Why the target of terrorism in Indonesia changes in majority from foreign interest to police and military after 2011?

Terrorism Overview

Generally, terrorism is political violence by a group or by a government regime to create a climate of extreme fear to intimidate social target and forcing to change its behavior. It is generally addressed not just only the people who terrorist have trouble with but also random or symbolic target, including civilians. According to Wardlaw, “Political terrorism is the use, or threat of use, of violence by an individual or a group, whether acting for or in opposition to established authority, when such action is designed to create extreme anxiety and/or fear inducing effects in a target group larger than the immediate victims with the purpose of coercing that group into acceding to the political demands of the perpetrators.” The key aspect from terrorism is they inducing fears and trying to gain public attention to larger population than they targeted, that’s why terrorism become popular issue in international security.

The rise of terrorism in the 21st century is a new phase in the history of terrorism. It signed by the major event of terrorism which is 9/11 tragedy by hijackers namely Al-Qaeda. The 9/11 tragedy remain the world to focused on a powerful war in this era. It involves modern technology as weapon to harm its target. The 9/11 attacks were designed to demonstrate the emergence of global war on terror and try spread fear to nations with its existence, like what Bush said reacted to 9/11 tragedy on New York Times newspaper, “These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat, but they have failed,” from the Oval Office shortly after 8:30 p.m. After 9/11 the U.S increased focus on radical islamist and terrorist group in Asia, especially Middle-east. But then U.S also widening its focus to Southeast Asia countries particularly.

After 9/11 the U.S increased focus on radical islamist and terrorist group in Asia, especially Middle-east. But then U.S also widening its focus to Southeast Asia countries particularly those in Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore because Al-Qaida penetrated those countries with establishing radical islamist group. Indonesia as the largest moslem population country in the world (2015) become a concern for U.S to exterminate radical islamist group. Especially because Indonesia also experienced after 9/11 which is Bali Bombing in 2002 and 2005 by Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) which as had extensive ties to Al-Qaida. Although acts of terrorism with the mode of character assassination attempts or bombings happened a long time in Indonesia, but the study focused only events starting in 2000 and then, because it was considered significant, and the perpetrator is well organized and modern. Beside Bali Bombing in 2002 and 2005, there are several main terrorism acts in Indonesia, such as:

1. In 13 September,2000: There was a car bombing at Jakarta Atock Exchange building.

2. In 24 December,2000 : There was bombings in 11 churches on Christmas Eve

3. In 5 Desember,2002 : There was a bombing at McDonald’s restaurant in Makassar

4. In 5 Agustus, 2003 : There was a car bombing in front of the J.W Marriott Hotel in Jakarta

5. In 9 September, 2004 : There was a bombing at Australian Embassy in Jakarta

6. In 7 July, 2009 : There was a suicide bombing at Ritz Carlton and J.W Marriott Hotel in Jakarta

7. In 14 January, 2016 : There was attackers set off bombs at Starbucks cafe in Central Jakarta and engage police in gunbattles.

There are target change in majority before 2011 and after 2011 from foreign interest to police and military (see here). So, that’s why the time set of the change target of terrorism in Indonesia in after 2011.

New Terrorism define as global Jihad which is part of the forth wave of Terrorism. This New Terrorism is strongly coordinate with the role of globalization.Technologies associated with globalization have increased terrorist capabilities. Globalization helps Terrorism become a global phenomenon nowadays although since 1968 Terrorism has become a transnational threat.

The author argues that this emergence of New Terrorism also gives influences to Islamic states. For the biggest moeslims population in the world, Indonesia also face and well experienced on this threat and also it give a massive terrorist activities within 2000s era in Indonesia together associated with the increase of technology user in Indonesia.

Based on former research, Wright believe that “Terrorist are often motivated by fundamentally different ideologies and work to accomplish various goals, and these ideologies form the core belief and value systems each group uses to define their political identity” But here, the author will use Nemeth’s research because the author believe it is very relevant to answer the research question where the author indicates there‘s a changepoint target, which is “The targeting choices are driven by two competing needs of terrorist organizations: public support and operational success”

To gain more public support and to make a progress towards their goals, they choose to attack police and military. This study is very important because it can give an idea of what factors or reasons that can make a target of terrorism changed and might be use to predict terrorism target in the future.

