Countering Violent Extremism in Indonesia: Need for a Rethink
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No Need for Panic: Planned and Unplanned Releases of Convicted Extremists in Indonesia ©2013 IPAC 1 COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM IN INDONESIA: NEED FOR A RETHINK 30 June 2014 IPAC Report No.11 contents I. Overview ..............................................................................................1 II. Background to the Government Program .......................................2 III. Terrorism Prevention Coordination Forums (FKPT) ....................3 IV. Deradicalisation and Counter-radicalisation 2013-2014 ...............6 A. The Deradicalisation Blueprint and the PNPT ........................6 B. The Sentul Deradicalisation Centre ...........................................7 C. Visits of Middle Eastern Ulama..................................................8 V. Mosques ................................................................................................9 A. The Takeover of the Muhammad Ramadhan Mosque ............9 B. The Case of Mesjid Jami, Krapyak, Klaten ..............................12 C. Lessons for BNPT .......................................................................13 VI. Prisons ...............................................................................................13 A. “Self-Deradicalisation”...............................................................14 1. Organisational Disengagement ..........................................14 2. Individual Disengagement .................................................15 B. Assessment of High-Risk Prisoners .........................................16 VII. Countering Extremist Media .............................................................16 A. Resistance, not Vigilantism .......................................................17 B. Victim Voices ..............................................................................18 C. Counter-narratives .....................................................................19 VIII. Conclusion .........................................................................................21 Countering Violent Extremism in Indonesia: Need for a Rethink ©2014 IPAC 1 I. OVERVIEW Indonesia is making some headway in countering violent extremism but not through govern- ment programs. Some prisoners have moderated their views through discussions with fellow inmates and their own self-awareness. Communities have taken back radical mosques on their own without help from counter-terrorism agencies. In general, the twin goals of “deradicalisa- tion” (persuading extremists, especially prisoners convicted of terrorism, to move away from violence) and “counter-radicalisation” (immunising communities against extremist ideology and preventing new recruitment) have not been well-served by top-down programs heavy on rhetoric and formal meetings, divorced from detailed knowledge of radical networks. The chal- lenge is to understand when, why and how individuals and communities resist on their own and see if there are any lessons that can be replicated. The National Anti-Terrorism Agency (Badan Nasional untuk Penanggulangan Terorisme, BNPT) has not been as effective as hoped. Some of its problems on the prevention side are not of its own making. There is still no consensus in the broader Muslim community about what constitutes extremism; radicalism in defence of the faith is considered laudable in many quar- ters. The BNPT structure effectively puts the police in charge of intelligence and operations and the military in charge of prevention, which does not make for smooth cooperation. All the law enforcement officers with direct field experience went to the first, leaving prevention to newcomers who had no personal knowledge of networks, prisoners or available data. Preven- tion officials still complain that funds have been slow in coming, hampering their work. Many agencies and ministries that BNPT is supposed to be coordinating have little interest either in the subject of countering extremism or in being coordinated. Questions remain, however, over BNPT’s ability to target programs effectively. In its 2014 “National Program for Preventing Terrorism” for example, BNPT identifies prisons, mosques, schools and media as the key areas for work. These are the right areas, but the activities proposed are mostly meetings and generic training of trainers without honing in on particular institutions and individuals known to be propagating extremism. The design of prevention programs could benefit from more systematic study of the case dossiers of the almost 800 individuals indicted on terrorism charges since 2002. It could also benefit from better analysis of the ideological arguments used against violence within the radical community that some convicted terrorists have found persuasive and more in-depth study of successful cases of community rejection of radical teachings. This report examines the government prevention program to date while also looking at examples of non-government and community-based initiatives to counter violent extremism. When well-planned and implemented, the latter can be very effective, but in some cases, they turn into exercises in vigilantism that are as ugly when mobilised against extremists as when directed against religious minorities. BNPT’s programs to date may be weak but a national agen- cy is still needed to coordinate and share information across agencies; develop policies designed to discourage advocacy of violence; and help community leaders develop strategies. Unless programs in all of these areas are based on detailed knowledge about how and where radical- isation takes place, however, they are not likely to be productive. As a new government takes office later this year, it might consider a restructuring of BNPT to remove the divide between intelligence/operations and prevention. 2 Countering Violent Extremism in Indonesia: Need for a Rethink ©2014 IPAC II. BACKGROUND TO THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM From the 2002 Bali bombing until the early years of the Yudhoyono administration, “deradi- calisation” was left to the counter-terrorism police, Detachment 88.1 It was ad hoc and largely off budget, aimed at terrorist detainees and suspects. Prisoners who were seen as cooperative received all-expenses-paid family visits, better food, good medical treatment, school fees for their children and even periodic outings. In a few cases, the police financed weddings, allowing imprisoned jihadis to marry their girlfriends in prison ceremonies, with family members flown in for the occasion. Anonymous donors provided the funding. There was no systematic attempt at counseling, although police encouraged a few senior JI prisoners who expressed remorse or denounced the bombings to talk with other inmates and publish accounts of their own personal trajectories into and out of violence.2 These efforts brought some notable individual successes and made Indonesia a showcase for “deradicalisation” efforts. Police officers involved recognised that understanding radicalisation was key and that building relationships with prisoners needed certain personal qualities: opera- tional experience, empathy, good listening skills and an understanding of the culture of radical networks.3 The emphasis on these skills, however, meant that there was less analysis of the men who “successfully” disengaged, many of whom were uncomfortable with targeting civilians or waging jihad on Indonesian soil in the first place. Even without the police input, some might have pulled away on their own, particularly those who joined as combatants in local conflicts which have since been resolved, or those who played largely peripheral, non-violent roles: hid- ing fugitives, withholding information or disposing of evidence. The counter-terrorism police guarded their contacts and information closely, partly for secu- rity reasons but also perhaps because the information was an important source of political cap- ital and prestige. There was no inclination to work closely with other agencies, many of which they viewed with contempt. This was particularly true of the prison system, where some in De- tachment 88 saw the possibility that all their good work cultivating contacts would be undone once convicted terrorists were transferred from police custody to regular prisons that were no- toriously corrupt and understaffed.4 But as time went on, some lower-level prison officials, -un noticed and unrecognised, were building their own ties to prisoners and developing an interest in inmate networks. Their knowledge could have made for a potent partnership with police in understanding and preventing prison recruitment as well as reinforcing deradicalisation efforts, but institutional obstacles were too great. No real attention to broader prevention efforts took place until President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono took office, just weeks after the 2004 Australian embassy bombing. After the second 1 For more details on the origins of the program, see International Crisis Group, “Deradicalisation” and Indonesian Prisons, Asia Report No.142, 19 November 2007. Note that while many other countries have abandoned the use of the terms “derad- icalisation” in favour of “disengagement”, and “counter-radicalisation” in favour of “countering violent extremism (CVE)”, the old words remain in general usage in Indonesia. 2 Nasir Abas, a veteran of Afghanistan and Mindanao and commander of Jemaah Islamiyah’s Region 3, and Ali Imron, a religious scholar from Lamongan who joined his two brothers, Amrozi and Mukhlas, in the Bali bombing plot, were the most senior prisoners to