A new decade for social

. As a form of bioterrorism, agricultural terrorism/agroterrorism leads to livestock and crop interventions. Agroterrorism is part of economic warfare, which involves the destruction of a country's agricultural or ecological infrastructure using biological weapons. Agroterrorism leads to a country's food insecurities and the collapse of its economic climate. The development of biotechnology allows the modification of biological elements to result in changes in the characteristics of living things infiltrated by these agents. Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) technology, for instance, is a paradoxical double-edged sword. GMOs can generate economic benefits, but can also result in huge economic losses if they are weaponized as agroterrorism. Using a qualitative approach, this study conducts a policy analysis to explain the factors that impact the absence of food safety policies from agroterrorism threats in Indonesia. Data collection was conducted through literature searches in the form of articles, documents, and policies with the keywords "agricultural terrorism"; "Genetically Modified Organism"; "food insecurity"; "biotechnology", and "national security"; as well as by analyzing the experiences of other countries. As a country with direct land borders with other countries, Indonesia needs extra efforts to secure the country's biodiversity. As one of the consequences of the ASEAN-China free trade, the possibility of agroterrorism events has become more likely to occur in Indonesia. The development of a solid food infrastructure may overcome this problem. Recommendations for safe and resilient food policy scenarios should be pursued to ensure quality food production and sustainable economic growth for a better Indonesia, not only in the present, but for the sake of sustainability in the future.


1.
Introduction There was a time when the relationship between public health and national security was very distant. The public health perspective only focused on "what we, as a society, do together to ensure conditions that make people healthy". However, over time, concerns about the aspects of increasing population numbers, the spread of infectious diseases that can quickly spread from one country to another, have finally become a concern in the study of national resilience. National resilience has been considered to only study the balance and military power 1 David P. Fidler, "Public Health and National Security in the Global Age: Infectious Diseases, Bioterrorism, and Realpolitik," George Washington International Law Review 35, no. 4 (2003): 787-856, https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1418&context=facpub. targeting individuals and groups, bioterrorism can also attack animals and plants with consequences for national security.
One of the forms of bioterrorism threat occurs through food supply intervention. Food terrorism is an act of threat in the form of deliberate contamination of food consumed by humans using chemical, biological or radionuclear agents, which is intended to cause injury and death to the population, and ultimately disrupt the social, economic and political stability of a country. 6 Isroil Samihardjo, former Director of Nubika (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) at the National Intelligence Agency (BIN), said that when the food supply is contaminated with viruses, germs or bacteria, there will be a disease outbreak that affects a country's dependence on other countries. The avian flu outbreak, for example, resulted in material losses of trillions of rupiah, and affected economic interests. 7 The main issue that causes biological threats to be a very terrible threat is its impact which is very mass and is closely related to broad aspects of life, including ideology, politics, economics, social, culture, defense and security. Nuclear weapons are commonly known as powerful weapons, it turns out that biological agents used as weapons are much more powerful, because they can reproduce themselves (self-replicating), and can be easily obtained by anyone. Biological weapons are truly mass weapons that can devastate every joint of the country being attacked in various ways. 8 Biological agents can also be utilized to attack animals and plants, eventually leading to attacks on humans. Even if the initial target of the attack is an animal or plant, the economic losses incurred are enormous, pest attacks for example. 9 As a part of bioterrorism, Agricultural Bioterrorism (agroterrorism) leads to the intervention of farm animals and crops. In the United States, agroterrorism is part of economic warfare, in the form of destroying a country's agricultural or ecological infrastructure using biological weapons. 10 Agroterrorism leads to the collapse of a country's food security and economic climate. The development of biotechnology allows the modification of biological elements, resulting in changes in the characteristics of living things infiltrated by these agents. This technology is called Genetically Modified Organism (GMO), which is a paradoxical double-edged sword. GMOs can generate economic benefits, but can also result in huge economic losses if they become weapons of agroterrorism. 