Given that terrorism is threatening the global security, not only domestic security, as claimed by US Secretary of State John Kerry (R) and Britain’s Foreign Minister Philip Hammond (L) attend the fourth session of the G7 Foreign Ministers’ meeting (AFP) “Terrorism is an urgent global security threat that requires international collaboration and unified responses”.

What is New Terrorism?

Terrorism continuing develop until in this modern era which is can not be unavoidable with the role of globalization. But it is inaccurate to suggest that globalization is responsible for terrorism, yet technologies associated with globalization have been exploited by terrorists. However globalization provide technologies that have increased terrorist capabilities nowadays. The relationship between globalization and terrorism is best understood as the next step in the evolution of political violence since terrorism became a transnational phenomenon in the 1960s. There are three factors led to the birth of transnational terrorism in 1968: the expansion of commercial air travel, the availability of televised news coverage, and broad political and ideological interests among extremist that intersected around a common cause. As a result, terrorism grew from a local to a transnational threat.

Since 9/11 scholars and experts consider there are fundamental changes were taking place in the character of terrorism. This current wave of terrorist violence uses religion as a motivator and to provide the justification for killing non-combatants. The ultimate purposes for modern islamic violent is obtaining political power in order to conduct political, social, economic, and religious reform according to Sharia law. Laqueur argues that “the new terrorism is different in character, aiming not at clearly defined political demands but at the destruction of society and the elimination of large sections of the population”. New terrorism, which some authors use to explain the global jihad, is seen as a reaction to the perceived oppression of Muslims worldwide and the spiritual bankruptcy of the West. Jihad is understood by most islamic scholars and imams to mean the internal struggle for purity spirituality, although it has also been interpreted historically as a method to establish the basis for just war. Extremist who espouse militant Islam, including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, understand jihad in a different way. Zawahiri and bin Laden may die but the ideology and the ‘cosmic struggle’ can and must continue.

Hypothesis: New Terrorism which it is associated with globalization makes terrorist activity in Indonesia more massive in the era of the 2000s.

Terrorism, Ideology, and Target Selection

Ideology is a beliefs, values, principles, and objectives, but what matter in this case is that ideology provides a motive and framework for action. However here, ideology plays a crucial role to in terrorist’ target selection. How does the ideology influence target selection?

By demarcating the acceptable targets of terrorist activity. These ideology usually influenced by the leader of political group. These idologies form the core belief and value systems each group uses to define their political identity.

A group’s ideology is extremely important in determining the target selection because it defines how the group’s member see the world around them and make them to know who is their enemy. This make terrorist group sees them as legitimate targets, ignoring the guilt of targetting innocent people. For example, according to Y. Alexander and D. Pluchincky, in March 1985 Ezio tarantelli, a Professor of Economic at the Univeristy of Rome and adviser of the Italian Government was shot dead by the PCC (Partito Comunista Combattente — Fighting Communist Party, a faction of the Red Brigades) because they deemed him ‘one of the most authoritative technical political exponents in the service of larger capital’. Drake argue that it shows the use of ideological terminological drains the humanity out of people and transforms them into legitimate targets

Terrorist strategy, and hence target selection, is also effected by factors such as the resources of the group, the reaction of society to the terrorist actions, and the security environment within which the terrorist operate. But in general, the decision-making among terrorist group undeniable that it is driven by their ideologies. The result of ideology influences to terrorists’ target selection can be seen by comparing terrorists’ attack by different groups. It produce a pattern which is discussed by Drake (1998) and Hoffman (1998) that first nationalist-separatist groups focus most of their resources on security officers (member of military and police institutions). Second, sectarian and extreme right wing groups target civilians in an attempt of undermine support for nationalist and left wings groups. Third, extreme left wing groups like Red Brigade in Italy and Red Army faction in Germany, are quiet discriminate, choosing to target government security forces and political leaders at disproportionate rates.

