A good chance to start talking

By Iwan Mucipto

JAKARTA (JP): Dialog is the catchword of the day. Everybody knows students will engage in the much-talked-about discussions with the Armed Forces.

And, for the first time since the New Order, it is assumed that there are valid reasons behind the demonstrating students' actions. Is it connected to the end of the Cold War?

Under the former Sukarno government, many social protesters were accused of having CIA links. In the New Order, the charge is being a communist.

Who remains nowadays to be the sinister "third party" behind protests or resistance?

The public is already fed up with "the latent threat of communism", and the PRD elimination was an overkill, there are almost no PRD activists outside of jail, so who is afraid of them now?

Then we have foreigners who can be linked with Zionism (American financial speculator George Soros is Jewish) and the CIA can be brought in on the same track (U.S. Foreign Secretary Madeleine Albright is Jewish too).

We also have a potential in-country scapegoat, Indonesians who belong to a minority race and religion. But most Indonesians have turned away from racism and bigotry.

The most recent scenes of mobs looting shops and burning churches was received with horror and disgust, the revolutionary fervor of the old order that enabled society to rally blindly against the nation's many (perceived) enemies is not there anymore.

If there are any parties, from the right or the left, who were behind the spate of riots which rocked several Indonesian towns last year, then it seems that they have decided not to pursue this course of action.

We do not know a thing since social scientists cannot do any research to quickly follow up any crucial events and issues before they have all the necessary government permits.

Investigative journalism is almost unknown (and probably too expensive and too risky). Also, our "department of truth" has outlived George Orwell's predictions in 1984.

It seems that the government (or at least certain individuals, groups and institutions) seem to have either run out of scapegoats and conspiracy theories, or they have matured and now talk about the possibility of holding a dialog with students.

Of course, they also know that presently Indonesia is in the international limelight, the country cannot afford to stain its human rights record further. CNN showing students being clubbed in the street will not do much good.

On the other hand, the students have learned from recent history and have refrained from taking to the streets, where they are vulnerable to agent provocateurs such as in 1974.

They have wisely opted for a prolonged protest, yet staying within the safety margin. As a result, a genuine dialog seems to be a possible way out. Nonetheless, this possibility is now creating a dilemma for both sides involved.

The risk of a political dialog is that failure can result in a deteriorating situation, in loss of face and trust, in increasing instead of diminishing differences of opinion escalating into confrontation, in disappointment and disillusion.

This is why diplomacy was invented and if students and government parties want to achieve a win-win situation they should be aware that by expressing their wish to have a dialog they have entered the realm of diplomacy.

A diplomatic answer is often defined as saying neither yes nor no, leaving its interpretation open to the other party. But diplomacy is more than that. It is about the management of uncertainty, seeking compromise between parties with opposing interest where both parties can be winners.

Winning a war without violence, losing a war without loss of face and, most important, it is about a process to keep the future open.

Even at the height of the Cold War, diplomacy between Washington and Moscow was not severed. Even during battle, diplomats from the opposing sides meet and propose toasts to each other.

One aspect of diplomacy is that it does not encourage overblown expectations, the language of diplomacy is muted, optimistic but never overtly so. The rationale is that too much optimism can lead to disillusion, followed by resentment.

Sometimes diplomatic optimism sounds hollow, a war is called "a stalled peace process", murder is downplayed as "an isolated incident".

But the rule never to close down any channels of communication, even if this means that through these "diplomatic channels" smuggling, spying and sabotage will be attempted and often succeed.

Peace has its price and a diplomat always opts to choose the lesser of two evils, he or she believes that breaking off diplomatic relations is the same as flying blind. A diplomat is a "cautious pessimist", knowing that flying blind will lead to a crash, not to a miracle landing. Diplomats are also realists, in other words: "Don't loose sight of the enemy."

In the Kafkaesque world of espionage, double agents are tolerated entities because they are deemed to be diplomats of sorts, albeit perverted ones. The trick, however, is how to manage them, and as the saying goes: Let the best manager win.

It was the brilliant diplomacy of Mohammad Hatta, Sutan Syahrir and his friends that helped the U.S. and the UN swing behind the cause of the fledgling Republic of Indonesia and lean on the Dutch to enter into talks.

In short, diplomacy is an art and a science, and the issue of a political dialog between the students of Indonesia and their government should be seen and initiated as a diplomatic process.

In 1977, the students, after their mediators failed to engage the government in a constructive and conclusive dialog, were no longer willing to be diplomatic.

They just attacked everything and everybody that the government represented. Their big mistake was self-righteousness, presupposing that they had the support of the people because they were the good guys, and therefore did not need allies.

They only succeeded in antagonizing individuals and groups in the government which actually were willing to give them a chance. The fall out was a lose-lose situation traumatizing a generation of security personnel and students.

The students should start from the position that the governments' willingness to respond to their demand is an acknowledgment of their standing as a moral force.

This is already an advantage, strengthening their bargaining power. Then, a process of getting to know each other is important.

The dialog should be seen as a process, not an event to be formalized, manipulated and done away with.

Since both parties claim to represent the people, the public should be heard too. Comments and opinions aired through the mass media and informal chats over coffee should be valued.

The proposed dialog should lead to a more open society. The students should not be burdened with the expectations that a single dialog will solve all the problems plaguing the nation. Students and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should see themselves as pioneers with their role being to open doors.

It is true that constructive dialog is only possible between equals. If the parties engaged in a dialog are not, then the discussions can become a trap for the weaker entity.

Are student groups equal to the Army? It depends partially on claims of legitimacy, but also on a mastery of the issues at hand, having the advantage of being on a moral high ground, and other factors.

Before engaging in a dialog, parameters must be set and one should know what arguments will be brought to bear to achieve the objectives: short, medium and long term. And what objectives should have priority over others in order to achieve maximum gain.

The important thing will be that a precedent is set, that the state (at least parties having state power) are willing to acknowledge the rights of civil society to engage in protests in order to be heard.

This precedent should become accepted procedure, so the establishment of an open-ended, long-term dialog be given priority over instant gratification of demands, or a deadlock on the other hand.

So, nobody should rush into the dialog everybody is speaking of, first preparations should be well planned and participants must be open to input from the public and mass media.

And it should start off as low-level, informal talks, which risk the possibility of being tedious. The media should also support a cautious approach as only fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

The writer, an environment consultant, is a former student activist.