GEOPOLITICIAN - Faried Kei Lanur's Site

Since the fall of Soeharto's regime and the beginning of the Reformasi era, there have been numerous reforms in every governmental institution as well as in the national defense forces, also known as TNI (the Indonesian Military). Although these reforms have been slow and laborious, parts of them have been done but others still remain.

Among the ongoing reforms lies the crucial one for Reformasi activists: the abolition of the Territorial Command, more widely known as the Territorial Military Structure (TMS). According to these activists, the TMS should be shut down as a remnant of the Soeharto regime: It was used in the past as a means of oppression to cut short any form of criticism against the government.

Let us remind these reformists that since 1998, Indonesia has become the third-largest democracy in the world, right after India and the United States, with a direct presidential election system implemented since 2004.

So are these activists - who aspire to reform everything at all costs - willing to say that those presidents elected since 1998 have used the TMS to establish their power, eliminate their political rivals and muzzle the people?

In order to have a clear understanding of the issue, we have to recap that in addition to organic elements spread in the territory - mainly in Java - the TNI has other elements that double the administrative structure. Thus, from the village to the province, and from the district to the region, there is a military presence integrated within the command or territorial units.

Why then should we preserve this TMS?

First, because of its role in Indonesia's history; the TNI chose this type of flexible and reactive structure that allowed it to defend and take action against both the Dutch and the Japanese.

With a small number of men, Gen. Sudirman managed to keep alight the torch of sovereignty proclaimed by Sukarno and Hatta on Aug. 17, 1945. No one can deny that without the TNI, Indonesia would never have gained its independence so rapidly.

Second, in spite of a "not-at-war" context, we acknowledge that the ratio of military personnel to citizen is the lowest in the region (0.1 percent), compared to 1.6 percent in Singapore and 0.5 percent in Thailand and speaking of the defense budget, Indonesia's is considered very low (0.6 percent of GDP) as "the defense budgets of the countries in SEA are mostly above 1 percent *if not* 5 percent of their GDP." (See Connie Rahakundini Bakrie in Defending Indonesia, Gramedia, 2009).

Besides, as the Indonesian National Police are not yet able to totally ensure domestic security (due to a deficit in manpower, equipment and territorial competency), the TNI thus has an important role to play with its Territorial Military Structure.

Third, we can be confident the civilians are grateful for the involvement of the military in helping construct roads, hospitals and public buildings, and rescuing people from natural disasters.

Given those elements, there may be one thing that could satisfy and reconcile both activists of Reformasi and the military: the creation of what the French people call "Gendarmerie Nationale". It is a military force with judicial powers that bonds the national territory, which is the case in France, but also in the Netherlands, Italy, Spain and many other democratic countries.

In this point, the Brimob - Mobile Brigade, a special unit of the police - does not fit in the role of the Gendarmerie, precisely because of its insignificant prerogative in judicial matters, its limited manpower, and finally because it is a "projected unit", not a "stationary units", across the whole national territory.

Indonesia, as the largest country in Southeast Asia, must think profoundly of its identity and integrity. Remember that the notion of "internal security" is not synonymous with "dictatorship". It is a working line for any nation-state that respects itself and looks after the well-being of its citizens.

Should we hark back to the terrorist attacks that occurred on Indonesian soil to prove that the threat is still there?

Security thus has a price. That is the reason why we either raise significantly the number of our police servicemen with the necessary equipment so that they can maintain a presence in all the territory, or we maintain the TMS as it is today, but assign it a stricter role and an accountability toward parliament.

We can also create an Indonesian Gendarmerie Nationale with prerogatives that belong to such a unit, i.e. a military unit under the jurisdiction of the Defense Ministry or the Home Ministry (or both) with real and precise judicial power (as those of the police) and operating where the police are absent or have limited presence, i.e. in rural zones.

To reform does not necessarily mean to suppress. Seeking the dismissal of the TMS is not enough: One must propose something tangible and coherent as a replacement.

A choice has to be made by the executive in consultation with parliament. A decision has to be taken on this matter - the sooner the better - not just in order to shush the "Reformasi extremists", but to give Indonesia a real and serious capacity of resilience.

Philippe Raggi & Faried Kei Lanur

[This article first appeared in The Jakarta Post, December 2, 2009 in a slightly different version]


Philippe Raggi is Head of the Paris-based Academie Internationale de Geopolitique - Southeast Asia Department;
Faried Kei Lanur is a Research Assistant at the department.

