A good chance to start talking

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.