General debate on the Middle East in the House of Lords on 16th March

Lord Hylton

With reference to my speech on Friday 16th March, Lord Howell of Guildford, when replying to the debate, briefly mentioned my thoughts on a win/win strategy.  I have written to him to get a fuller response on two points: firstly, a regional group to negotiate concerning Syria; and secondly, a long-term plan for resolving the long-standing issues of Palestinian and other refugees.

3 comments for “General debate on the Middle East in the House of Lords on 16th March

  1. Gareth Howell
    21/03/2012 at 12:42 pm

    The AL(Arab League) region is supposed to be negotiating with Syria.

  2. maude elwes
    21/03/2012 at 3:58 pm

    Here is a little input from a person who has an interest in what is really taking place in the Middle East.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_jRTMFjwEo&feature=related

    There is another side that is coming to light.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95n30YWXMK8&feature=related

    The answwer to the question of, what does this person have to gain from what they are telling me, is the biggest clue to the truth.

    And a different point of view from Syria.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15qxQzFVXZ8

  3. MilesJSD
    22/03/2012 at 2:28 am

    “Win/Win” will never be the best possible cooperative-resolution to any issue or problem where there are more than two parties who will be affected by the Outcome;

    unless by your “win/win strategy” here you definitively mean
    “win-win-win-win-win-win-win” (to the ‘n’)
    depending on how many affected-parties, other than the two dominantly major or central ones are writing the strategy and the rules-of-problem-solving for ‘the Duration’.

    In the case of two nations, it is quite evident that many more than the two central nations will be affected by any outcome between those two nations.

    That is why when, after on-the-ground experience, I published my version of “how to hold a Method III win-win-win cooperative problem solving meeting”, I made a clear guideline for such meetings to include drafting an equal “win” for each other party than the main two

    especially for each party (including even a ‘minority-of-one’) not able or not allowed to be present and equally participative, in having each of their essential and affected Needs-&- Hows included in the outcome-strategy.

    (Such a guidelines copy of the Method III steps may be printed out gratis from http://www.minorityofone.net [click the “Method III” page tab]
    or from http://www.lifefresh.co.uk [scroll down the very long ‘welcome’ page to the mauve background boxes] .

    The original ‘friendly’ win-win-win* Method III can be found in
    “Parent/Teacher/Leader Effectiveness Training” by Dr Thomas Gordon,
    or within “People Skills” by Robert Bolton.

    The “Collaborative Conflict Resolution” method is also a ‘win-win-win’ methodology, designed with additional list of “Fouls” to be avoided by all parties, published by the Australian International Conflict Resolution Network
    (“Every-One Can Win” by Faire & Cornelius).
    ————
    * by win-win-win here is meant that
    the meeting’s Facilitator (and the Chair) conduct the procedure so that there results:
    ‘win’ for party #1 ‘s
    ‘win’ for Party #2 ‘s
    (being the two parties in actual face to face meeting)
    and
    ‘wins’ for each other party’s real Need(s), especially for each of those not able to be present or not invited to be present and participative in such meeting(s).

Comments are closed.