* Wawancara Faried Kei Lanur (Peneliti muda pada Académie Internationale de Géopolitique - La Sorbonne, Paris - France)

Oleh Sdr. Achsin (wartawan Tabloid Intelijen) - Jakarta, 13 Maret 2008


Tabloid Intelijen: Kedatangan Menteri Pertahanan AS Robert Gates terkait desakan AS bagi Indonesia untuk memberikan pengakuan kemerdekaan Kosovo?

Faried Kei Lanur: Menurut saya tidak ada indikasi bahwa kunjungan Menhan AS Robert Gates ke Jakarta (25 Januari 2008) terkait dengan isu Kosovo. Agenda politik Gates hanya terkait dengan isu terorisme, kerjasama AS-Indonesia dibidang militer dan keamanan di Asia Tenggara.

TI: Bagaimana pendapat Anda desakan pemerintah Indonesia untuk memberikan pengakuan kemerdekaan Kosovo berasal dari ormas Islam?

FKL: Dalam sebuah demokrasi siapa saja punya hak bersuara. Jadi sangat wajar bila ormas Islam mendesak agar Indonesia mengakui kemerdekaan Kosovo. Dari sisi keagaman memang ajaran Islam mendorong agar tali persaudaraan antar orang Muslim dipertahankan sehingga harus saling membantu. Saya sama sekali tidak menolak tindakan ini. Namun dalam kasus ini saya melihat bahwa ormas Islam kita gampang terpancing oleh faktor agama. Padahal masih ada beberapa faktor yang dibalik kemerdekaan Kosovo, misalnya faktor strategis, ekonomi, keamanan.

TI: Dampak dalam negeri dan luar negeri bila Indonesia memberikan pengakuan terhadap Kosovo?

FKL: Saya lebih khawatir oleh dampak terhadap dalam negeri ketimbang luar negeri kita. Karena deklarasi kemerdekaan Kosovo adalah tindakan sepihak yang melanggar hukum internasional. Kita harus ingat bahwa provinsi yang bermayoritas Muslim etnis Albania ini berada dalam kedaulatan Serbia, meskipun secara de facto ia adalah protektorat internasional, yakni di bawah Resolusi PBB N°1244. Waktu itu ada intervensi NATO pada tahun 1999 yang notabene tidak disetujui oleh Dewan Keamanan PBB. Intervensi NATO itu berdasarkan alasan humanitarian emergency guna mengakhiri ethnic cleansing (pembersihan etnis) antara warga Serbia dan warga Kosovo. Kemerdekaan Kosovo sama sekali tidak dipertanyakan.

Nah, pengakuan Indonesia terhadap kemerdekaan Kosovo tidak bisa segampang itu, berdasarkan hak-hak warga Kosovo atau melalui hasil referundum. Selama penyelasaian ini tidak berdasarkan hukum internasional, Indonesia harus tetap mengambil sikap wait and see. Jika salah kalkulasi, maka Kotak Pandora separatisme bisa terbuka lagi. Hal ini sangat bahaya baik bagi negara-negara dunia maupun bagi kita, mengingat ratusan suku-bangsa negeri kita, begitupun masalah di Aceh, Maluku dan Papua.

TI: Rezim Kosovo adalah pilihan AS?

FKL: Kebijakan politik luar negeri AS selalu mengarah kepada kepentingannya, yakni perlindungan kekuasaannya di percaturan politik global. Saat ini memang kelihatannya AS memilih rezim Kosovo ketimbang negara kesatuan Serbia. Tetapi kita jangan lupa kecenderungan AS kepada Realpolitik. Kepentingan (interest) itu pada dasarnya sering berganti; hari ini AS membela satu negara demi kebebasan hak-hak dan demokrasi, hari esoknya ia akan menuduh bahwa negara itu merupakan basis Islam Radikal atau Terorisme Internasional.

TI: Konteks Geostrategis Kosovo?

FKL: Dari segi ekonomi sudah jelas Kosovo masih lemah dan ia adalah wilayah yang paling miskin di Eropa. Walaupun begitu, provinsi yang sangat kecil ini (sekitar 11000 km2) mempunyai nilai dan potensi geostrategis yang cukup tinggi.