Hypothesis: Before 2011, terrorist activities in Indonesia still dominated by the Islamist-centric ideology that ultimately affect the selection of the target of terrorism, so they choose to attack foreign interest as a symbol against the Western ideology.

A Rationalist Approach of Terrorist Targeting

This rationalist explanation claims that terrorists’ target selection drive by 2 competing needs for terrorrist organization: public support and operational success. Nemeth’s research create a bargaining model between governments and terrorist organizations. He found out that there is a bargaining interaction between them.

“This bargaining interaction is then influenced by the larger environment. I divide this environment into three sets of factors that affect the bargaining model: government attributes, public support, and group-environment factors. These factors, both independently and in concert, affect target choice by changing the costs and benefits associated with the two major target types. The empirical chapters demonstrate that each of these factors have a statistically significant on terrorist targeting”.

Nemeth argued there are 3 players in terrorist target selection: the terrorist organization, the government, and the public. The terrorist organization is assumed to be in an equilibrium position because it has the correct number and type of members it wants. The government here treated as unitary actor, represent all the institution that make up the governing structure of particular country. The public represents all those not involved in either the government or the terrorist organization. Furthermore, consistent with previous models of insurgent violence and terrorism, the public is comprised of three subgroups — those who support the government, those undecided, and those who support the group (Mason and Krane, 1989). Here, government and terrorist organization are enganged in struggle to seek some measure of public support (Kydd and Walter, 2006).

Public support has always been an important component of militant action. And it also important for terrorist group to maintain public support in order to operate and succeed. Terrorist organizations not necessarily seeking complete public support, but they need the assent of some part of the populace to maintain organization numbers, minimize opposition, and to preserve material support. While government need public support to provides the government freer hand in creating counter-terrorism policy and opportunity to divert funds towards other goals. (Li,2005; Warner, 2007) Operational success strategy also important for terrorist group, based on: Carlos Pisacane, a mid 19th century Italian revolutionary, conceptualized terrorism as “propaganda of the deed” and selected targets which would “draw attention to…inform, educate, and ultimately rally the people behind the revolution” (Hoffman,1998: 17). George Habash, the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) stated that target selection is driven not only by the notoriety of the act but that “the main point is to select targets where success is 100% assured” (Hoffman,1998: 178).

Nemeth’s conclusion from his research is terrorist organizations are product of their environment, responding the opportunities and constraints provided not only withein their state but by distribution of public support.

Hyphotheses: In 2011, there is a changepoint dominant target from civilians (tourists majority) to police and military in Indonesia because of terrorist group want to gain more progress so they create new operational strategy.

Reasons Why Terrorist Attack Police and Military

Some scholars debate about terror attack on police whether categorized as terrorism or not, because terrorists usually attack public, not those who protect the public. Terrorists choose certain targets for a variety of reasons. Among other incentives, terrorists attack for several reasons:

(1) symbolic reasons, as some targets are proxies for other desirable targets (like the government);

(2) practical reasons because some targets may provide weapons or materials terrorists need or because targets may stand in the way of carrying out an attack;

(3) demonstrative reasons, to show terrorists’ strength and commitment to their cause; and

(4) because targets are accessible and they are “low-hanging fruit” or simply easy to attack.

As symbolic target, police make attractive targets for some terrorists because they are representatives of the government’s coercive authority, making them symbolic targets. Some terrorist groups in the United States even have “hit lists” targeting police officers (Freilich & Chermak, 2009) because police are in a “brotherhood with the enemy government”. (Miller, 2010). As practical target, considering that police have discretion whether to arrest/release members of terrorist organizations, they may be viewed as “roadblocks” who thwart terrorists’ goals. Or in another words, attacks on police potentially reduce authorities’ ability to detect and investigate terrorists, which enhances terrorists’ ability to act in the future. As demonstrative target, attacking the police demonstrates the terrorist group’s capacity for violence and shows its strength. Police are viewed as having a great deal of power, as they are well-prepared for violence.

Police also are accessible targets, as they are ubiquitous and they are more vulnerable than other targets representing the government’s coercive force (e.g., the military). Police routinely patrol areas; they have police stations with minimal security available to the public and people know the location of the stations.

