Consequences of compromise

Ibrahim Mead political analyst
Ottawa, Canada

Tryon Edwards argues that, historically, “Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another—too often ending in the loss of both.”

The bits and pieces which come out from Siilanyo’s mouth regarding the-none-policy- policy of the foreign policy of Somaliland are:

a) the British is pressuring us!

b) They are telling us to compromise! Well, the British or any other entity with their co nscience awake can not tell us to compromise our national cause under any normal circ umstances. What we don’t understand is that why Mr. Siilanyo is repeating these wor ds!? What does the man mean ‘to compromise’? What are we to compromise of!? Our existence!? Our self determination!? Our cause!? The blood and the treasure that was paid for this 2nd Republic!? Lastly, what does Mr. Siillanyo mean by COMPROMISE!?

Compromise is a product of dealing with conflicting views and fears. It is, as suggested by Ambrose Bierce, “An adjustment of conflicting interests that gives each adversary the satisfaction of thinking he has got what he ought not to have, and is deprived of nothing except what was justly his due.”

Mr. Siilanyo tells the people who talks to him that the British is advising him of this and of that with out elaborating that! Somaliland people are in the dark of what their gove rnment is up to! But there are three things we know.

a) That we are two unequal contending parts at least in the eyes of the so, called inte rnational community. Somalia is a recognized entity even when they exist only for nam e

b) Somaliland is not a recognizes entity as far as the international community is conce rned even when it is a stable, free and functioning state, free of sea pirates, Al shaba ab and wars which never ends. However Somaliland is recognized by her people inste ad even when her present government is distrustful

c) The third and more worrisome thing is that Mr. Siilanyo continuously talks about com promise. He continuously tells the people that the British government wants us to com promise!! Compromise what sir? Mr. Siilanyo never answered that ‘compromise thing he talks about’ in a blunt, honesty and clear way thus far!

The call for compromise is always simple, but the challenge is greater.
Think about the call for and the consequences of compromise. For some, compromising is an effortless way to diffuse divergent views and settle controversial issues. For oth ers, it is a challenge to their non-negotiable principles and bottom lines.
Jesse Helms noted in 1959, this “Compromise, hell! If freedom is right and tyranny is wr ong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?” in Somaliland case one may tempt to say “ what compro mise! If Somaliland exists and is stable, peaceful and democratic state while nothing of all these virtues never existed in Somalia why should those who achieved all these achi evement are treated as if it all are a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time in a none existent state of Somalia!

In every call for compromise, compromising results in consequences. Obviously compro mise can be beneficial when it results in mutual cooperation without sacrificing either side’s principles and/or moral values. On the other hand, all invitations to compromise lie on a slippery slope where the potential for erosion of one’s principles and moral values are constantly at risk. To that end, experience and honest people must clearly understand their unshakable values, beliefs, principles and boundaries. Does Siilalnyo’s pack selected for Somaliland- Somalia talks understand that? Are they up to the job?

On the other hand, Mohandas Gandhi once reminded all listeners of a greater challenge: “All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is surrender. For it is all give and no take!
First Productive compromise requires great insight and clarity of one’s deep values, beliefs and principles.

Second, productive compromise requires an unbending commitment to uphold one’s deep values, beliefs and principles.

Third, productive compromise requires careful listening to the values, beliefs and principles of those proposing compromise.

Fourth, productive compromise requires thoughtful consideration of all intended and unintended consequences for all parties.
Last, but not least, productive compromise requires action that allows the satisfaction of the principles and values of all parties. Anything less will result in counter-producti ve consequences. [Cited International listening leadership institute September 7, 20 11]

As Golda Meir concisely reminded everyone, “To be or not to be is not a question of co mpromise. Either you be, or you don’t be.” That is where none Siilanyo Somaliland stan ds! Where Mr. Siilanyo and his administration stand in this?

Peace and prayers for Somaliland