Dinamika Restructuring of Intelligence in BIN (National Intelligence Agency) When hearing the term intelligence, it is always associated with a series of activities conducted in secrecy, silence, and full of confidentiality. However, fundamentally, the term intelligence is generally defined as a process of collecting information that will ultimately be used by policy makers in making a decision. Carl and Bancroft (1990) define intelligence as a product that is produced from the process of collecting information related to domestic and foreign activities. Lowenthal (2008) defines intelligence as a process of collecting, analyzing, and providing specific information about national security to policy makers. In various studies on intelligence, there are several important functions of intelligence, including collecting information and data, analyzing information and data, counterintelligence or in other words preventing intelligence activities by other parties, conducting special operations, and managing intelligence in the form of organizing, storing, and disseminating intelligence information usually carried out by intelligence organizations. Based on functions, intelligence can be categorized into several categories, such as tactical intelligence, strategic intelligence, operational intelligence, and domestic and foreign intelligence.
In Indonesia, the Reform that occurred in 1998 has had a significant impact on changes in various aspects of politics and government, including in the intelligence aspect. Before the reform, intelligence activities were often associated with human rights violations and used as a tool for the ruler to maintain political power. However, with the rolling of the reform, there was a strong demand for reform in the national intelligence body. One of the important results of these efforts is the enactment of Law No. 17 of 2011 concerning the State Intelligence Agency (BIN).
History and Development In Indonesia, the history and development of intelligence are divided into three periods. From the study conducted by Andi Widjajanto (2008), these three periods can be divided into the Old Order era, the New Order era, and the Reform era. In the Old Order era, the intelligence function was placed on combat intelligence and territorial intelligence functions. The need for these functions was placed on the state’s needs in facing various domestic turmoil post-independence in 1945. During that era, a body called the Indonesian State Secret Intelligence Agency (BRANI) was formed. In the 1950s and onwards, an institution called the Central Intelligence Agency was formed. This Central Intelligence Agency had control functions over all other national intelligence agencies. The formation of intelligence institutions was also influenced by internal political dynamics related to political rivalries between groups and factions. The end of the Old Order under the leadership of Sukarno, marked by a political transition process towards the New Order under the leadership of Suharto. The political changes at that time also influenced the development of the state intelligence institution. In the 1965s and beyond, there was an intelligence institution carrying out security and territorial intelligence functions called the Coordinating Intelligence Agency (BAKIN). At this time, the intelligence institution experienced what was called militarization of intelligence agencies to control order and security. Asvi Warman Adam (2022) in an article in Kompas explained that during the New Order era, intelligence was formalized into four intelligence agencies. Namely, strategic military intelligence; civilian intelligence; operational and coordination intelligence; and, informal intelligence such as Opsus, Denpintel POM, and Satsus Intel. The institutionalization of intelligence was to preserve the political power of the government at that time. The Reform that occurred in 1998 has prompted structural reforms in Indonesia, including in the security sector. One of the aspects not to be missed from these reform efforts is intelligence reform. Subsequently, in the early 2000s, the government and the DPR began discussions on reforming the national intelligence. After intensive discussions, the National Intelligence Bill was confirmed as an initiative of the DPR to be discussed jointly with the government. The intensive discussion process took eight years until it was finally ratified into a Law. Discussions concerning the substance of the intelligence bill at that time included; strengthening the legal framework of the state intelligence agency, increasing accountability, and adapting the functions and structures of BIN to various changing threat dynamics. In general, the substance regulated in the law about BIN includes various important aspects, including the affirmation of the role and function of BIN, operational authority, BIN’s oversight mechanisms, and increasing the capacity and coordination between agencies. With the ratification of the Law, it is hoped that BIN will become a credible agency and will be able to address various security challenges in the future, especially challenges in the intelligence world. However, on the other hand, after the Law was enacted, there are still many challenges that remain for BIN. These challenges include the complexity and dynamics of threats and the need for restructuring BIN itself.