Kalau kita ambil peta dunia Eropa, maka bisa dilihat posisi bahwa, yang bersatu dengan Serbia, sangat berdempetan dengan negara-negara tertangganya, yakni Albania, Yunani, Bulgaria. Kemudian, mengingat krisis bahan bakar (minyak) yang sedang bergejolak, maka kita dapat mengerti bahwa posisi Kosovo penting sekali karena berada dalam garis-garis saluran minyak yang datang dari negara-negara Arab, Iran, Laut Kaspia (Azerbaijan, Kazakstan dan Turkmenistan) dan Turki untuk kebutuhan energi Eropa.

Di sini kita mengerti pula kenapa AS sejak awal mendukung pencalonan Turki sebagai anggota Uni Eropa!

Akhirnya, sejak tahun 2004 Kosovo telah masuk dalam strategi global AS dan Uni Eropa dalam bisnis minyak. Itulah yang dinamakan "Proyek Nabucco", yang bertujuan mengurangi ketergatungan UE pada hidrokarbon (gas/minyak) Rusia. Namun begitu, nasib Kosovo - bahkan wilayah Eropa Timur - sangat mengkhawatirkan jika "permainan perang minyak" antara AS/Uni Eropa dan Rusia terus bergejolak. Ini artinya potensi perang dunia baru.

TI: Bagaimana kekuatan Rusia di Balkan?

FKL: Ada dua hal yang harus diketahui: Pertama, Rusia adalah kekuatan yang masih bisa bertanding dengan AS. Rusia sangat berpengaruh di kawasan Balkan karena faktor historisnya. Disitulah letak power-nya. Negara-negara Balkan masih dianggap seperti adik-adiknya. Misalnya, Serbia menjadi pasukan geostrategis Moskow di jantung Eropa, karena merasa telah dikhianati AS dan Barat.

Lebih-lebih lagi, penggunaan Rusia atas faktor "solidaritas Slavia-Ortodoks" - di wilayah Balkan ini - mengindikasikan bahwa proses kembalinya Geopolitik "kekuasaan Rusia baru" sedang berjalan.

Kedua, pada tanggal 22 Januari 2008 Perdana Menteri Serbia, Vojislav Kostunica, telah mengesahkan perjanjian dengan Vladimir Putin mengenai pembangunan saluran pipa gas/minyak.

                                                        ---------------------------


[catatan: wawancara ini pernah dimuat di Tabloid Intelijen, Nomor 02/V/2008  13-26 Maret 2008, halaman 12 - tanpa peta Kosovo -. Namun isinya masih relevan]

New York City, Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001: The United States of America was attacked by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist group. As the American people endured this tragedy, the whole world witnessed the two airplanes crash into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. A few minutes later, another hijacked airplane crashed into the Pentagon, the headquarters of US Department of Defense, while the fourth plane (United Airlines Flight 93) crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania.

The whole world was shocked because of what they saw. It was not a new US super-production-blockbuster movie but a real attack, in daylight, on American soil.

The world was shocked because no one couldn't believe it could happen in the US, the world superpower, the champion of democracy, the site of global culture - US cinema, television series, Marvel comics heroes, Walt Disney, music stars, fashion world, fast food, Olympics world champions, the American dream.

"September-Eleven" became a turning point in international relations. Like other grand moments of History (World War I and II, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet empire), 9/11 has marked the spot; however, it was neither Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations nor Francis Fukuyama's End of History, but rather Gilbert Achcar's the Clash of Barbarisms (NY University Press, 2002).

Not to mention the inhumanity of the act (again, the victims were innocent people), the 9/11 attacks happened to be a farce because people later discovered that the US had trained and worked with Bin Laden to help oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. In his book, Gilbert Achcar correctly mentioned that it was no surprise at all for the US government to be witnessing a massive attack in its soil. He added that speeches about the unexpected end of America's invulnerability might sound good for the average (unaware) public. But in reality US high authorities had accepted that idea since the early 1990s.

Today, it was precisely eight years ago. And we all know what happened since then. The Iraqi War, "the war on terror" and the hunt for al-Qaeda terrorists. But also the war in Kosovo, Chechnya, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine, as well as terrorist bombings in England, Spain, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, the Philippines and Indonesia (Bali I & II, Marriot I & II).

This dark picture of the world is a reality. And no one can endorse these situations. Today, with a shift of the US administration - from Bush Jr. to Obama - the world is still not free from terrorist attacks. But so far, we may admit a relative equilibrium in the international stage, where multilateralism seems to replace unilateralism.