11 Bioterrorism might raise food insecurity concerns, if it were not so far-fetched. Jim Monke, a US agricultural policy analyst, defines agroterrorism as a weaponized attack using animal or plant diseases that aims to create fear and anxiety, cause economic loss and destabilize the country. 12 However, where are these attacks coming from? Who is 'sending' the attacks? If bio-genetic resources are already owned by other countries, then they can control our country's varieties, the type of fertilizer needed, pest resistance, taste, and other characteristics. It is not impossible that they will insert biological agents that could affect human health in the long run. 13 Agricultural terrorism attacks plant health during the production phase from seedling to harvest. Agroterrorism causes instability in national food security and is prone to causing large-scale famines, especially if the agroterrorism attacks a country's staple food. In Indonesia, agroterrorism has almost happened to rice seeds containing dangerous pathogens: Dickeya chrisantemi, but was successfully thwarted by the Indonesian quarantine center. Similar cases have also occurred in chili and carrot plants in Bogor, late 2016. Erwina chrysanthem bacteria was found, causing crop failure. The seeds entered Indonesia from China through seed smuggling. In addition, carrot plants in Dieng, Central Java, were also reported to have affected the mental development of children who consumed them. Again, the seeds were suspected to have been smuggled in from China. 14 Agriculture Quarantine Agency official Hari Priyono said that as one of the consequences of the ASEAN-China free market, the incidence of agroterrorism has become increasingly possible. For example, there is a disease in palm oil that can reduce almost 40 percent of palm oil production. The tropical climate in Indonesia will make it difficult to overcome the disease. Another example is the case of avian influenza which resulted in a 45 percent decline in the poultry industry at the time. Therefore, it is necessary to tighten supervision and security in the agricultural sector from pests and diseases, including for germplasm, vaccines, and seeds to maintain our country's food security. 15 Food security is defined as a state in which people at all times have physical, social and economic access to sufficient and nutritious food, as well as food that meets their dietary needs for an active and healthy life. This framework is the internationally accepted definition based on the World Food Summit in 1966. 16 Food insecurity, on the other hand, is a condition in which a person has difficulty in regularly accessing sufficient, safe and nutritious food to support normal growth and development, as well as an active and healthy life. Food insecurity can be experienced at various levels of severity resulting from the unavailability of food and the lack of resources to obtain food. Food insecurity has close health consequences, and as such is a serious challenge for policy makers, program administrators and health service providers, 17 The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) in collaboration with DuPont and Corteva Agriscience initiated a global food security measurement called the Global Food Security Index (GFSI). The GFSI comprises 58 specific indicators to monitor progress towards food security in a country. The GFSI calculation is calculated based on scores on 4 dimensions, which are: • Agroterrorism in this study is implied in two dimensions, namely availability and quality and safety. In the second dimension, Availability, GFSI measures food security and access policy commitments through food security strategies and agencies. The third dimension, Quality and Safe, explores the average nutritional quality of food and the food security environment in each country. Through 12 specific indicators, this dimension also explores energy and nutrient intake, safe food preparation, and individual dietary diversity. In the Food Safety section, there are three indicators that measure food safety, namely food safety mechanisms, access to drinking water, and ability to store food. 18 Given the importance of a country's food security, Indonesia unfortunately still ranks low. Out of 113 countries measured by GFSI, Indonesia ranks 69th, only one rank above South Africa with a total score of 59.2. On the availability dimension, Indonesia ranks 37th with a score of only 63.7 and on the quality and safety dimension, Indonesia ranks 95th, even below Sudan, Syria, Uganda and Nigeria, with a score of only 48.5. It is therefore not surprising that in the fourth dimension, resilience, Indonesia ranks last, at 113 with a score of only 33.0. This shows that the role of the state is urgently needed to ensure the affordability, availability, quality and safety of food from various threats, including the threat of agro-terrorism.
Indonesia has most likely been a victim of agroterrorism, yet the government has not made the issue a policy priority. As of this writing, there is no government policy that technically regulates the prevention of bioterrorism or agroterrorism as a measure to maintain food security. Law No. 18/2012 on Food only classifies "terror" as a small part of "social disaster", while "plant disrupting organism attack" is categorized under a different classification. The technical flow of countermeasures against terror or attacks is not explained, neither the stakeholders involved, nor the way of countermeasures.