Hyphoteses: After 2011 in Indonesia, terrorists may target the police and military because they’ve seen that Police and Military as practical target, where Police and Military more active in counter-terrorism activities as long as 2000–2011.

Analysis: Globalization affects the Rise of Terrorism?

The technologies associated with globalization allow terrorist to operate in a highly distributed global ‘network’that shares information and allows small cells to conduct highly coordinated, lethal attacks. The use of technology also become trends in terrorism, since they use modern weapons, 60 per cent of all attacks involve the use of explosives, 30 per cent use firearms and 10 per cent used other tactics including incendiary devices, melee attacks and sabotage of equipment.

The continued expansion of the number of Internet Service Providers, especially in states with relaxed or ambivalent content policies or laws, combined with capable and inexpensive mobile devices, laptops, software, and wireless technology has empowered individuals or groups with the ability to post tracts on or send messages throughout the world wide web. Individuals or small groups have produced videos useful in inspiring potential recruits and seeking donations. For example, Sheikh Abdallah Muhammad al Muhaysini, one of the most influential jihadist ideologues in Syria, has launched a new recruiting campaign that aims to indoctrinate thousands of young men. The mobilization effort, named “Take Up Arms, Do Not Sit Still” and also referred to as “Go Forth,” began online and throughout Syria. Transnational terrorism become highly increasing in the era of 2000s. Since 2000 there has been over a five-fold increase in the number of deaths from terrorism, rising from 3,361 in 2000 to 17,958 in 2013.

Based on Global Terrorism Database, there are 472 terrorism incidents in Indonesia from 2000 until 201431, while before then there are 315 incidents from 1970 until 2000. This shown us that there are rapid and massive terrorist activities in Indonesia in the era of 2000s, together with the increasing of internet user in Indonesia. the measure is the percentage of internet user in Indonesia because internet is increasingly becoming a vital medium of communication on an individual and a societal level. It is proven by the use of internet in which increase actively every year from 2000 until 2015. The result is technology increasing the terrorist capabilities in coordination among them, even in different countries. For example, this coordination is proven by there is cooperation between Middle East’s terrorist group with Indonesian terrorist groups, especially in funding aspect. The Indonesian government has uncovered billions of rupiah, originating from the Middle East, strongly suspected of funding terrorism in the country. These coordination also create local cells group in Indonesia, for example Jamaah Islamiah as first indigenous regional terrorist network, which is strongly connected with Al-Qaeda.

Analysis: Pre-2011 Anti-Western Indonesian Terrorist Groups?

Anti-western ideology is the result of understanding of radical Islam itself. Anti Western terrorism is a classifiable ideology for those terrorist organizations that are formed to combat against or deter the spread of Western ideals, values or capitalism, and half of the 250+ active terrorist organizations in the world are classified as having the anti-Western terrorism ideology.

Islamic extremist has plagued Indonesia over the last decades. Groups such as Jamaah islamiyah (JI), Jamaah Ansharut Tauhid (JAT), Laskar Jihad, Mujahidin Indonesia Timur, ISIS in Indonesia have religious extremist ideology. Historical, religious and political factors have all contributed to the rise of Muslim extremism in Indonesia, even if different groups possess different strategies on how to reach their objectives.

Today, individuals and groups, religious and lay, seize the right to declare and legitimate an unholy war of terrorism in the name of Islam. Begin with the post 9/11, the western civilization change its view towards Islam. America before 911 was on the verge of accepting Islam as one of its own, but after the attack of 911 it has paused to once again reassess Islam and Muslims. Added with the Bali Bombings, several embassy bombings, and also J.W Mariott Hotel Bombing confirmed that the terrorist group in Indonesia embrace anti-Western ideology. Those incidents use as symbol of against the West. As example for the Bali Bombings which it was considered as a warning to Bush.

This anti-Western ideology in which profess by terrorists group in Indonesia sees that the world dominated by Liberal West regime and culture. It obviously plays a major role in the terrorist’s target selection in Indonesia (see table 1.1). There are 17 terrorism incidents targeted diplomatic government and tourist in Indonesia from 2000–2011, and 7 from 17 perpetrator groups (with 5 unknown) are Jamaah Islamiyah, which its known as Islamic extremist group.