Rethinking 9/11 is thus rethinking the world, rethinking the injustice of our world. It is also reforming and reworking for a better world, at least a more civilized one.

Finally, it is worth bearing in mind that terrorism cannot be defeated only with repression, hunts or Police and Intel activities. Rather with education (especially civic education), control of religious teachings by official Muslims organization such as Muhammadiyah or NU (e.g the formation of clerics), a culture of peace and dialogue.

The economic factor is of great importance too since poverty and unemployment do not necessarily foster terrorism but black markets (parallel market, corruption), which in turn make achievable the funding of terrorist operations. 

Faried Kei Lanur

[This article first appeared in The Jakarta Post, Sept.11, 2009 in a slightly different version]

Lately, analysts have been questioning the direction of Indonesia's next foreign policy under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and vice-president-elect Boediono.

While it seems obvious that Indonesia will still adhere to the sacrosanct principle of an "independent and active policy" with regard to international issues, the implementation of our foreign policy in the coming term requires a precise and comprehensive level of priorities.

If we take a look at previous governments, we may notice that their top priority agendas were successively: fostering development and economic growth during the Soeharto era; engaging political liberalization during B.J. Habibie's interim; promoting democracy, human rights and eradicating corruption practices during Abdurrahman Wahid's cabinet; fighting terrorism during Megawati Soekarnoputri's presidency and regionalism (Southeast Asia) during President Yudhoyono's tenure.

Then what might be the top priority of Indonesia's next foreign policy?

To answer this question, we need to have a clear understanding of today's international situation.

First of all, there are four issues that can be defined as follows: the "return in force" of the United States of America; the assertion of China on the world chessboard; a "europasian" Russia and ultimately the volatile Middle East with Iran as the sole great regional power. It is towards these aforementioned poles of power that nations or regional organizations will position themselves and seek their national interests.

Second, the US is still leading the world, whether we believe it or not, but President Obama's foreign policy seems to have a preference for multilateralism and cooperation with other nations. His recent engagements in Russia, China, Africa, Latin America and the Muslim world has created a new tone, if not a rupture in American diplomacy.

Regarding this matter, presidential spokesman Dino Patti Djalal correctly mentioned that Indonesia needs to have a clear idea of US foreign policy so that we might best serve our interests.

Furthermore, in this new prospective multi-polar world, key issues such as global climate change and global energy sector will certainly encourage new geopolitical realignments.

Thus the Middle East is once again the region that warrants closer examination. We have to keep in mind that the Persian Gulf, which embraces countries such as Iraq, Saudi Arabian, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Iran, is the biggest supplier zone of oil to the world. It is no coincidence that this tense region has been under US surveillance since 1945.

"With great economic growth comes great consumption in energy", might say a geopolitical adage; the control, the access or the exploitation of natural resources becomes evidently crucial for world powers.

Taking note of this brief analysis, perhaps Indonesia should be more proactive in the Middle East and not only play a figurative role in religious forums or organizations.

There are good prospects that the Obama administration may need Indonesia to help find a viable political solution for conflicts in the Middle East.

An innovative and audacious approach was attempted during Wahid's presidency in 1999, even though it was rejected by the Indonesian parliament.

The former foreign affairs minister, Alwi Shihab, proposed to open ties with Israel although only in the economic and trade sectors. Not to mention that this would have benefited Indonesia financially, the political move was primarily aimed at making Indonesia more influential in the Middle East peace process, while at the same time creating a channel with the US-Israeli lobby.

In retrospect, we may concede that it was just a matter of time. We have to remember that our country had just begun its democratic transition and was experiencing separatist and religious conflicts.

Additionally, when the "war against terror" was initiated by the Bush administration, Indonesia's credibility was put to the test, as Jakarta and Bali were both targets of terrorist attacks.

Clearly, a general critique of Indonesia's foreign policy will reveal that our intentions did not match our capability to take action internationally. Those missed opportunities should create greater awareness in the near future.

As a crossroad of world politics, the Middle East should be a top priority on Indonesia's strategic agenda. If concrete and rational actions - starting with an effective lobby - are taken, we might gain politically, economically and symbolically. Not only would we affirm our identity as the world's biggest moderate Muslim country, but also as a leading democracy in Asia.

