A good chance to start talking<\/p>\n
By Iwan Mucipto<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Dialog is the catchword of the day. Everybody
\nknows students will engage in the much-talked-about discussions
\nwith the Armed Forces.<\/p>\n
And, for the first time since the New Order, it is assumed
\nthat there are valid reasons behind the demonstrating students'
\nactions. Is it connected to the end of the Cold War?<\/p>\n
Under the former Sukarno government, many social protesters
\nwere accused of having CIA links. In the New Order, the charge is
\nbeing a communist.<\/p>\n
Who remains nowadays to be the sinister \"third party\" behind
\nprotests or resistance?<\/p>\n
The public is already fed up with \"the latent threat of
\ncommunism\", and the PRD elimination was an overkill, there are
\nalmost no PRD activists outside of jail, so who is afraid of them
\nnow?<\/p>\n
Then we have foreigners who can be linked with Zionism
\n(American financial speculator George Soros is Jewish) and the
\nCIA can be brought in on the same track (U.S. Foreign Secretary
\nMadeleine Albright is Jewish too).<\/p>\n
We also have a potential in-country scapegoat, Indonesians who
\nbelong to a minority race and religion. But most Indonesians have
\nturned away from racism and bigotry.<\/p>\n
The most recent scenes of mobs looting shops and burning
\nchurches was received with horror and disgust, the revolutionary
\nfervor of the old order that enabled society to rally blindly
\nagainst the nation's many (perceived) enemies is not there
\nanymore.<\/p>\n
If there are any parties, from the right or the left, who were
\nbehind the spate of riots which rocked several Indonesian towns
\nlast year, then it seems that they have decided not to pursue
\nthis course of action.<\/p>\n
We do not know a thing since social scientists cannot do any
\nresearch to quickly follow up any crucial events and issues
\nbefore they have all the necessary government permits.<\/p>\n
Investigative journalism is almost unknown (and probably too
\nexpensive and too risky). Also, our \"department of truth\" has
\noutlived George Orwell's predictions in 1984.<\/p>\n
It seems that the government (or at least certain individuals,
\ngroups and institutions) seem to have either run out of
\nscapegoats and conspiracy theories, or they have matured and now
\ntalk about the possibility of holding a dialog with students.<\/p>\n
Of course, they also know that presently Indonesia is in the
\ninternational limelight, the country cannot afford to stain its
\nhuman rights record further. CNN showing students being clubbed
\nin the street will not do much good.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, the students have learned from recent
\nhistory and have refrained from taking to the streets, where they
\nare vulnerable to agent provocateurs such as in 1974.<\/p>\n
They have wisely opted for a prolonged protest, yet staying
\nwithin the safety margin. As a result, a genuine dialog seems to
\nbe a possible way out. Nonetheless, this possibility is now
\ncreating a dilemma for both sides involved.<\/p>\n
The risk of a political dialog is that failure can result in a
\ndeteriorating situation, in loss of face and trust, in increasing
\ninstead of diminishing differences of opinion escalating into
\nconfrontation, in disappointment and disillusion.<\/p>\n
This is why diplomacy was invented and if students and
\ngovernment parties want to achieve a win-win situation they
\nshould be aware that by expressing their wish to have a dialog
\nthey have entered the realm of diplomacy.<\/p>\n
A diplomatic answer is often defined as saying neither yes nor
\nno, leaving its interpretation open to the other party. But
\ndiplomacy is more than that. It is about the management of
\nuncertainty, seeking compromise between parties with opposing
\ninterest where both parties can be winners.<\/p>\n
Winning a war without violence, losing a war without loss of
\nface and, most important, it is about a process to keep the
\nfuture open.<\/p>\n
Even at the height of the Cold War, diplomacy between
\nWashington and Moscow was not severed. Even during battle,
\ndiplomats from the opposing sides meet and propose toasts to each
\nother.<\/p>\n
One aspect of diplomacy is that it does not encourage
\noverblown expectations, the language of diplomacy is muted,
\noptimistic but never overtly so. The rationale is that too much
\noptimism can lead to disillusion, followed by resentment.<\/p>\n
Sometimes diplomatic optimism sounds hollow, a war is called
\n\"a stalled peace process\", murder is downplayed as \"an isolated
