Great Nations win without fighting "The right approach"
 

Since the essay paper 2014, I have been seeing different opinions about how one should have solved the essay [B]Great Nations win without fighting[/B].I dont understand what all the different opinions are about.For a long time I have waited for someone to take a rational path but no one has done so.
It is a simple essay in which you have to prove that [B]nations win without fighting[/B] and by analyzing this statement, we can try to elaborate meanings of different words.
[B]Without Fighting[/B]:Fighting means combat here i.e if a country tries to win by fighting and then plundering other nations(Colonialism is an example)
[B]Great Nations[/B]:those nations which win without fighting are automatically great.(Of course there are those nations which win by fighting e.g America,UK but they have low moral ground so they cannot be considered as great).
[B]Winning[/B]:For god's sake it is not winning a war as nations do not win a war,armies do.Nations win by progressing over time.literacy,standard of life,opportunities for citizens define winning of nations.
[B]Important[/B]:Examples can be given from history but you will find very few examples from history as it became possible after world war 2 for nations to win without fighting.Examples from history will mostly prove that [B]nations win by fighting[/B].
Now, a simple outline.
[B]1).write an intro by including the aforementioned points so that the examiner gets an idea that you have a complete understanding of the topic.
2).Give the first example of germany. No fight after WW2 and winning.
3).you can write about switzerland
4).south korea
5)come to asia and include japan
6).neighboring china(No fighting or hegemony like america,still progressing)
7).Muslim countries Malaysia
8).Turkey
9).present the case of pak and india and denounce war by saying that we can win without fighting.
10)conclusion[/B]
[B]Note:[/B]Of course you will need data to prove by facts nd figures that the above mentioned countries are progressing nd they have not fought.

I think you have confused it a bit too much, it was just about 'using diplomacy as a tool of war' or 'using diplomacy to create balance of power' or 'achieving national interest through diplomacy' :D.

You could quote examples such as Congress of Vienna which aimed at creating a balance of power in Europe to prevent wars. Or you could quote the example of United Nations where big powers show their muscle to each other and determine their share over global power without actively engaging in war with each other etc :D. Or you could quote from early Islam when Prophet Muhammad (SAW) attempted to create balance of power in Medina by means of a messaq(-e-madina) and treaties etc.

Or the way China is rising as a regional and global power is also an example of nations winning without fighting. China is asserting itself in the region by just 'showing' its military capabilities and using its economic influence. It also engages Western powers diplomatically who are feeling rise of a mighty nation and its growing influence without actually proving it by means of combat :D.

you are considering the wrong meaning of great my friend.by your definition,only strong nations are great(who can exert diplomatic pressure).According to you,America and permanent members are greatest nations whereas these nations have been and are still involved in fighting the most.
Great nations are like malaysia which,despite having an impartial foreign policy,is progressing at a staggering rate with hdi of 0.72 :)).

But why NOT the counter argument?

Great Nations Do Fight to win --- Obviously an impotent nation is not great by any means if we argue against it.

How do you see the counter argument and going against the essay?

[QUOTE=Ozia;728020]you are considering the wrong meaning of great my friend.by your definition,only strong nations are great(who can exert diplomatic pressure).According to you,America and permanent members are greatest nations whereas these nations have been and are still involved in fighting the most.
Great nations are like malaysia which,despite having an impartial foreign policy,is progressing at a staggering rate with hdi of 0.72 :)).[/QUOTE]

Well I am speechless, I thought I knew something so I should share but it seems I don't even know the meaning of word 'Great' :cry. This is 'Great' :D.

But BTW you are also confusing 'great nations win' and 'great nations progress' with your example of Malaysia :D

[QUOTE=Roshnain Swati;728027]But why NOT the counter argument?

Great Nations Do Fight to win --- Obviously an impotent nation is not great by any means if we argue against it.

How do you see the counter argument and going against the essay?[/QUOTE]

Dear roshan,

Every word in the statement of essay is of crucial importance and ignoring any word or inferring wrong meaning of any word derails us from the topic.
if we make a counter argument,it turns out "great nations win by fighting"
in my point of view,this statement dos not make any sense if we take the meaning of fighting as combat coz we donot call the nations which fight as great nations(They may call themselves great but they are not universally accepted great(like america,uk)
[B]The other meaning of fighting can be inferred as struggle which is controversial.if we consider this meaning,the original statement becomes meaningless which will become "great nations win without struggle"[/B]

I am afraid there is no counter argument to this statement.

