Pihak Lain dalam Diplomasi Antarabangsa

Hafriza Burhanudeen

Abstrak

Pihak Lain (PL) dalam penelitian bahasa pada masa ini, yang selalu dibicarakan agar bertentangan dengan Diri Sendiri (DS) merupakan pandangan yang rata-ratanya dipegang, sedangkan kedua-duanya merupakan entiti berlainan yang memiliki latar budaya dan sosiolinguistik yang berbeza. Pada pertentangan inilah, perbezaan daripada hasil penelitian terhadap DS selalu digunakan sebagai latar rujukan untuk mewajarkan sebab-musabab pelbagai perlakuan norma sosial, budaya dan bahasa yang terdapat pada korpus yang dianalisis bagi menghuraikan kepadaan pemerian dan penjelasan. Penelitian dalarn bidang kekuasaan diplomasi antarabangsa, bagaimanapun, boleh mengemukakan pandangan altematif terhadap DS dan PL. Makalah ini ingin mengutarakan satu pandangan yang berbeza terhadap DS dan PL dalam diplomasi antarabangsa. Dalam konteks ini, DS dan PL boleh dianggap sebagai dua sisi kepada syiling yang sama, DS ditentukan oleh identiti sosiolinguistik, budaya dan agama seseorang itu, manakala PL selaku orang yang sama, dikehendaki bertindak bukan sebagai DS untuk seketika, kerana akur secara profesional kepada budaya diplomasi untuk mencapai beberapa matlarnat diplomasi antarabangsa.  Dalam makalah ini, persoalan pertukaran peranan kepada PL akan disentuh melalui perbincangan mengenai dua soalan. Pertama adalah tentang apakah aspek-aspek penting mengenai budaya diplomasi profesional, komunikasi diplomasi, dan pengurusan yang melibatkan DS, yang mempunyai latar pelbagai agama, bangsa, politik, sejarah, budaya dan norma sosiolinguistik dalam kalangan ahli yang berasal dari negara-negara yang berlainan, yang disatukan dalam arena diplomasi antarabangsa, untuk bertukar peranan semasa mendukung fungsi sebagai PL apabila berbicara tentang kerjasama serantau dan antarabangsa? Kedua adalah tentang bagaimanakah ciri-ciri komunikasi diplomasi yang diteliti bertindak sebagai jambatan untuk menghubungkan DS dengan PL? Makalah ini diakhiri dengan kepercayaan bahawa la raison de system dalam diplomasi, akan tetap muncul pada semua penelitian dalam diplomasi, yakni satu keadaan yang memperlihatkan PL perlu menguasai DS.

Abstract

The notion of the Other in current language studies is frequently juxta­posed against the opposing Self where both entities belong to different sociolinguistic and cultural backgrounds. Here, the latter researched differences are then regularly used as a backdrop to justify the “raison d’etre” of the varying norms of social, cultural and linguistic behaviour found in the corpus under study to provide the necessary descriptive and explanatory adequacy. Research in the dominion of international diplomacy, however, can suggest an alternate view of the Self and the Other. This paper would like to offer a different view of the Self and the Other in international diplomacy. In this context, the Self and the Other are two sides of the same coin, the Self shaped by his sociolinguistic, cultural and religious identity and the Other, as the same person having to temporarily suspend his Self through subscription to a professional diplomatic culture to achieve the goals of international diplomacy. In this paper, the issue of border crossings to the Other will then be addressed through the exploration of the following two questions. Firstly, what are the aspects of professional diplomatic culture, diplomatic com­munication and disposition that obliges the Self, marked by diversity in religion, ethnicity, politics, history, culture and sociolinguistic norms among members of differing countries to be suspended within the realm of inter­national diplomacy to cross borders to assume the disposition of the Other, concerned with the pursuit of regional and international cooperation? Secondly, how do researched features of diplomatic communication act a bridge between the Self and the Other? The paper ends with the belief that the “la raison de system” in diplomacy will prevail across all other stud­ies in diplomacy, in a place where the Other must dominate over the Self.