\nincident\".<\/p>\n
But the rule never to close down any channels of
\ncommunication, even if this means that through these \"diplomatic
\nchannels\" smuggling, spying and sabotage will be attempted and
\noften succeed.<\/p>\n
Peace has its price and a diplomat always opts to choose the
\nlesser of two evils, he or she believes that breaking off
\ndiplomatic relations is the same as flying blind. A diplomat is a
\n\"cautious pessimist\", knowing that flying blind will lead to a
\ncrash, not to a miracle landing. Diplomats are also realists, in
\nother words: \"Don't loose sight of the enemy.\"<\/p>\n
In the Kafkaesque world of espionage, double agents are
\ntolerated entities because they are deemed to be diplomats of
\nsorts, albeit perverted ones. The trick, however, is how to
\nmanage them, and as the saying goes: Let the best manager win.<\/p>\n
It was the brilliant diplomacy of Mohammad Hatta, Sutan
\nSyahrir and his friends that helped the U.S. and the UN swing
\nbehind the cause of the fledgling Republic of Indonesia and lean
\non the Dutch to enter into talks.<\/p>\n
In short, diplomacy is an art and a science, and the issue of
\na political dialog between the students of Indonesia and their
\ngovernment should be seen and initiated as a diplomatic process.<\/p>\n
In 1977, the students, after their mediators failed to engage
\nthe government in a constructive and conclusive dialog, were no
\nlonger willing to be diplomatic.<\/p>\n
They just attacked everything and everybody that the
\ngovernment represented. Their big mistake was self-righteousness,
\npresupposing that they had the support of the people because they
\nwere the good guys, and therefore did not need allies.<\/p>\n
They only succeeded in antagonizing individuals and groups in
\nthe government which actually were willing to give them a chance.
\nThe fall out was a lose-lose situation traumatizing a generation
\nof security personnel and students.<\/p>\n
The students should start from the position that the
\ngovernments' willingness to respond to their demand is an
\nacknowledgment of their standing as a moral force.<\/p>\n
This is already an advantage, strengthening their bargaining
\npower. Then, a process of getting to know each other is
\nimportant.<\/p>\n
The dialog should be seen as a process, not an event to be
\nformalized, manipulated and done away with.<\/p>\n
Since both parties claim to represent the people, the public
\nshould be heard too. Comments and opinions aired through the mass
\nmedia and informal chats over coffee should be valued.<\/p>\n
The proposed dialog should lead to a more open society. The
\nstudents should not be burdened with the expectations that a
\nsingle dialog will solve all the problems plaguing the nation.
\nStudents and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should see
\nthemselves as pioneers with their role being to open doors.<\/p>\n
It is true that constructive dialog is only possible between
\nequals. If the parties engaged in a dialog are not, then the
\ndiscussions can become a trap for the weaker entity.<\/p>\n
Are student groups equal to the Army? It depends partially on
\nclaims of legitimacy, but also on a mastery of the issues at
\nhand, having the advantage of being on a moral high ground, and
\nother factors.<\/p>\n
Before engaging in a dialog, parameters must be set and one
\nshould know what arguments will be brought to bear to achieve the
\nobjectives: short, medium and long term. And what objectives
\nshould have priority over others in order to achieve maximum
\ngain.<\/p>\n
The important thing will be that a precedent is set, that the
\nstate (at least parties having state power) are willing to
\nacknowledge the rights of civil society to engage in protests in
\norder to be heard.<\/p>\n
This precedent should become accepted procedure, so the
\nestablishment of an open-ended, long-term dialog be given
\npriority over instant gratification of demands, or a deadlock on
\nthe other hand.<\/p>\n
So, nobody should rush into the dialog everybody is speaking
\nof, first preparations should be well planned and participants
\nmust be open to input from the public and mass media.<\/p>\n
And it should start off as low-level, informal talks, which
\nrisk the possibility of being tedious. The media should also
\nsupport a cautious approach as only fools rush in where angels
\nfear to tread.<\/p>\n
The writer, an environment consultant, is a former student
\nactivist.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/a-good-chance-to-start-talking-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}