Just before the COVID-19 pandemic hit the world, President of the Republic of Indonesia Joko Widodo issued Presidential Instruction Number 4 of 2019 on Enhancing Capabilities to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Disease Outbreaks, Global Pandemics, and Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Emergencies. Like a breath of fresh air, it seems the government has realized the mass impact of these threats. The President mandated the Minister of Health to improve health surveillance capacity to identify events that could potentially cause health emergencies, including food safety. The President mandated the Minister of Agriculture to supervise and control the movement of animals and materials of animal origin only, instead of plants. 19 It is surprising that there seems to be an inverse overlap of authority between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture to take care of plant safety.
In this Presidential Instruction, the President then announced priority actions to strengthen the national food safety management system with the Ministry of Agriculture as the coordinator and the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Industry, and the Food and Drug Administration as implementers. 20 However, as of this time of writing, there is no policy derived from this Presidential Instruction, which technically regulates the coordination of each stakeholder in the implementation of national food safety management. The Ministry of Agriculture has its own technical guidelines on the implementation of the food crop quality assurance system, which are "too" technical and do not involve other stakeholders. 18 "The Global Food Security Index." 19  Public policy is a series of actions and decisions taken or not taken by the government to solve public problems, in order to help the people affected by these policies. 21 The failure of public policy is the basis for questioning the quality of public policies issued by the government, as well as reflecting the "presence" or "siding" of policymakers with the community. The determination of public policy takes place in the complexity of the process as a policy making system (policy making process as a system) as revealed by David Easton in his book entitled "A System Analysis of Political Life". This book also introduces the phenomenon of the "black box of policy making" which explains that the process of making public policy cannot be separated from interactions, bargaining positions, or the attraction of interests between elites that take place in a vague and closed manner. 22 Therefore, this paper is intended to conduct a policy analysis to be able to answer and explain what factors can explain the absence of food safety policies from the threat of bioterrorism in Indonesia, and how recommendations can be given in the future for a better Indonesia.

Methods and the Conceptual Framework
This research is an exploratory-descriptive study using an interdisciplinary approach. According to Barbel Tress, Gunther Tress, and Gary Fry (2005) in Hanita (2021), interdisciplinary studies are projects that involve several academic disciplines that are not related in a way that forces them to cross subject boundaries to create new knowledge and theories and complete common research goals. This approach has contrasting research paradigms. Interdisciplinarity considers the differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches or between analytical and interpretive approaches that bring together humanities disciplines with natural sciences. 23 Exploratory research is defined as a broad, systematic objective, designed to gain a general understanding of an area of social life. 24 Exploratory research is useful for gaining an understanding of a very new and under-researched subject. Many exploratory studies are conducted first to design subsequent extensive studies. 25 This is followed by a descriptive study to document and describe interesting phenomena found in the exploratory study. 26,27 The method used in this research is a qualitative method. Qualitative studies explore and discuss phenomena in a deep and centralized manner. The researcher's involvement, credibility, knowledge, experience and understanding of this phenomenon are the main factors in this study and show the depth of meaning that this research produces. 28  keywords "food security"; "bioterrorism"; "agroterrorism"; "national resilience"; "food security"; and also by analyzing other countries' experiences. To maintain the validity of the data, the researcher incorporated the latest data and conducted an extensive literature search. Especially in this study, the researcher connects with various other scientific fields such as ideology, politics, economics, social, and others. The researcher chose a qualitative method for this research because it was considered the most appropriate to solve the problems in this study.
Researchers also conducted a policy analysis using the system model policy formulation analysis framework according to Easton. It is very interesting to analyze public policies issued by the government with a system framework and black box. The analogy used is like the black box in an airplane that stores conversations in the cockpit and is used to reveal many secrets with all their complexities in the event of an airplane crash. Analysis of this black box will reveal the behind the wall and untold story about the interrelationships and dynamic interactions between elites and policy actors in the public policy-making process.