Analysis: The changepoint from pre-2011 foreign interest to post-2011 police and military

For terrorist groups target types matter. Terrorism is a struggle between those without power against those with power. Terrorist groups typically have limited resources and must focus their efforts wisely to have the biggest desired impact. So, they’re selective in their target.

If terrorism target change in Indonesia before and after 2011 relate to rationalist explanation it will consider there are 4 actors, the diplomatic government, tourist, and police, and military. There are difference in this case about the actors. in rationalist theory claimed that government, police, and military as non-civilian target type. While tourists is civilian target type. Back to research question, here the author want to explain why the target of terrorism in Indonesia change from in majority foreign interest (diplomatic government and tourists) to police and military use the rationalist explanation by Nemeth. The author want to indicate there is a changepoint in terrorist type target selection, and reasons behind it. In this case, the author want to capture the changepoint from foreign interest which is represent by tourist as civilian target to police as non-civilian target. Islamic extremist like JI (suspected), several unknown groups, JAT, and MIT attack on police and military. For JAT and MIT, they attack police as confrontations when finally JAT and MIT become alliances in 2012. These confrontations include assassinations of police officers and bombings always avoiding civilian casualties as the group is thought to be locally funded and does not wish to alienate supporters. The last incident by unknown group, the bombing in Sarinah also leave a gunbattle between terrorists and police.

The author argues that there are a changepoint from majority targeted foreign interest to police and military (including JI, JAT, MIT, and unknows groups) in order to make progress to their goals since terrorist groups in Indonesia decreased performance. It is proven by robbery incident in 2010 showed examples of fundraising activities during the pause action, and also according to USINDO, Jamaah Ansharut Tauhid (JAT), including some JI splinter groups, gained prominence, not as a group but as a network of like-minded extremists. However, these groups have also weakened after the Indonesian police raided their training camp in Aceh in February 2010. The discovery of the camp led to the prosecution and conviction of Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, a founder of JI, along with several others (some cases are still in process). However, these groups have also weakened after the Indonesian police raided their training camp in Aceh in February 2010. The discovery of the camp led to the prosecution and conviction of Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, a founder of JI, along with several others (some cases are still in process).

Therefore begin in 2011, they made a new strategy by attacking police that will be explain in the next topic below.

Analysis: Terrorist Revenge on Police and Military’s Counter-Terrorism?

Soon after 9/11, President Megawati Soekarnoputri vidited United State, and make a cooperation to counter-terrorism. According to the Joint Statement: “The two Presidents agreed that their respective officials would soon discuss concrete ways to strengthen bilateral cooperation on counter-terrorism, in particular on capacity and institution building”. In 2004, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono declare a war on terror, although all this time Indonesian government had been fighting terrorists for several years. But, President Yudhoyono promised to bring a new energy, a clearer commitment to the task. In 2009, The government of Indonesia sought to introduce tougher anti-terror measures in the wake of the July 2009 bombings in Jakarta. In 2010, Indonesia hosted the “Workshop on the Regional Implementation of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy in Southeast Asia”, in cooperation with the UN CTITF, and Indonesia successfully combated the JI related terrorist threat through police action, intelligence operations and high profile criminal prosecutions.
We can see from those data that there are massive counter-terrorism acts by Indonesia before 2011. There are number of terrorists that had been arrested by Police and Military from 2000 until 2011.

Although Police and Military are prepared for such attacks, however, attacks on police can be considered acts of terrorism when police are off duty or otherwise not engaged in active conflict. As what the theory said that police and military could be practical target, terrorist groups see it as a threat to their existence. They see that the police and the military is a new enemy in terrorism, which could blocking their goals. From public support perspective, an attack on police may create more confusion and a weaker initial response to a terrorist incident, making the authorities seem ineffective. This casts doubt on the police’s ability to protect the public, potentially decreasing the likelihood that the public will cooperate with them and thereby supporting the terrorists’ cause.