Complexity and Threat Dynamics Intelligence plays a crucial role in building an early warning system to address potential threats, especially to national security. Intelligence is expected to adapt and identify various changes in the international security landscape. This poses a challenge for BIN in dealing with various security, technological, political, and internal capacity aspects. In terms of security, Indonesia still faces terrorism and radicalism threats. Moreover, terrorism and radicalism activities have evolved supported by various advances in information and communication technology. The use of social media and cyber spaces is instrumental for terrorist movements to recruit and spread propaganda. Still related to internet technology advancements, Indonesia is also not immune to cybercrime targeting critical infrastructure, national data, and other strategic sectors which can have an impact on national security. In addition to these challenges, Indonesia is still vulnerable to social conflicts and separatism. Issues such as Papua, for example, require adequate intelligence work to prevent conflict escalation. Similarly, issues of social conflicts based on ethnicity, religion, and inter-group conflicts that have the potential to threaten national stability. In this regard, BIN is expected to be at the forefront in creating an early detection system. Other vigilance is needed related to the excesses that arise from foreign espionage actions in spreading propaganda, disinformation, and potential foreign political interference domestically. Vigilance is needed to prevent the theft of important and confidential state information and special operations by foreign intelligence to influence strategic state policies.
Based on the complexity of threats and challenges mentioned above, intelligence institutions are seen to need to continue to make improvements. These improvements are aimed at building organizational readiness both organizationally and human resource capacity in responding to various security challenges. These improvements can be made through restructuring intelligence institutions and increasing the capacity of intelligence personnel.
Institutional Restructuring The restructuring of the state intelligence institution, especially in BIN, has become a prominent discourse to make the intelligence institution function optimally. In this regard, the discourse of restructuring the intelligence institution focuses on various aspects. First, strengthening coordination and authority. The proposal to strengthen coordination and authority to coordinate intelligence activities in various government agencies is aimed at a more integrated orchestration of intelligence. BIN can carry out the function to orchestrate this. Second, accountability of the BIN institution. This discourse emerged alongside a desire for budget usage and intelligence operation to be accountable to the public. Until now, BIN’s accountability is under the supervision done by the Intelligence Monitoring Team (Timwas) in the House Commission 1, but it is closed in nature. Better regulation is needed to be in accordance with the principles of public accountability. Third, modernization of BIN’s technology and infrastructure. Modernization in terms of cyber technology becomes a necessity in facing cyber security challenges. Therefore, BIN needs to adjust to the development of cyber technology. Fourth, improving the capacity and competence of BIN personnel. Competent BIN personnel can be obtained through better education and training, especially in countering cyber and terrorism threats. Another important aspect that cannot be ignored is related to the restructuring of Regional Intelligence Agencies (BINDA). This is related to the effectiveness of early warning systems at the regional level. Discourses on the importance of restructuring BINDA are based on several important arguments. First, the need for decentralization of BINDA’s authority to have autonomy in carrying out intelligence activities in the regions. Second, the development of local personnel capacity. Through education and training of personnel in the regions, the intelligence function becomes optimal for early detection at the regional level. Especially vulnerabilities arising from social conflicts and separatism are at the regional level. Third, increased coordination with local governments. Fourth, increasing resources and technology. Increasing resources and technology will reduce the gap between central and regional intelligence agencies in carrying out intelligence functions. Fifth, adaptation to local challenges. The level of vulnerability in certain regions varies, which may differ from the national level. Certainly, regional intelligence institutions need to adapt and adjust to the various levels of vulnerability and potential threats that exist. The restructuring of BIN at the regional level will support BIN’s work more optimally in terms of collecting information and supervision. This allows BIN to have a wider, up-to-date, and accurate information network. Therefore, risk and threat mapping can be done effectively. With such a wide information network, there is hope for BIN to be able to respond quickly to local threats and challenges, and help ensure national security.
Yudha Kurniawan dosen Universitas Indonesia
Sumber: https://news.detik.com/kolom/d-7501181/restrukturisasi-badan-intelijen-negara
