TRILATERAL COUNTERTERRORISM MEETING, APRIL 27

C O N F I D E N T I A L JAKARTA 001293 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/02/2017 TAGS: PTER ASEC EFIN KCRM KHLS KPAO ID SUBJECT: TRILATERAL COUNTERTERRORISM MEETING, APRIL 27 Classified By: Political Officer David Willis for reasons 1.4 (b) and ( d) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: We hosted a trilateral counterterrorism (CT) meeting on April 27, with Australian and Japanese embassy counterparts. The three delegations agreed that Indonesian CT capacity had improved significantly, though the threat of terrorism would remain for the foreseeable future. Donor assistance remained necessary for Indonesia to continue to mark lasting improvements in CT and border and maritime security. Each delegation shared information on important bilateral and multilateral programs and identified areas for further discussion and possible collaboration. The three countries agreed to form a working group that would focus initially on maritime security and to arrange other working-level meetings to handle technical aspects of issues between plenary sessions. END SUMMARY ¶2. (C) On April 27, we hosted local Australian and Japanese Embassy delegations at the U.S. Embassy for a trilateral counterterrorism (CT) meeting. This interagency working-level meeting was broadly focused on the Sulawesi Sea border area and followed up on the trilateral DCM-level discussion hosted by the Australian Embassy earlier this year. The meeting was preparatory to the trilateral CT consultations planned for Sydney in early June. ¶3. (C) The participants shared the common view that the terrorism threat in Indonesia remained serious and long term, and that meaningful progress against it needed sustained donor assistance, including border and maritime security programs. Police training programs were noted to have helped Indonesian National Police (INP) CT units become increasingly successful at disrupting terrorist plans and networks. The delegations exchanged information on several of their respective programs. The Sulawesi Sea border area was acknowledged as an appropriate assistance target. ¶4. (C) Several Australian and U.S. attendees shared direct observations from trips to North Sulawesi and East Kalimantan, identifying several low-tech solutions to improve security at critical points of entry in the border area. Some of the items specifically mentioned were basic navigational and communications equipment, fences and other modest improvements at ports of entry, and training on methodologies to filter out potential suspects from the mass of daily cross-border travelers. The Japanese added that their Embassy had discussed similar GOI assistance for other areas and may be able to do so in the Sulawesi Sea border area. ¶5. (C) After acknowledging the difficulty of discussing in detail the broad range of aid needed in the triborder area, the three countries agreed to create a maritime security working group and to arrange other working group meetings as needed to discuss operational issues and technical collaboration. Each delegation identified a point of contact to arrange the working group meetings and agreed that the group should meet as soon as the arrangements could be made. ¶6. (C) As in previous local trilateral meetings with the Australian and Japanese embassies, the U.S. and Australian representatives drove the discussion, with occasional substantive remarks from the two Japanese attendees, a relatively junior but capable political officer and a police liaison officer. We were, however, encouraged by the indication that the Japanese may consider assistance in the border area, and we will continue to engage them on the issue in the smaller working group discussions. HEFFERN