Mon, 11/10/2008 11:12 AM | Headlines
After a series of delays, the three militants on death row for the 2002 Bali bombingsAmrozi, Imam Samudra and Ali Ghufron, alias Mukhlas - were finally executed early Sunday. The delays gave Islamists the opportunity to voice their sympathy and stage rallies in support of the terrorists. They even called them(holy warriors). Whether the executions will help suppress terrorism or instead raise the risk of terror threats in the country is the impending questioning left behind. Terrorism expert Sidney Jones, a senior advisor at the International Crisis Group, shared with The Jakarta Post's Dian Kuswandini her insights on terrorism in Indonesia following the deaths of the three Bali bombers.
Question: Will the executions of the three men end or reduce terror threats in the country?
Answer: I don't think the executions will alter the security situation in any fundamental way. They certainly will not end the threat of terrorism; the question is whether in the short term the danger will increase. If the government had denied the Bali bombers access to the media from the time they were first convicted, the risk would have been lower than it is now. But Mukhlas and Imam Samudra in particular have used every possible opportunity to exhort their followers through interviews in the print and electronic media to avenge their deaths, in a way that may have made efforts at retaliation more likely. Those exhortations have focused on government officials as possible targets, not foreigners. That shows there are very few groups in Indonesia with both the will and the capacity to carry out attacks; but as long as Noordin M. Top and a few other fugitives are still at large, the possibility cannot be ruled out.
Terror threats have hit several spots across the country ahead of and after the executions. Do you think such threats were made by Amrozi's allies, or there are some people who just want to benefit from this situation?
In this kind of situation, there are bound to be many empty threats via SMS, and many incidents that will be tied to the Bali bombers even when there is no connection - the bombs in North Maluku, for instance. The problem is that the police have to take all threats very seriously, even if the risk of a major attack is relatively low. People should not try to judge (the threats) themselvesthey should report any suspicious behavior to the police.
After the execution of the three Bali bombers, how will the world view Indonesia?
I don't think the executions will make a difference in how Indonesia is viewed. The use of the death penalty is a poor measure of a government's will to combat terrorism. The Indonesian government would have got reasonably high marks on that score, whether or not it went ahead with the executions. I personally believe the death penalty should be abolished.
What's the best approach for the country to effectively combat terrorism?
The real drivers for terrorism in Indonesia are local; the conflicts in Ambon and Poso were the best recruitment tools terrorist organizations ever had. The government needs to understand how communal tensions arise, know where potential hot spots are, and take steps to ensure they do not erupt into violence, while at the same time protect the rights of religious minorities. It needs to look at areas where Christian and Muslim proselytizing may come into conflict, and have good dispute resolution mechanisms available. It needs to ensure that pemekaran (regional administration partition) does not produce demographic changes that in turn lead to political grievances or land disputes that can take on a communal aspect.
The government also needs to look at the schoolssome 40 in allaffiliated with Jamaah Islamiyah (JI), and understand the aspirations of the youth being educated there. JI as a political organization may be much weaker than it was five years ago, but as a social network, it will be around for generations.
Do you think the measures the Indonesian authorities have taken to deal with terrorism are effective?
The Indonesian approach - respecting the rule of law and avoiding the human rights abuses that other countries, such as the U.S., have committed in combating terrorismhas been very effective here. Most countries with a homegrown terrorism problem are either under occupation, like Palestine or Chechnya; saddled with repressive governments, like much of the Middle East; or faced with an alienated minority, like the Philippines, southern Thailand, or some Western European countries. Indonesia is none of the above, and the weakening of the terrorist movement here may be due as much to the strengthening of democracy as to good law enforcement. But anyone who believes that the threat has vanished should remember that terrorism in Indonesia did not start with Bali in 2002, and will not end with the executions on Nusakambangan Island.
After a series of delays, the three militants on death row for the 2002 Bali bombingsAmrozi, Imam Samudra and Ali Ghufron, alias Mukhlas - were finally executed early Sunday. The delays gave Islamists the opportunity to voice their sympathy and stage rallies in support of the terrorists. They even called them(holy warriors). Whether the executions will help suppress terrorism or instead raise the risk of terror threats in the country is the impending questioning left behind. Terrorism expert Sidney Jones, a senior advisor at the International Crisis Group, shared with The Jakarta Post's Dian Kuswandini her insights on terrorism in Indonesia following the deaths of the three Bali bombers.
Question: Will the executions of the three men end or reduce terror threats in the country?
Answer: I don't think the executions will alter the security situation in any fundamental way. They certainly will not end the threat of terrorism; the question is whether in the short term the danger will increase. If the government had denied the Bali bombers access to the media from the time they were first convicted, the risk would have been lower than it is now. But Mukhlas and Imam Samudra in particular have used every possible opportunity to exhort their followers through interviews in the print and electronic media to avenge their deaths, in a way that may have made efforts at retaliation more likely. Those exhortations have focused on government officials as possible targets, not foreigners. That shows there are very few groups in Indonesia with both the will and the capacity to carry out attacks; but as long as Noordin M. Top and a few other fugitives are still at large, the possibility cannot be ruled out.
Terror threats have hit several spots across the country ahead of and after the executions. Do you think such threats were made by Amrozi's allies, or there are some people who just want to benefit from this situation?
In this kind of situation, there are bound to be many empty threats via SMS, and many incidents that will be tied to the Bali bombers even when there is no connection - the bombs in North Maluku, for instance. The problem is that the police have to take all threats very seriously, even if the risk of a major attack is relatively low. People should not try to judge (the threats) themselvesthey should report any suspicious behavior to the police.
After the execution of the three Bali bombers, how will the world view Indonesia?
I don't think the executions will make a difference in how Indonesia is viewed. The use of the death penalty is a poor measure of a government's will to combat terrorism. The Indonesian government would have got reasonably high marks on that score, whether or not it went ahead with the executions. I personally believe the death penalty should be abolished.
What's the best approach for the country to effectively combat terrorism?
The real drivers for terrorism in Indonesia are local; the conflicts in Ambon and Poso were the best recruitment tools terrorist organizations ever had. The government needs to understand how communal tensions arise, know where potential hot spots are, and take steps to ensure they do not erupt into violence, while at the same time protect the rights of religious minorities. It needs to look at areas where Christian and Muslim proselytizing may come into conflict, and have good dispute resolution mechanisms available. It needs to ensure that pemekaran (regional administration partition) does not produce demographic changes that in turn lead to political grievances or land disputes that can take on a communal aspect.
The government also needs to look at the schoolssome 40 in allaffiliated with Jamaah Islamiyah (JI), and understand the aspirations of the youth being educated there. JI as a political organization may be much weaker than it was five years ago, but as a social network, it will be around for generations.
Do you think the measures the Indonesian authorities have taken to deal with terrorism are effective?
The Indonesian approach - respecting the rule of law and avoiding the human rights abuses that other countries, such as the U.S., have committed in combating terrorismhas been very effective here. Most countries with a homegrown terrorism problem are either under occupation, like Palestine or Chechnya; saddled with repressive governments, like much of the Middle East; or faced with an alienated minority, like the Philippines, southern Thailand, or some Western European countries. Indonesia is none of the above, and the weakening of the terrorist movement here may be due as much to the strengthening of democracy as to good law enforcement. But anyone who believes that the threat has vanished should remember that terrorism in Indonesia did not start with Bali in 2002, and will not end with the executions on Nusakambangan Island.
