Indonesia's national security dilemma is multifaceted in nature and embedded in a milieu where the domestic, regional and global dimensions of security constantly intermingle. However, although these three security dimensions regularly influence each other, it is the domestic dimension that remains the primary source of concern. Compared with its ASEAN neighbours — Brunei, Thailand, Vietnam and to a lesser extent Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines — where strong external security concerns dominate defence and security planning, the Indonesian case is unique and merits special consideration because internal security considerations totally dominate national security planning.

Such an approach is understandable. Indonesia's post-independence history is littered with examples indicating how internal fissures have permitted global rivalries to permeate the country and exacerbate domestic conflict. Such a situation where Indonesia was open to a high degree of interference, especially from the great powers of the international system, may have had a lesser impact on national security if the state was more cohesive and if the various regimes from 1950 to 1965 had enjoyed greater popular legitimacy. This low level of social cohesion and of state and regime legitimacy during the periods observed was a result of the discontinuities colonialism introduced into the evolution of Indonesia by clustering together disparate ethnic groups, making cohesion and legitimacy difficult to attain.

No doubt all states are security conscious. However, as indicated by this study, national security in the context of Indonesia assumes overwhelming proportions. In Indonesia, the promotion of national security during the Suharto era had become the yardstick by which policy success was measured and tended to become the beginning and the end of political life itself. The Indonesian state, as the central institution of society, is charged with guaranteeing that national security is maintained at all costs, and its managers are therefore granted special prerogatives. In this regard, national security is obviously elitist since it recognizes the right of the authorities to decide what is in the national interest and the public good. The achievement of national security objectives, hence, is often at odds with the protection of individual freedoms.