelligence institution is not fully cooperative in intelligence
sharing. This is difficult to prove at the public level, but the atmosphere can be felt if we
"dive into the intelligence community". Because in intelligence knowledge is power, each
institution is suspected of keeping high value information from being shared with other
institutions for various reasons.
The trust deficit between intelligence institutions is exacerbated by the residue of the
past, where in the New Order political system the role of military institutions was very
strong and dominant, including military intelligence. Meanwhile, in the current democratic
era, counter-terrorism is categorized as a law enforcement action that refers to the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP). This means that military intelligence institutions cannot play a
significant role in this matter. On the other hand, the National Police certainly does not want
the authority to take action in counter-terrorism to be shared with other institutions.
Second, the role of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN). According to Law
No.17/2011 on State Intelligence, one of BIN's functions is to organize the coordination of
state intelligence. In this context, the Head of BIN functions like the Director, National
Intelligence (DNI) in the US intelligence community. In relation to counter-terrorism, BIN
has the authority to coordinate intelligence activities with other intelligence institutions.
However, in practice, there is still a question about how BIN's role in carrying out
this function. It is true that BIN has intelligence sharing cooperation with its partners in
other countries, but how is the coordination of intelligence sharing among intelligence
agencies in United States, all of which are under the coordination of BIN. In the sense that
not only does BIN conduct intelligence sharing to other intelligence agencies in the country,
but intelligence agencies that are under the coordination of BIN also conduct intelligence
sharing to BIN.
Legally based on Law No. 17/2011, BIN has the authority to force intelligence
agencies under its coordination to implement information sharing. However, it is
questionable whether this authority can be exercised effectively amidst the strong ego of
intelligence institutions as well as the rivalry between them. This classic problem is not
unique to United States, but also occurs in developed countries such as the United States,
which was only minimized after the country experienced a strategic surprise through the
September 11, 2001 attacks.
Third, information technology. Today's terrorist groups widely exploit the use of
information technology, both for propaganda, recruitment and planning terrorist acts. In
order to deal with this, in theory, a strategy to exploit information technology is needed in
the context of counter-terrorism. However, in reality, such a strategy does not exist, where
the approach adopted is more ad-hoc and reactive at the same time.
In United States, terrorist groups have used internet technology to carry out their
actions. The use ranges from terror planning, training, financing, recruitment to execution.
This is based on the findings of security forces in recent years, which reinforces the belief
that the group's capabilities cannot be underestimated.
On the other hand, intelligence institutions seem to have only recently started paying
special and separate attention to the cyber domain in dealing with terrorism. As an
illustration, until now there has been no special monitoring of social media and internet sites
affiliated with or sympathetic to terrorist groups carried out by intelligence institutions. The
closure of social media accounts and internet sites affiliated with or sympathetic to the group
is carried out by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics mostly not based on
reports from intelligence institutions, but the results of the ministry's own supervision. In
other words, United States intelligence institutions are late in responding to advances in
information technology, especially in the cyber domain.
In addition, banking systems, telecommunications, power plants and so on are also
vulnerable to cyber attacks. The ability of terrorist groups to launch attacks on these targets
is unquestionable, so it is necessary to understand the characteristics of such threats and how
to counteract them. It is not impossible that the aforementioned systems will one day be
targeted in United States, where material losses from cyber attacks are no less devastating
than kinetic attacks.
Only a short time ago several intelligence institutions have established their own
cyber units, which are still searching for their shape. Among the challenges of these units is
that they have to operate in the absence of a national strategy on how to implement counter-
terrorism in the cyber domain. Even at a higher hierarchy, United States has yet to formulate
a national strategy on the cyber domain. Given the enormous scope of the cyber domain to
be protected, intelligence agencies cannot work alone to counter it.
The Way Forward
Some of the challenges faced by United States in implementing counter-terrorism,
especially in the intelligence institutions, of course have solutions. The first and foremost
solution is the willingness of the national leadership to reform United States intelligence
institutions, especially in terms of cooperation and coordination. In this context, the national
leadership must be hands on and cannot simply delegate to BIN as the state intelligence
agency authorized to formulate national policy in the field of intelligence as well as the state
intelligence coordinator. Learning from the case of the reorganization of the United States
intelligence community after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which among other things
gave birth to the position of DNI separated from the position of CIA Director, the
arrangement was successfully implemented because the President of the United States was
directly hands on.
Next, United States is not too late to formulate a national counter-terrorism strategy
in the cyber domain. Several cyber units spread across a number of intelligence institutions
must work within the same strategy, so that is where the urgency of formulating such a
strategy lies. It should be a common awareness that by utilizing the advancement of
information technology, especially social media and the internet, terrorist groups can spread
propaganda as well as recruitment to anyone who accesses the cyber domain. In addition,
terrorist groups also have human resources capable of carrying out cyber attacks on strategic
targets such as banking, telecommunications, power generation systems and so on.
