Arguments to occupy Yogyakarta
During WW II Japan had occupied the Dutch East-Indies. After the capitulation of Japan Sukarno, an Indonesian nationalist leader, proclaimed the independence of the Republic Indonesia. Sukarno´s government controlled mainly the large islands Java and Sumatra.
When the Dutch returned under the leadership of the Lieutenant Governor General Van Mook, their control was reinstituted mainly on the other islands. The Dutch government spoke with representives of the Republic about creating a federal state consisting of 4 states Java, Sumatra, Borneo and the Great East which would become independent after a certain amount of time. Till that moment the Dutch would still exercise power. When no progress was made to realize this plan the Dutch army started on the night of the 20th of July 1947 a so called “Police action” to restore order, especially in Java. This meant of course that the army was used to conquer the economically most important areas for the Dutch. When this action did not lead to cooperation of the Indonesians, the question came up whether or not the army should occupy Yogyakarta where the seat was of the government of the Republic. Governor Van Mook sent 8 different request to the Dutch government to do so. These arguments illustrate well how politicians and their advisors formulate arguments and that they can use all forms we have suggested before.
When the Dutch returned under the leadership of the Lieutenant Governor General Van Mook, their control was reinstituted mainly on the other islands. The Dutch government spoke with representives of the Republic about creating a federal state consisting of 4 states Java, Sumatra, Borneo and the Great East which would become independent after a certain amount of time. Till that moment the Dutch would still exercise power. When no progress was made to realize this plan the Dutch army started on the night of the 20th of July 1947 a so called “Police action” to restore order, especially in Java. This meant of course that the army was used to conquer the economically most important areas for the Dutch. When this action did not lead to cooperation of the Indonesians, the question came up whether or not the army should occupy Yogyakarta where the seat was of the government of the Republic. Governor Van Mook sent 8 different request to the Dutch government to do so. These arguments illustrate well how politicians and their advisors formulate arguments and that they can use all forms we have suggested before.
The arguments of Van Mook to occupy Yogyakarta
The first telegram Van Mook sent to the Dutch government presented the following argument:
The first telegram Van Mook sent to the Dutch government presented the following argument:
I suppose that it is clear that he recommended S1 to occupy the seat of the republican government. The reason for this choice is Simons rule because this strategy certainly leads to a positive result while that is not true for S2.
The argument was of course extremely simple ignoring possible casualties at the Dutch and the Indonesian side, possible opposition of the Dutch population and the Security Council after the amount of deaths and destruction during the war. The Dutch government was indeed mentioning these issues to Van Mook and suggested that he should take these issues also into account. So he did in his second argument sent to the government.
The argument was of course extremely simple ignoring possible casualties at the Dutch and the Indonesian side, possible opposition of the Dutch population and the Security Council after the amount of deaths and destruction during the war. The Dutch government was indeed mentioning these issues to Van Mook and suggested that he should take these issues also into account. So he did in his second argument sent to the government.
In this case he made a much more complex argument taking into account the consequences asked by the Dutch government but the choice is again obvious because S2 certainly leads to negative results while S1 may lead with a high probability to positive results and there is only a small chance of negative results. He does not mention the rule but our Positive Risk avoiding rule predicts his choice.
The Government looked carefully at his argument but suggested that the national and international consequences would be much more serious than he suggested and therefore not accepted it.
When the situation in Indonesia further deteriorated Van Mook felt obliged again to send a telegram about this issue but now again a simple one.
The Government looked carefully at his argument but suggested that the national and international consequences would be much more serious than he suggested and therefore not accepted it.
When the situation in Indonesia further deteriorated Van Mook felt obliged again to send a telegram about this issue but now again a simple one.
Now he concentrates only on the aspect of law and order in Indonesia and the argument is very clear: S1 has to be chosen. With both Simon´s rules this conclusion follows. But of course the Government was not convinced because he ignored the earlier mentioned aspects. Because the Security Council of the UN was very much worried about the situation in Indonesia, the Government even requested to reduce the military actions in Indonesia to prevent more serious repercussions.