Agricultural Bioterrorism in the World
The utilization of biological agents as weapons has a long history around the world. The complexity of global food trade flows poses various risks associated with the transportation of food, both animal and plant, which has vulnerabilities and can have implications for public health. While most of the world's population meets its daily caloric needs by consuming plantbased foods such as rice, wheat and maize, there are still countries that are struggling to feed their populations. Some are forced to rely on international aid and imports of plant-based products. 29 For centuries, biological warfare has been waged to sabotage and weaken enemies with different agendas. Attacks can come from individuals, as well as terrorist groups. Several countries are alleged to have offensive biological weapons programs: Canada , France (1922-1928, 1934-1940, and 1947-1972), Japan (1930)(1931)(1932)(1933)(1934)(1935)(1936)(1937)(1938)(1939)(1940)(1941)(1942)(1943)(1944)(1945), Germany , the United Kingdom , the Soviet Union , Iraq (1974Iraq ( -1991, South Africa (1981-1995), Hungary (1936-1944, and 1945-1969), and the United States . 30 During World War I, Germany tried to attack military horses using the biological agents Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) and Burkholderia mallei (glanders). In the period between the World Wars, both Germany and France studied pathogens that could attack agriculture such as Rinderpest Virus, Phytopthora infestans (causes leaf rot), Puccinia spp. (causes wheat damage), and several other weevil pests. Although no pathogens were used during World War II by Germany, the UK produced 5 million cattle cakes with B. anthracis spores to be dropped in Germany. The UK is well known for its ambition to develop pathogens that destroy animals and plants. 31 Japan allocated vast resources to the development and production of biological weapons and used them against China. In Russia  causes wheat and rice blackening. Puccinia sorghi was also used to damage corn crops, and Puccinia graminis to damage wheat stalks. 32 The cutting-edge development of biotechnology, including synthetic biology, neuroscience, genetic modification, has caused international governments to face tremendous challenges. These developments are promising in terms of accelerating the development of medicines, vaccines, agriculture, and manufacturing. 33 But on the other hand, it causes the risk of exposure of a country to various threats, one of which is the potential development of new biological weapons, which can threaten food security, and or affect and degrade human health. 34 While the primary focus of bioterrorism is on traditional infectious agents such as bacteria and viruses, advances in biotechnology are creating vulnerabilities that seem to be overlooked. Yet all these devastating things can start from simple things, in the context of agricultural technology made through genetic engineering engineered to edit plant chromosomes for example. In 1983, China engineered tobacco plants to be antibiotic resistant, In 1994, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the "Flavor Saver" transgenic tomato that allows tomatoes to delay ripening even after picking. In 1995, several GMO crops were accepted into the market. Canola with modified oil composition (Calgene), Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in corn (Ciba-Ceigy), cotton resistant to bromoxynil herbicide (Calgene), Bt cotton (Monsanto), Bt potatoes (Monsanto), transgenic soybean (Monsanto), soybean resistant to glycophate herbicide (Monsanto), virus resistant soybean (Monsanto), virus resistant pumpkin (Asgrow), and several other transgenic crops have been given approval for commercialization. 35 In 2011 the US led the list of countries producing the most GMO crops, and to date there are a number of food species that have been genetically modified. 36 Monsanto became the world's largest seed company and owns more than 80% of all genetically modified (GM) seeds, also called genetically engineered, that are grown worldwide. 37 Most of the GM crop products produced by Monsanto use the compound glyphosate. Glyphosate allows farmers to spray GM crops and kill pesky weeds, thus glyphosate ultimately boils down to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). The controversy over the use of glycophate in GMOs became heated, even leading to lawsuits, when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that at certain exposure levels, glycophate compounds are carcinogenic to humans. However, glycophate is a four for four: man-made, undetectable, difficult to avoid, and 32 Ibid.  produced by large agricultural companies. Exposure to a certain amount of glycophate is not only harmful to human health, plants, soil and the environment are also affected. 38 Monsanto then set up a panel to review the case, and stated that their genetically modified products were chemically 'similar' to natural foods, but this was not sufficient proof that they were safe for human consumption. 