Violence is nature’s way of sorting out conflicts. The strong survive by preying on the weak, and where there is a disagreement an aptitude for mortal combat generally holds the day. it should come as little surprise that we have for the most part retained nature’s way of solving disputes until this day. Human history is a history of violence, and the century we recently left behind was maybe the most violent of them all. Yet as the 20th century lumbered on through its world wars and genocidal excesses, a countertrend of nonviolent action was slowly establishing itself. Although by no means a new invention, it did during this century come into its own as a potent tool of political agency. Its founding moment was the Gandhi-led overthrow of the British rule in India, inspiring in turn the American civil rights movement, the South African fight against apartheid, and, during the past three decades, a growing number of transitions to democracy. Poland, the Philippines, Chile, Serbia and Georgia are all examples of countries that embarked on a democratization process largely via nonviolent mass action. Nonviolent action is essentially an attempt to change the rules of the power game. Its aim is to deny those with the means of violent repression the use of such means, turning the principle that ‘might makes right’ on its head. Where violent insurgency seeks to destroy the opponent’s physical capability to act, nonviolence leaves the apparatus of repression intact but seeks to render its use impossible. When successfully applied, the opponent will retain his police and military forces, but will not dare to use them – fearing mutiny among his troops, or a backlash from civil society or other pillars of support for the regime. The fundamental insight behind the strategy of nonviolent action is that the maintenance of power on a political level requires legitimacy (Sharp 1973). An authoritarian ruler – to take a common opponent for nonviolent struggle – is dependent upon a degree of international recognition, the implicit acceptance of his rule among the general populace, loyalty from his apparatus of repression, and finally an ability to justify his rule in his own eyes. Not all necessarily depend on all of these, but none can maintain power over time simply on the basis of raw force. The aim of the resistance movement is to deprive the dictator of those sources of legitimacy most vital to the continuation of his rule. Why did the events at Tiananmen Square in 1989 lead to a massacre, while German women protesting in 1943 Berlin on behalf of their Jewish husbands succeeded in imposing their will on the Nazi regime?

1. Nonviolent struggle will tend to succeed when it skillfully exploits weak points in its opponent’s claim to legitimacy of power.
2. A nonviolent campaign turning to violence will avail its opponent to a legitimate excuse for violent repression and result in an overall loss of strength for the resistance movement.
3. Unjustified violent repression from the regime or opponent will tend to strengthen the campaign of nonviolent resistance insofar as the latter started with a strong claim to legitimacy vis-à-vis its opponent.
4. The presence of a free mass media or of well-established underground media networks will serve both as an organizational tool and as a disseminator of news regarding regimesanctioned atrocities and thus facilitate protest success.
5. A movement possessing a degree of religious authority will find it easier to mobilize popular support and to bridge social divides between its supporters, and may thus be able to present a strong united front to its opponent.

Perhaps you should consider reading Sun Tzu’s Art of War, a 2000-year old Chinese book of military strategy that extols “those who render others’ armies helpless without fighting” :D

Masha Allah very interesting discussion guys.
I want to state my own opinion as well to add more confusion to this discussion. :) So, the topic is: ''Great Nations win without fighting''. Here what I interpret is, fight is a curse nowadays cause it has taken countless lives throughout the world. Hence, the meaning of fighting I interpret is ''war''. Now, in my view great Nations here mean those nations who do not fight to achieve its goals, i.e., to progress, to have influence over the world. Moreover, to taste the sense of acceptance in every matter of the world. A very well-known example here could be the recent China. :P China's occupation of the markets and economy of the world is pulling it towards greatness. This greatness through an example is: recently Mr. Hagel warned China for those controversial Islands matter, then in reply China like a Boss said that Mr. Hagel's speech could make the condition worse. :dd Now, this is called the real Boss who can say anything without any fear. And, no nation in the world can dare to fight them. :P They have deterred themselves against all the nations who fight for power. So, this is greatness. :P Consequently, Great Nations win without fighting(wars). :P
Sorry if my words add to the confusion of this topic. :(
However, in a very broader sense, I would say, that even those who interpreted the topic as great nations win by fighting(struggling to progress) are right, if and only if, they have made their stance very clear in the start of the essay. You just need not to be ambiguous to confuse the reader. Whatever the case is, whoever wrote a convincing essay would definitely be awarded with good marks. By good marks I mean passing marks, not in 80s. :dd

adding few lines to further muddle things here... :)

Shah i ll consent with you. It can be counter argument but must be defended properly. And if we go to a little more depth, we cant quote China here, if we are arguing FOR the topic. The points you mentioned is a recent past - Go back to 1962 -- China did fight a war with India and was victorious.

I would simply have argued against the topic and would not have narrowed down the meaning of FIGHT to just a nation-vs-nation fight. A great nation must be able to FIGHT an internal upheaval etc too to win and maintain its greatness.

Is that enough of a hodgepodge? :)

[QUOTE=Roshnain Swati;728059]adding few lines to further muddle things here... :)

Shah i ll consent with you. It can be counter argument but must be defended properly. And if we go to a little more depth, we cant quote China here, if we are arguing FOR the topic. The points you mentioned is a recent past - Go back to 1962 -- China did fight a war with India and was victorious.

I would simply have argued against the topic and would not have narrowed down the meaning of FIGHT to just a nation-vs-nation fight. A great nation must be able to FIGHT an internal upheaval etc too to win and maintain its greatness.

Is that enough of a hodgepodge? :)[/QUOTE]

Lols, I have quoted ''recent China'' not that of 60s.:dd Moreover, I have just given my point of you, haven't written any Quranic Verse which is always right. My point of view can definitely be wrong according to many aspirants' perception, maybe according to me as well upto some extent.:dd
Cheers! :D
PS: I wasn't born in 1962, so I can't remember what exactly happened in 60s.(For fun) :D