Nevertheless Van Mook did not stop and sent again a telegram to the government about this issue. The fourth argument was formulated as follows:
Nevertheless Van Mook did not stop and sent again a telegram to the government about this issue. The fourth argument was formulated as follows:
Now Van Mook used for both strategies two consequences a positive one and a negative one but for S2 the positive one had very low probability and the negative one a very high probability while the situation for S1 was reversed. So both Risk avoiding rules predict his choice. Still ignoring the aspects the Dutch government was most worried about, the reactions in the Security Council of the UN, the argument was again not accepted.
Van Mook hammered on at the government with a fifth argument that was similar as the third and too simple to be accepted. However, after that rejection he was willing to make again a more elaborate argument taking into account the issues that the government thought were important. This sixth argument was formulated as follows:
Van Mook hammered on at the government with a fifth argument that was similar as the third and too simple to be accepted. However, after that rejection he was willing to make again a more elaborate argument taking into account the issues that the government thought were important. This sixth argument was formulated as follows:
In this argument he admits that in his preferred Strategy S1 the national and international consequences will be negative and they will not be so in S2. On the other hand S2 does not offer a solution in Indonesia which would be the case if S1 is chosen. This argument has in principle no solution, therefore he mentions that the Indonesian aspect is the most important oneand then the Lexicographic rule applies and his choice is clear. This is of course not a strong argument because the government could refute his last remark and then the choice is not clear given the description of the decision problem.
The rejection of his proposal has been sent to him and he reacted the same day with the next argument, the seventh:
The rejection of his proposal has been sent to him and he reacted the same day with the next argument, the seventh:
He seems to realize that his argument using the Lexicographic rule was a weak one. Now he uses the same description but argues that the total consequences of S2 are worse than the total consequences of S1. In this case the Addition-of–utilities rule suggests his choice. The government replied that the international consequences would not only be temporarily and therefore they did not agree with him.
After this rejection some time past but on August 26 he sent the government his last argument about this issue. It reads as follows:
After this rejection some time past but on August 26 he sent the government his last argument about this issue. It reads as follows:
In this case he tries to make an argument that is much stronger while formulating the approximately same consequences in a different way. He neutralizes the international problems by saying that in S2 they will not improve and in S1 they will not deteriorate i.e. they remain the same. The national consequences he changed in the number of victims. In S2 they will increase and in S1 they will not increase. Now this consequence is worse in S2. Finally S2 leads to defeat in Indonesia and S1 not. So by this formulation all consequences of S1 are better than under S2. In that case the Dominance rule suggests that S1 has to be chosen.
This was a strong argument if the description was accepted, but the government did not accept his statement that under S1 the international position would not deteriorate. In fact they called him back to the Netherlands in order to confront him with the International discussions about the Dutch policies in Indonesia. After that he accepted the point of view of the government about the occupation of Yogyakarta.
This was a strong argument if the description was accepted, but the government did not accept his statement that under S1 the international position would not deteriorate. In fact they called him back to the Netherlands in order to confront him with the International discussions about the Dutch policies in Indonesia. After that he accepted the point of view of the government about the occupation of Yogyakarta.
Van Mook knows all the rules
By his arguments Van Mook shows that he knows all the rules we have suggested or maybe better he knows all the forms of argumentations that make the conclusion obvious. Whether he knows the rules we don´t know because we could not ask him. However we expect that he was convinced that the conclusion was obvious if the government would accept his description of the decision problem. On the other hand the government realized this probably too and therefore mostly complainted about lack of information or differences in opinions about the utilities of consequences.
This series of arguments suggested that politicians know these different formulations of arguments. We were now curious about the fact if this knowledge was specific for politicians or also known by normal citizens.
By his arguments Van Mook shows that he knows all the rules we have suggested or maybe better he knows all the forms of argumentations that make the conclusion obvious. Whether he knows the rules we don´t know because we could not ask him. However we expect that he was convinced that the conclusion was obvious if the government would accept his description of the decision problem. On the other hand the government realized this probably too and therefore mostly complainted about lack of information or differences in opinions about the utilities of consequences.
This series of arguments suggested that politicians know these different formulations of arguments. We were now curious about the fact if this knowledge was specific for politicians or also known by normal citizens.
go to: We both start our research
|
|