39 The "substantial equivalence" terminology that companies including Monsanto use to counter this argument means that if a GMO can be characterized as substantially equivalent to its 'natural' antecedent, then it can be assumed that 'the GMO is natural', and it can be assumed that it will not pose a health risk, and is therefore acceptable for commercial use. Biological, toxicological and immunological tests are then abandoned for chemical concepts alone, the terminology is in fact not properly defined. Substantial equivalence is also a barrier to further research into the possible risks of consuming GMOs. 40 Scientists first discovered in 1946 that DNA (Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid), the core material carrier of all cells in an organism, could be transferred between organisms. GM products are currently in the pipeline, including medicines, vaccines, foods and ingredients, feeds and fibers. Genetic engineering is important for finding genes that provide important traits to be used as advantages, such as providing resistance to insects and providing more nutrition. However, if this DNA transfer mechanism occurs in nature on a large scale, it is likely that cases of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria will increase dramatically. 41 There are several publications that suggest the possibility of engineering new genes to enable clandestine manipulation of GMO crops that are already on the market. The concerns about this are far more severe than GMOs alone. Through technology with increased capacity such as gene drives, previous concerns about GMOs are no longer centered solely on the malignant effects that occur due to unintended consequences, but rather more so. 42 Gene editing technology is becoming an important platform to manipulate GMOs into 'environmental genetic modifiers' or into 'targeted weaponry' in the form of 'longer survival of virus-infected insects'. Special attention has thus shifted to agricultural research that can become Dual Use of Research (DUR). 43 In the United States (US), concerns about biological attacks have increased since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the mail envelope attacks containing the anthrax pathogen on US senate offices and media. Some analysts at the time suggested that terrorist attacks on livestock and crops were not impossible as they were easier to execute en masse and could have very serious economic consequences. The stock market, which may have fallen after the 9/11 attacks, may fall even further, and recovery will take a long time. 44 Experts argue that terrorists will attack livestock and crops if 38 Tamar Haspel, "It's the Chemical Monsanto Depends on. How Dangerous Is It?," The Washington Post, last modified 2015, accessed December 8, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/its-the-chemicalmonsanto-depends-on-how-dangerous-is-it/2015/10/04/2b8f58ee-67a0-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html. 39 Ibid.  their main goal is to cause severe economic dislocation. In the US, the agriculture sector contributes USD 150 billion 45 , or about 13 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 18 percent of household employment. Terrorists can easily decide to contaminate food products in order to harm human beings. 46 As an agroeconomic country, Pakistan has deep concerns about biological attacks on their food crops. Pakistan, famous for its agricultural productivity of wheat, maize and sugarcane, is blessed with an abundant food supply. While ostensibly Pakistan's food security and safety has been satisfactory, advances in biotechnology pose a dual-use dilemma of research concern. The possibility of deliberate contamination by state or hostile non-state actors to destroy the mainstay of the country's economy should be a policy priority. 47 Khalil and Shinwari (2014) suggest that there are three access mechanisms for food crop pathogens to become a bioterrorism threat, namely pathogens originating from the environment, pathogens 'brought in' by hostile countries, and laboratory security hacks. Pathogens originating from the environment can be isolated by even the least advanced microbiologist. In 2012 in Raziq Abad Karachi, more than 100 policemen were attacked and hospitalized as a result of fighting a fierce war against the drug mafia and other non-state actors. 48 In Indonesia, agroterrorism almost happened with rice seeds containing a dangerous pathogen: Dickeya chrisantemi, but was successfully thwarted by the Indonesian quarantine center. Similar cases have also occurred in chili and carrot plants in Bogor, late 2016. Erwina chrysanthem bacteria was found, causing crop failure. The seeds entered Indonesia from China through seed smuggling. In addition, carrot plants in Dieng, Central Java, were also reported to have affected the mental development of children who consumed them. Again, the seeds were allegedly smuggled in from China. 49

Analysis of Policy Formulation: Black-box Analysis of Easton's Political System Model