Let us hope the upcoming government, in concert with its new foreign minister, will support and use our professional diplomatic corps in striving for Indonesia's interests.

In the meantime, Indonesia should not be reduced to playing an auxiliary role in its region or on the global stage. Furthermore, it is only through strong state sovereignty that Indonesia will be proactive and create policy breakthroughs.

Faried Kei Lanur

[This article first appeared in The Jakarta Post, Aug. 27, 2009 in a slightly different version]

People generally only think about diplomacy when it comes to foreign policy. However, external issues cover a vast range of topics in the field of International Relations, such as national defense, maritime and territorial security, political economy, strategy and so forth.

Among those sub-disciplines stands the controversial one: Geopolitics. The history of geopolitics after World War I has proven its tendency to easily become a science of the remodeling of states rather than a discipline for understanding the world.

However, since 9/11 geopolitics has reappeared as a comprehensive tool for understanding world politics. Geopolitics refers to the study of political relations between three types of power (states, intra-states - e.g. separatist movements, and trans-states - terrorist networks and multinational companies) in relation to geographical factors (physical geography, identity geography and the geography of resources).

A geopolitical approach would then be characterized by three dimensions, which are respectively, the centrality of the state as an "actor of power", plural-causality (nothing is merely religious, ideological, economical or political) and cultural (the importance of the culture as a determinant of history).

Speaking of Indonesia's geopolitics, first we may notice that it is an archipelagic state. The sea, which serves not only as a connection, but also a separator, represents a major asset. Therefore, why not conceive and develop our country as a maritime power?

Second, Indonesia is a centered state, which by definition exerts pressure toward distant peripheries (a will that is indeed temporized by the laws of decentralization).

Third, it consists of diverse ethnic and religion groups with formidable demographic power.

Lastly, the factor of resources - mainly oil - but also water, coal and so forth. If we simply have a systematic vision of Indonesia's geopolitics, we might just underline the fractures. Yet, there are many factors that lead to unity.

Indonesia is a nation resulting from a strong nationalist culture, where different peoples gathered around a center in an effort to struggle against Dutch imperialism as well as American and communist "globalism". The diversity of the population brought about a non-religious concept of politics, even though Jakarta has used "extremists" to reduce separatist movements. This singularity - a state that is neither secular nor religious - did not occur because of the religious diversity of the country, but as a result of the confluence between Islam and local culture.

                                                            Regarding the current international situation, a geopolitical analysis will identify four zones at the heart of world politics: The United States, the Middle East, India and predominantly China. In fact, since 1990 there has been a kind of bipolarization of international relations between the US and China. However, during the Cold War, geopolitical bipolarity coincided with ideological bipolarity.

After 9/11 it was neither terrorism nor "rogue states" that jeopardized the hierarchy of powers, but a rising China. Obviously, the "War on Terror" was necessary, but the United States also used the issue of terrorism in order to maintain both supremacy and influence of peripheral zones and to subsequently try to contain China, its real geopolitical contestant.

We now understand why the Obama administration and its Chinese counterpart recently pledged closer cooperation on global issues such as Iran's nuclear program and the world's financial crisis. We have to keep in mind that China is the world's largest holder of US Treasury securities and is therefore concerned about the safety of its investments.

As a matter of fact, Indonesia will be confronted with challenges that come from the duel between the United States and China. A French professor of geopolitics, Aymeric Chauprade, declared in 2007 that Indonesia could be one of the great powers, along with Russia and India, which could bring about balance in the world and prevent a US-China bipolarization.

He added that Indonesia has all assets to develop a great policy of equilibrium in the international scene. For that simple reason: tomorrow's stability will highly depend on the relation between the West, Islam and China. Indonesia knows well every part of these "worlds", not only because of its geographic location, but due to its identity and its foreign policy.

Back in Sukarno's era, top senior army officers had already identified Indonesia as a crossroad. Indeed, it is a crossroad of culture, people and religion. And definitely the characteristic of an intersection is unavoidable.

In the next few months, newly re-elected President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono will announce his Cabinet and particularly his new Foreign Minister. It is about time that Indonesia construct and conduct a foreign policy of equilibrium. Using a geopolitical approach to understanding the willpower of states, with the purpose of serving the country's best interests, is essential. May the President and his Cabinet proceed this way.

Faried Kei Lanur

[This article first appeared in The Jakarta Post, Aug. 6, 2009 in a slightly different version]