Analyzing the phenomenon of negotiations in separatist conflicts by using regime compliance bargaining surely require carefulness. This is due to the analysis level of regime compliance bargaining that is within international and regional levels, whereas in the issues of negotiation conflict, such as in Mindanao, it is at the national or sub-national level.
Different levels of legislation or the establishment of a structure in view of the constructivist paradigm has significant difference in defining the structural behavior and agent. At the international level, the position of structures is not authoritative, while agent behavior is really exclusive and authoritative. Meanwhile, at the national level, the structure behavior is authoritative and agent behavior is determined by the behavior of the structure.
The aforementioned was said by Surwandono, S. Sos., M.Sc., lecturer of Department of International Relations, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences of University of Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, during his doctoral program’s open examination at UGM on Wednesday (24/8). In defending his dissertation entitled The Regime Negotiations Failure of the Final Peace Agreement 1996 on the Institutionalization of Conflict Resolution in Mindanao, he is accompanied by promoter Prof. Dr. Mohtar Mas’oed and co-promoter Dr. Nanang Pamudji Mugasejati.
In his research, Surwandono offers the importance of governance negotiation in the negotiation process for the separatist conflict settlement which has a high degree of complexity. Governance negotiation based on the values of transparency, accountability, and justice becomes the most appropriate response in dealing with negotiations instrumentation politic.
Surwandono said governance negotiation will set the public as a group of people who have been marginalized in the negotiating process. In fact, they became one of the important elements in the negotiations because the public is actually the real perpetrators (the subject) and target (object) of each policy product associated with the negotiation. Thus, the real negotiation comes from, by, and for the public. “Therefore, governance negotiation becomes a new answer to the separatist conflict resolution efforts in the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Pattani, as well as primordial conflicts that have a high degree of complexity in the Israel-Palestine one,” said Surwandono at the Auditorium of UGM Graduate.
Surwandono added that governance negotiation will provide high degree of objectification in determining an alternative settlement based on public interest than the interests of the actor. “Therefore, the failures of negotiations related to various issues of separatism as well as primordial conflict are mostly due to the resolution objectification process that is based more on the elite interests rather than the public interest,” he said.