The Impact of Democratization and International Exposure to Indonesian Counter-Terrorism

Ali Abdullah Wibisono


This article explains the influence of the United States of America to Indonesian counter-terrorism. Two aspects of counter-terrorism are explained: effectiveness and adherence to human rights values. It argues that America’s emphasis on the need to forge security cooperation in responding to terrorism facilitated human rights values to be adopted as justification of counter-terrorism, rather than a balancer to its effectiveness. Indonesia’s cooperation with the U.S in counter-terrorism has facilitated the growth of the restitutive or kinetic measures, but neglects a strengthening of political leadership over institutional development of counter-terrorism. The latter can be judged from the absence of policy-evaluation, strategy document, and joint capacity-development of other agencies responsible for counter-terrorism. In the long run, this paper argues, the lack of political leadership nurtures the tradition impunity to the security apparatuses in the conduct of counter-terrorism.


Counter-terrorism, Democratization, International Exposure, Indonesia, US-Indonesia Relations


Aly, A., Balbi, A.M., & Jacques, C. (2015). Rethinking Countering Violent Extremism: Implementing the Role of Civil Society. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 10(1), 3-13.

Blackburn, S. (2004). Women and the State in Modern Indonesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Butt, S. (2008). Anti-Terrorism Law and Criminal Process in Indonesia. Islam, Syari'ah and Governance Background Paper Series, ARC Federation Fellowship. University of Melbourne.

Chowdury, A. (2011). The Giver or the Recipient?: The Peculiar Ownership of Human Rights. International Political Sociology, 5, 35-51.

Chowdury, A., & Krebs, R. R. (2010). Talking about Terror: Counterterrorist Campaigns and the Logic of Representation. European Journal of International Relations, 16(1), 125-150.

Christopherson, G. (2002). The War on Terrorism in Southeast Asia : Searching for Partners , Delimiting Targets.” (January). Strategic Insight, 1(1).

Evans, T. (2005). International Human Rights Law as Power/Knowledge. Human Rights Quarterly, 27(1046–1068).

Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization, 52, 887–917.

Held, D. (2004). Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Heller, R. et al. (2012). The ‘Dark’ Side of Normative Argumentation-The Case of Counter-terrorism Policy. Global Constitutionalism, 1(2), 278–312.

Ignatieff, M. (2001). Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Khagram, S., Riker, J., & Sikkink, K. (2002). Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks and Norms. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Nedal, D. (2011). On ‘Theorising Terrorism’: A Reply to Colin Wight. International Relations, 25(2), 263-266.

Pisoiu, D. (2012). Pragmatic Persuasion in Counterterrorism. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 5(3), 297-317.

Van Um, E., & Pisoiu, D. (2015). Dealing with Uncertainty: The Illusion of Knowledge in the Study of Counterterrorism Effectiveness. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 8(2), 229-245.

Vaughn, B, et al. (2008). Terrorism in Southeast Asia. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Wight, C. (2009). Theorising Terrorism: The State, Structure and History. International Relations, 23(1), 99-106.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2017 Global: Jurnal Politik Internasional

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.