Indonesia and stronger responses to transnational crime

Jakarta (ANTARA) - When security threats cross national borders, successful responses depend not only on each country's preparedness but also on its ability to coordinate action with others.

Information held by one country may be needed by another, while addressing a single case may require agencies with different mandates. Without effective coordination, gaps between them can be exploited by criminal networks.

Southeast Asia has established various mechanisms to address these challenges, ranging from bilateral partnerships to subregional and regional security forums.

However, the existence of these mechanisms does not automatically ensure that information, capabilities, and decisions from one channel of cooperation support the work of another.

Indonesia's challenge is not simply to expand cooperation but to ensure that each mechanism serves the right purpose and delivers measurable follow-up.

An opportunity to test this approach emerged during a series of Indonesia-Australia meetings on October 22, 2026, and the seventh Sub-Regional Meeting on Counter Terrorism and Transnational Security (SRM), held in Jakarta the following day.

Indonesia and Australia agreed to jointly lead an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Senior Officials Counter-Terrorism Policy Forum (SOCTPF) after six years of operation.

The evaluation can serve as more than an assessment of a single forum.

For Indonesia, it offers an opportunity to determine whether regional security mechanisms clarify the division of responsibilities, strengthen joint responses, and identify coordination gaps that still need to be addressed.

Defining roles

The seventh SRM was co-chaired by Indonesian Coordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs Dudung Abdurachman and Australian Minister for Home Affairs, Immigration and Citizenship, Cyber Security, and the Arts Tony Burke.

The forum brought together eight countries: Indonesia, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand.

Discussions covered terrorism and violent extremism, irregular migration, human trafficking, people smuggling, online scam centers, cybercrime, maritime security, and critical infrastructure protection.

A day earlier, Indonesia and Australia held the 12th Indonesia-Australia Ministerial Council Meeting on Law and Security (MCM).

The two countries discussed strengthening their strategic partnership, maritime security, counterterrorism and efforts to combat transnational crime, border security, and cybersecurity.

The two forums have different scopes and functions. Bilateral cooperation gives Indonesia and Australia room to deepen interagency coordination and build joint capabilities. The SRM, meanwhile, brings together more countries to address cross-border threats and coordinate approaches in line with regional interests.

These distinct roles should be an advantage. Bilateral cooperation can deepen joint action in specific areas, while subregional forums can extend its benefits through coordination with other countries. However, these connections do not emerge automatically simply because the forums address overlapping issues.

Indonesia should encourage the outcomes of one mechanism to inform the work of another without blurring their respective mandates. The SOCTPF evaluation is relevant not only to assessing the forum's performance but also to identifying obstacles that prevent security cooperation from reaching its full potential.

The need to make better use of existing mechanisms was also emphasized by Indonesian Foreign Affairs Minister Arrmanatha Nasir during a meeting with Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong in Jakarta on October 22.

"We discussed the regional situation and how we can contribute to regional resilience through the various existing mechanisms," Arrmanatha said.

He highlighted the importance of optimizing the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), and the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), all of which involve Indonesia and Australia.

These channels give Indonesia opportunities to strengthen cooperation across regions. The task is not to merge all forums into a single structure but to ensure that each contributes according to its mandate and reach. Stronger cooperation must also respect ASEAN's role and the interests of participating countries.

Identifying gaps

Digital threats illustrate why clear divisions of responsibility matter. At the seventh SRM, delegates discussed the misuse of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, to facilitate crime and extremism. The forum also addressed information sharing, rehabilitation and reintegration, and the development of tools to prevent violent extremism online.

Initiatives discussed included the Online Crisis Notification Protocol, plans to update the 2025 Glossary of Extremist Content Online, and a regional sentiment analysis framework. These initiatives are being developed by Brunei Darussalam and Malaysia, the co-chairs of the SOCTPF for 2026-2027.

Such tools can help countries identify and respond to threats, but their effectiveness depends on implementation. Information must be verifiable, forwarded to the relevant authorities, and followed by action under clear procedures.

Sentiment analysis also cannot serve as the sole basis for determining whether a threat exists. Its findings must be assessed alongside other evidence, with due regard for data protection and the rights of those concerned.

Similar issues arise in maritime security. Through the MCM, Indonesia and Australia discussed strengthening surveillance, patrols, and law enforcement in Indonesian waters, including the North Natuna Sea.

At the subregional level, the SRM addressed coordinated patrols, information sharing, joint exercises, responses to illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and the protection of undersea infrastructure.

The two channels of cooperation could reinforce each other in strengthening maritime domain awareness. However, their value cannot be measured solely by the number of exercises or activities conducted.

The more important questions are whether coordination makes information more useful, clarifies responsibilities, and improves responses to cross-border problems.

Digital and maritime security show that the challenge is not simply to establish cooperation tools but to ensure that they are linked to clear authorities, procedures, and follow-up action. Evaluations of regional mechanisms should identify which elements are working and where gaps remain.

Measuring results

Indonesia and Australia will jointly lead the SOCTPF effectiveness evaluation through consultations with member countries. This process can provide a starting point for determining whether the forum genuinely strengthens security coordination rather than simply carrying out its planned agenda.

The evaluation should go beyond counting meetings, activities, or documents produced. More meaningful measures include whether responsibilities have become clearer, information sharing has improved, recommendations have been acted upon, and participating countries are better able to coordinate responses across jurisdictions.

These indicators are analytical proposals, not officially established evaluation criteria. Nevertheless, an outcome-based assessment is necessary to guide improvements rather than merely record completed activities.

The findings could also help Indonesia review the relationship between bilateral and subregional cooperation. If bilateral partnerships lead to stronger capabilities or new coordination procedures, their potential benefits for regional cooperation could be considered in accordance with the mandates of the relevant forums.

Conversely, needs identified at the subregional level could help determine priorities for bilateral partnerships.

This approach does not require all mechanisms to be merged or national policies to be standardized. Each country retains its own legal system, capabilities, and interests.

What needs strengthening is the working relationship among them, so that these differences do not obstruct a joint response when threats require collective action.

Indonesia's regional leadership can be tested in concrete terms. Its role cannot be demonstrated solely by hosting meetings or endorsing joint statements.

Indonesia must be able to identify coordination gaps, promote an appropriate division of responsibilities, and ensure that the benefits of cooperation can be assessed.

The SOCTPF evaluation offers an opportunity to begin this process through a clearly defined mechanism. Its findings could inform improvements to the forum itself while providing lessons for broader security cooperation.

Ultimately, the strength of a regional response depends not on how many forums exist but on how effectively countries use them to complement one another.

Indonesia can strengthen its leadership by ensuring that cooperation goes beyond diplomatic commitments and delivers more effective coordination against transnational threats.

*Martha Herlinawati Simanjuntak is a journalist at the ANTARA News Agency

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the ANTARA News Agency.

Related news: Indonesia, Australia deepen immigration and crime fighting cooperation

Related news: Indonesia, Australia discuss efforts to combat disinformation