Indonesia’s 2nd Presidential Debate Analysis: Where do Candidates Stand on Cyberpolitics, Terrorism and Maritime Security?
Today marks the third debate in the Indonesia election, the second involving the presidential candidates. The last vis-à-vis was highly heated; you can read my previous analysis here: https://medium.com/political-science-and-others/analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate-in-indonesia-1c94780f81c4
With my background in maritime security and cyberpolitics, I will specifically emphasize the critical importance of addressing terrorism, the intersection of technology in politics, and the pressing issues within maritime security.
Ganjar emphasizes national interests as the paramount element, a redefinition of ‘bebas aktif,’ investment and infrastructure diplomacy, and a commitment to non-intervention. He also underscores the role of IKN in defense, reflecting his stance. Additionally, Ganjar advocates for police reforms regarding terrorism and cyber strength, highlighting defensive systems such as hypersonic missiles and autonomous weapons. In my perspective, Ganjar’s vision and missions are concise, but I find the aspects related to IKN is particularly concerning.
Anies emphasizes the significance of cultural diplomacy to position Indonesia as a ‘world-phenomenon’ which I found too ambitious, suggesting that global developments will positively influence domestic governance. He underscores the importance of addressing cyber attacks, virus threats, and drug-related issues. Anies acknowledges the challenge of maritime theft in the fishing industry and opposes the acquisition of secondhand alutista. Furthermore, he criticizes Prabowo’s food estate initiative with specific points. Anies’ stance on vision and mission appears highly idealistic and too ambitious, with a strong emphasis on driving significant changes.
Prabowo underscores Indonesia’s ultimate goal of defending and protecting the nation, he draws on historical patterns of Indonesia’s colonization to emphasize the need to safeguard and manage resources. Prabowo advocates for a non-aligned foreign policy in international relations, maintaining positive relationships with other nations. He strongly believes in the pivotal role of military power for Indonesia’s protection, and it’s notable that his opening speech appears to be more generalized and vague, lacking specific references to the challenges faced by the Ministry of Defense.
Cyber for geo-spatial mapping
When the three candidates were questioned about cyber geospatial, it appears that all three primarily focused on the term ‘cyber,’ neglecting the fact that cyber-geospatial pertains to the integration of geospatial information and technology in cybersecurity, with implications including challenges related to the lack of technological capabilities for protection against exploitation, regulatory hurdles, and privacy concerns. It’s a pity that Indonesia is simply NOT there yet.
This shows that Indonesia (governmentally-speaking) is currently distant from acquiring such knowledge; cyber is more than just a buzzword, with numerous challenges awaiting the country, including those related to GEOINT.
Anies stated that the use of cyber for poses a non-traditional threat to Indonesia. He emphasizes that the structure of defense in cyberspace requires comprehensive planning, involving both civilian entities and mechanisms for cyber counteraction to facilitate recovery in the event of cyber attacks. Anies appears to be personally criticizing Prabowo, raising questions about events or developments over the past five years and seeking clarification on what has transpired during that period.
According to Prabowo, he places importance on human resources, and as part of this focus, he has established the Academy for Sciences and Technology, which serves as the core for developing cyber capabilities.
Ganjar underscores the significance of BSSN (National Cyber and Crypto Agency) and the security system, highlighting the need for a fast and secure internet. He advocates for a corruption-free system and emphasizes collaboration among LPDP awardees. Additionally, Ganjar emphasizes the necessity of reforming the police force for enhanced cyber security.
Among all three candidates, even though none actually delved into the core of geospatial issues, Ganjar provided the most comprehensive answer. His position has shifted from being ambiguous compared to the last debate to a more practical stance, outlining specific plans that can be implemented under his leadership.
Terrorism
It is a notable flaw in the current raffle debate system that terrorism, a significant issue in Indonesia’s defense and security landscape, is not being adequately addressed.
This is unfortunate, especially considering that terrorism is expected to remain one of the country’s major security concerns.
It is crucial to remind ourselves of the events in October 2023 when Indonesia arrested 59 individuals over an alleged plot to disrupt the presidential election. The police identified the suspects as members of hardline groups Jemaah Islamiyah and Jamaah Ansharut Daulah.
Fisheries and Maritime Security: South China Sea
In the maritime context, the candidates were questioned about the issues related to Natuna Island and the South China Sea. Former President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono highlighted the significance of these matters, emphasizing how the elections in Taiwan could impact the tensions in the region.
Ganjar emphasizes the need for an evaluation of Indonesia’s progress, noting that two decades have passed with little accomplished. He asserts that Indonesia should take the initiative, highlighting the crucial role of China’s policy in regional security. Ganjar advocates for increased patrols and stresses the necessity of reaching temporary agreements.
Anies underscores the importance of ASEAN in addressing the South China Sea issue, advocating for Indonesia to assume a leadership role within the organization. This perspective, while idealistic, acknowledges the limited security role that ASEAN traditionally plays in the region (which I personally disagree).
Prabowo emphasizes the significance of defense, patrols, and satellite capabilities. He did not elaborate more since he focused on how he wanted to discuss with Anies in a separated place. Bummer. I had a high expectation of Prabowo’s answer on this issue.
Ganjar stands out as the only candidate prioritizing maritime security, specifically the necessity of sensory technology at sea. He prioritizes the navy, followed by the air force, and then land. Ganjar questions Prabowo’s decision to purchase secondhand aircraft, echoing concerns raised by Anies. Prabowo, in response, emphasizes that these secondhand aircraft still have an appropriate age, around 15 years of usage, given Indonesia’s constraints in acquiring new ones and considering their potential usage duration.
I also appreciated when Ganjar raised the drilling issue as it shed light on a matter that had been silent for years since China allegedly directed Indonesia to halt oil and gas drilling in a contested maritime zone, escalating resource-related tensions in the South China Sea.
My conclusion
Ganjar surpassed my expectations in two aspects: employing data-driven arguments without excessive idealism and maintaining a focus on substantive discussions rather than resorting to personal attacks, fostering a productive discourse. Although, if elected, he would benefit from implementing more practical policies, particularly in the realms of cyber and military affairs.
Anies appears to prioritize diplomacy, leaning towards idealism, which I considered less practical for Indonesia given its geopolitical challenges. I’ve seen the emphasis on food/cultural diplomacy as less relevant compared to addressing immediate security threats. Anies continuously launching personal attacks on Prabowo regarding his ethics and performance as the Minister of Defense seemed unnecessary. Anies failed to address his “Smart Power” outline, making it a subpar performance.
Prabowo appeared to take criticisms personally, struggling to effectively defend his achievements during his tenure as Minister of Defense. He seemed unprepared with pertinent data despite anticipating scrutiny from two other candidates. His responses were deemed unsatisfactory, and the heated exchange with Anies added an excessive level of tension to the discussion, which was.. unecessary.
This concludes my series of analyses on the Indonesian presidential election debates, and I’m delighted that it has been both enlightening and entertaining. As I shift my focus to my upcoming PhD plans, I am already certain about my choice. I encourage everyone to make thoughtful and wise decisions in the upcoming elections.
With love from Warsaw,
Isti Marta Sukma.
