Shruti: or is it that to avoid embarassment the other party pretends its a win-win
Ankur: negotiation proceeds by both parties deciding what they care about most and what they dont care about that much and can let go of
Nikhil has left the conference due to connection failure.
Shruti: The recent summit in HongKong is a good example of negotiations and discussions yielding something reasonale and acceptable to all
Ankur: can you elaborate?
Shruti: Economic stength seems to dictate all other aspects of international relations. And the issue in that context was that the developed countries were sure of what they wanted . However, the developing countries refused to let them dictate terms and conditions this time.
C.Sharma: they failed to establish a common agenda and therefore for them the meet failed before it began . NO COMMON AGENDA
Shruti: They refused to let them decide what the 'heads' and 'tails' was .
Shruti: But thats like deciding what are the important things to all the parties concenred or rather grounds they r willign to negotiate on
C.Sharma: this issue depends on whether u look at it at a micro level or at a macro level
Ankur: But the meet showed us how an order can be brought into international relations skewed by asymmetric power equations. atleast an iota of order
Shruti: ch would u like to elaborate on ur point about micro versus macro level?
Ankur: i think this topic does not take into account the third side of the coin.... as we saw in sholay. The point is that there may be more than just 'heads' and 'tails' involved. There are facets and dimensions all of which have to be explored
Shruti: On re-reading the topic I am forced to think that it is more about a uni-dimensional outlook to things
Ankur: Heads I win, tails u lose may be confident but the confidence is built on unsound foundations and do not have their grounding in reasoned arguments. what i mean is that a coin can show heads or tails but it can also stand on the rim in the rarest of cases
Shruti: I agree that it is a very narrow perspective, the kind of mindset which is bound ot failure whether it is at the negotiating table or in a casino
Ankur: when u dont consider that case, it shows that you might be sure of winning almost all the time but not all the time
UrPercentile.com: C.Sharma, request you to conclude the GD.
Shruti: But is it also reflective of the attitude of super-powers in any area.. Eg. say Walmart, where they dictate the terms and conditions because they have the monopoly
Ankur: the GD's concluded i guess
UrPercentile.com: Looks like some connection problem at Chitanya Sharma's end, Ankur can you conclude
Ankur: This attitude reflects a hubris which can be witnessed in the actions of dominating participants in an argument. However, it may not always lead to an advantage to them as seen in the hong kong meet. A win-win situation is what should be looked out for considering all positions and arguments.
UrPercentile.com: Thanks everyone, We had a good discussion. Shruti: thanks