RUJUKAN

Aliska M., “Occidentalism: The Historical Fantasy of the Modem” dlm. South At­ lantic Quarterly 102:2-3, hlm. 351-379, Mac 2003.

Bell, c., 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buruma, Ian dan Avishai Margalit, 2004. Occidentalism: A Short History of Anti­ Westernism. Atlantic Books.

Claes, M.T., 2004. “The Interaction between Organisational Culture and National Culture”. Kertas keIja dalam Second International Conference on Intercul­tural Communication and Diplomacy. Malta, 13-15 Februari 2004.

Couze Venn, 2001. Occidentalism:Modernity and Subjectivity. Sage Publication.

Fisher, G., 1980. International Negotiation: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Chicago: Chicago Press.

Freeman, C., 1997. The Diplomats Dictionary. Washington D.C. :United States Institute ofPeace Press.

Hafriza Burhanudeen, 2003a. “Course Materials for Diplomats:Essential Guide­lines” dlm. Jayakaran Mukundan (ed.), 2003. Readings on ELT Material. UPM: UPM Press.

Hafriza Burhanudeen, 2003b. “Language of Diplomacy” dlm. Journal of the Ma­terials Development Association (MATSDA), 8:1 dan 8:2, hlm. 32-37, No­vember 2003.

Hafriza Burhanudeen, 2005. “Registers in International Diplomacy:Generalized Stylistic Choices in Speeches” dlm. www.educ.utas.edu.aU/The International Journal of Language, Society and Culture. Issue 15.

Hofstede, G., 2004. “Diplomats as Cultural Bridge Builders”. Kertas kerja dalam  The Second International Conference on Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy. Malta, 13-15 Februari 2004.  

Johnson, M., 1987. The body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagina­tion, and Reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Jonsson, C dan Hall, M., 2002. “Communication:An Essential Aspect of Diplo­macy”. Kertas kerja dalam The 43rd Annual ISA Convention. New Orleans, 23-27 Mac 2002.

Matos, F.G., 2001. “Applying the Pedagogy of Positiveness to Diplomatic Communication”. Kertas kerja dalam The Second International Conference on Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy. Malta, 13-15 Februari 2004.

Rana, K., 2004. “Professional Diplomatic Culture and Dialogue with Domestic Stakeholders”. Kertas kerja dalam The Second International Conference on Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy. Malta, 13-15 Februari 2004.

Rommetveit, R., 1974. On Message Structure. A Framework for the Study of Lan­guage and Communication. London: John Wiley.

Satow, E., 1908. An Austrian Diplomat in the Fifties. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­versity Press.

Sharp, P., “For Diplomacy: Representation and the Study of International Rela­tions” dlm. International Studies Review 1:1, hlm. 33-57,1999.

Swales, John M., 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Set­tings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

The Star, “Envoy Apologizes to Malaysia”, 15 Mac 2005.  

The Star, “Issue Can be Resolved Amicably”, 21 Mac 2005.

Tran, Van Dith., 1987. Communication and Diplomacy in a Changing World. N.J.: Norwood.  Ucapan

Ucapan Presiden Seyed Mohammad Khatami (Republik Islam Iran) di Sidang Kemuncak Pertubuhan Persidangan Islam ke-l0, Kuala Lumpur, 11-18 Oktober, 2003.

Ucapan Presiden General Pervez Musharraf (Pakistan) di Sidang Kemuncak Pertubuhan Persidangan Islam ke-l 0, Kuala Lumpur, 11-18 Oktober 2003.

Ucapan Presiden Mbeki (Afrika Selatan), di Sidang Kemuncak Pergerakan Negara­negara Berkecuali (NAM), Kuala Lumpur, 24 Februari 2003.  

(Teks Penuh)

Hantar Maklum Balas Anda