Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand and judge things which is shared by common to nearly all parties, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate. The contradictory of the common sense is nonsense. Nonsense is communication; speech or writing that lacks that lacks any coherent significance. Sometimes in ordinary usage, nonsense is illogicality or unreasonable.
Commenting my point of my interest, when two parties enter for issue of dispute, it is illogical gaining victory in advance or before any negotiation has begun. Any sensible minded individual realize that gaining victory prior negotiating was totally impossible as no have magic power or veto power over than other one. After the talks somaliland and Somalia was concluded, the outcome was win –win situation, not win-lose situation and not lose-lose situation.
Therefore, those who criticize Istanbul communique should release the common sense and distant themselves from nonexistence optimism as that may mislead the society into impossible vision. it is un-doubtful that Siyad regime committed crimes against the people of Somali-land and it is true that, the same regime inflicted crimes against many other Somali people in other parts of Somalia although it could be of lesser level in comparison with us. If we deny the crimes committed of the others, certainly, then our rights will be denied by default. Therefore, the outcome of the talks was positive step for future talks and as the same was win-win situation.
Win-win, win-lose, and lose-lose are terms that refer to the possible outcomes of negotiating or dispute involving two sides, and more importantly, how each side perceives their outcome relative to their standing before the game. For example,win results when the outcome of a negotiation is better than expected, a loss when the outcome is worse than expected. Two people may receive the same outcome in measurable terms, but for one side that may be a loss, while for the other it is a win. In other words, expectations determine one’s perception of any given result. Win-win outcomes occur when each side of a dispute feels they have won. Since both sides benefit from such a scenario, any resolutions to the conflict are likely to be accepted voluntarily. The process of integrative bargaining aims to achieve, through cooperation, win-win outcomes.
win-lose situations result when only one side perceives the outcome as positive. Thus, win-lose outcomes are less likely to be accepted voluntarily. Distributive bargaining processes, based on a principle of competition between participants, are more likely than integrative bargaining to end in win-lose outcomes–or they may result in a situation where each side gets part of what he or she wanted, but not as much as they might have gotten if they had used integrative bargaining.
Lose-lose mean that all parties end up being worse off. An example of this would be a budget-cutting negotiation in which all parties lose money. The intractable budget debates in Congress in 2012-13 are example of lose-lose situations. Cuts are essential–the question is where they will be made and who will be hurt. In some lose-lose situations, all parties understand that losses are unavoidable and that they will be evenly distributed. In such situations, lose-lose outcomes can be preferable to win-lose outcomes because the distribution is at least considered to be fair. A no-win situation, also called a “lose-lose” situation, is one where a person has choices, but no choice leads to a net gain. Last, but the least the outcome of the talks was successful in the terms of the interest of somaliland.
Ismail lugweyne.