Several policy process approaches are applied in developing countries, including Easton's political systems model with its black-box of policymaking in government; Kingdon's three stream model; the policy analysis triangle that interrelates content, process, and context; and the stages heuristic that divides the policy process into different stages in order to broaden the dynamic perspective. Policies often focus on the content of the policy and measuring the impact of the policy, but are not concerned with the process of policy making and implementation, the political conditions or situation when the policy is made, and who or which institutions are the actors of the policy. 50,51 Policy strategies that consider political factors often refer to classic concepts that focus on the state and power as the model developed by David   performance of the political system holistically. In this model, policy making is a political system that is cyclical (continues to run around) as long as the political system still exists. This model emphasizes the existence of inputs in the form of demands / needs, resources, and support that will produce a decision as an output, as well as the existence of government authority in the policy-making process. Government authority in the model does not suggest in detail how the process from input to output and also does not emphasize the impact of the resulting policy. The reaction to the decision will be a feedback for the input to continue the performance of the political system. 52 The systems approach in political science to analyze government decisions or policies is a behavioral approach, a classic theory first introduced by Easton in 1953. 53 The demands to the government and its support coming from political parties and citizens become inputs for the political system, as can be seen in Figure 1. Then, in the political system, there is a process of responding or policy making process to inputs with outputs that give birth to decisions and policies. This point is referred to as the Black Box, a stage where the process of interaction between demands and support from the various actors involved takes place to produce a policy output. In a system, this output itself can later provide feedback and become input for further policy making. Output that is in accordance with demand will create new support for the system itself, but if the resulting policy output is not appropriate, there can be system instability which opens up opportunities for policy revision. 54

3.3.
World Agricultural Bioterrorism Response Policy Agriculture is a system that is vulnerable to agroterrorism activities. The development of a robust food infrastructure can address this. A safe and resilient food policy scenario should be pursued to ensure quality food production and sustainable economic growth. Lack of awareness and weak power of authorities in charge of regulating the food chain allow food 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid.

Technium Social Sciences Journal
Vol. 46, 362-379, August, 2023 ISSN: 2668-7798 www.techniumscience.com supply outbreaks, both intentional and unintentional, to easily occur. 55 Agroterrorism may attack our food supply at various stages along the food chain by targeting livestock and crops during production, harvest, storage or transportation. 56 After the 9/11 attacks, the US introduced The Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002 as part of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2002. The act was designed to enhance the US government's ability to prevent, prepare for, and respond to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies that could threaten the US agricultural sector. 57 As a derivative policy of this bioterrorism law, relevant US stakeholders also issued other technical policies in order to tackle the threat of agricultural bioterrorism.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued regulations to protect against bioterrorism, namely: (1) Protect U.S. borders from invasive pests and diseases, and (2) Increase security personnel at food processing plants and natural resources. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) was designated by the USDA Secretary as the implementing agency for the provisions of the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002. The Act mandates that entities (such as research laboratories, universities, vaccine companies, etc.) that have access to using or transferring biological agents or toxins that pose a threat to animal and plant health must be registered with APHIS. APHIS and USDA created a list of biological agents and toxins that pose such a serious threat. 58 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is designated by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) as the agency to carry out the provisions of the Public Health Security Act of 2002. The law requires that any person or group in possession of biological agents and toxins that are considered a public health threat must register them with the CDC. CDC along with DHHS maintains a list of biological agents and toxins that pose a serious threat to the public. The CDC is also involved in various epidemiologic studies of outbreaks and research efforts to discover and produce vaccines and other treatments. 59 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for Section III of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2002: Protecting the safety and supply of food and drugs. The FDA is tasked with keeping records on the sources of food providers and recipients. The FDA is required to know about all food shipments imported into the US, including the type of food, country of origin, etc. The FDA has the authority to detain and seize any food deemed a danger to public health without even requiring a court hearing. 60 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for the safe use of pesticides. EPA issued several regulatory initiatives namely: (1) Ensuring the safety of pesticide manufacturing and storage facilities; (2) Ensuring the safety of pesticide application equipment; and (3) Designing facilities and equipment to minimize risks. Based on the explanation above, it is clear that the US government has actively prepared various regulations to counter agricultural bioterrorism. Relevant stakeholders are also swiftly making technical derivative policies to protect US agriculture from the threat of bioterrorism. 55  In order to maintain biosafety, the government of Pakistan signed various international conventions and treaties and tried to implement strict regulations related to biosafety and biosecurity. As one of the signatory countries to the Biological Toxin and Weapon Convention (BTWC) 1972, Pakistan actively participated in the conference and urged the remaining countries to sign the convention as soon as possible. 61 In 2005, Section 31 of the Environmental Protection Act of 1997, the National Biosafety Committee (NBC) and the National Biosafety guidelines proposed reducing the release of pathogens from departments conducting research. In addition Pakistan passed the Export Control Act of 2004 as a ratification of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), as a measure to regulate imports and exports to not import/export any contaminants that might be used for malicious purposes to intentionally contaminate plants and animals. While various policies have been made, there is still the issue of less stringent implementation of the laws in Pakistan. 62

What Actually is Happening in Indonesia: A Policy Formulation Analysis
At the time of writing, Indonesia does not yet have a regulation that specifically addresses the threat of bioterrorism in the agricultural sector. Article 67 paragraph (2) of Law No. 18/2013 on Food states that food safety is intended to prevent the possibility of biological, chemical, and other contaminants that can disturb, harm, and endanger human health. Articles 77 and 78 of the same law regulate the production of genetically engineered food, but Article 79 states that violators are only subject to administrative sanctions in the form of fines, cessation of production, food withdrawal, compensation, and license revocation. The element of terrorism as one of the Transnational Organized Crime (TOC) is not taken into account in this law.
Let alone considering the element of terrorism in food safety in Indonesia, even one of the stakeholders is negligent in monitoring the food circulating in the market. Often the food in circulation does not match the food labeling. The information listed on imported food products is often manipulated by hiding the use of hazardous ingredients contained therein. The implementation of food supervision in Pekanbaru City, for example. There are still illegal imported food products that do not have distribution permits by BPOM but circulate freely in the market without knowing the contents and types of food, and the safety of these food products. The intensity of food supervision implementation is still poor. 63 As a country with direct land borders with other countries, Indonesia needs extra efforts to secure the country's biology. The coasts of Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Nusa Tenggara, and Papua are zones prone to smuggling of agricultural commodities. The potential entry of plant and animal pests and diseases means that the health of the people who are likely to consume them is not guaranteed. Illegal agricultural commodities can also cause an oversurplus of agricultural production in the market, so that local agricultural products are not maximally absorbed and farmers suffer losses. The Agricultural Quarantine Agency, in 61 Khalil and Shinwari, "Threats of Agricultural Bioterrorism to an Agro Dependent Economy; What Should Be Done?" 62 Ibid. 63  collaboration with TNI and POLRI officials, has 52 technical implementation units at 334 seaports, post offices, airports, and ferry ports that are the locus of quarantine. 64 Bioterrorism is also believed to have occurred in Indonesia. Prof. Dr. CA Nidom, a researcher of Avian Influenza Research Center (AIRC) Universitas Airlangga in the national seminar "Anticipating Bioterrorism-Agroterrorism in Indonesia) in 2015 said that the H5N1 avian influenza case was a bioterrorism outbreak. This statement was made because the H5N1 avian influenza virus found in Indonesia is one hundred percent identical to the one found in Guangzhou, China. Dr. Siti Fadilah Supari, Sp.JP(K), Minister of Health of the Republic of Indonesia in 2004-2009 also added to the seminar. Supari recalled her struggle when demanding changes to the virus sharing mechanism by the Wolrd Health Organization (WHO). She also demanded that Indonesian researchers be able to do their own DNA sequencing in order to produce their own vaccines. Supari emphasized that this case of bioterrorism and agroterrorism is a modern and asymmetrical war. This war aims to attack food and spread disease, which aims to destroy national resilience, because it attacks food and health. On the same occasion, Isroll, the head of the National Intelligence Agency (BIN), referring to information on bird flu cases from year to year, emphasized that the outbreak of this case is not the same as other epidemiological outbreaks, he compared this outbreak to a "bomb" that is dropped, sometimes the numbers are very high, sometimes very little. Isroll added that the main goal of bioterrorism cases is to create dependency. If food conditions are weakened by bioterrorism cases, then the country's food availability will depend on the superpower. With the Asean Economic Community (AEC), it is not impossible that the opportunities for bioterrorism cases will be even wider. 65 The overlapping functions of stakeholders in agroterrorism threat management show that elite interactions in the government policy-making process are full of dynamics. The discussion of stakeholders is closely related to the influence of power and urgency as dynamic concepts that can quickly change, depending on access to 'force', or if the stakeholder is 'close to power'. The birth of a public policy takes place as a system with internal and external factors that greatly influence its determination. Easton explains that models that identify factors that influence the political behavior of individual political elites can be visualized in various combinations of approaches: (1) the indirect socio-political environment, such as the political system, economic system, cultural system, and mass media; (2) the direct socio-political environment that influences and shapes the elite's personality, such as family, religion, school, and social groups; (3) the personality structure reflected in individual attitudes; and (4) direct socio-political environmental factors, in the form of situations that directly affect actors when they want to carry out an activity. 66 The priority setting aspect in policy making also needs to be examined, because in the priority setting process there are various lobbies that can change according to political conditions and changes in pressure in the policy making process. With this approach, success in determining policy priorities, the decision-making process and structure will be more indepth. In this context, we need more evidence-based policies that respond to the failure of 64  existing policies. So in the future, it is highly expected that policies made are a collaboration of real conditions on the ground and science-based policy making. 67 Evidence-Based Public Policy approach that places the importance of evidence or data and facts in the formulation of public policy and not mere opinions influenced by non-essential interests.

4.
Conclusions and Actionable Recommendations On the basis of Indonesia's many governance and legislative issues (e.g. quarantine, stakeholders, etc.), there is a need for the government to oversee the development and strengthening of technical and social capabilities to address agroterrorism threats. Ratification of the BTWC, for example, requires technical policies that are operable, capable and appropriate, with strong oversight. Laws and technical regulations are needed to ensure biosafety in Indonesia. Technological advancement should be a step towards gaining knowledge and understanding to advance Indonesian agriculture and food, not destroy it.
It is naive to think that tremendous scientific and technological developments will not be exploited for purposes that negatively impact the rest of the world. Threats are constantly coming to Indonesia, agricultural bioterrorism being just one of them. Coupled with the global spread of technology, information, biotechnology and biological manufacturing processes. Such advancements raise concerns about the possible production of biological weapons that have their own unique and very dangerous characteristics, as they are largely unpredictable.
Indonesia needs to develop technical capacity, to monitor the scenario of deliberately releasing pathogens, even though it requires strong economic support. Stakeholders, including the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Agriculture, and all other parts need to ensure and make technical derivative policies under the command of the main component, which of course need to be established in advance to avoid overlap. The involvement of academics, politicians, security analysts, information technology experts and other key elements can build a holistic food safety system capable of establishing a system to track the origin and location of pathogens and their possible use as weapons. Agricultural experts and veterinarians need training for specialized skills to deal with the threat of biological weapons, as well as to raise awareness about biosafety.
Most importantly, in facing the threat of agricultural bioterrorism, Indonesia needs a master plan that can be used as a road map that coordinates all components of its management into an integrated force that can effectively defeat the threat of agricultural bioterrorism. A clear legal umbrella will make it easier for each component to make derivative policies that are more technical and operational so that they can be implemented. In addition, the perception and point of view of each managing component must be equalized to achieve the same goal.
With the common goal of protecting the world from various global health threats, handling the threat of agricultural bioterrorism requires the coordination of national governments, international organizations, and last but not least, the community. It is the people who are ultimately most affected by an outbreak due to agricultural bioterrorism, and therefore need to play an active role in dealing with this situation. Collaboration between all components of agricultural bioterrorism threat management will enable us to defeat the war against biological weapons. The government needs to place the management of public health threats as one of their priorities, as protecting the entire Indonesian nation, including its public health, is one aspect of the 1945 Constitution as a fundamental norm in Indonesia. It is our duty as