Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (620,000)
UTSG (50,000)
HIS (3,000)
HIS103Y1 (400)
Lecture

2nd hr - intro lecture


Department
History
Course Code
HIS103Y1
Professor
Vasilis Dimitriadis

This preview shows page 1. to view the full 5 pages of the document.
Monday, May 16, 2011
HIS103Y1
Prof. V. Dimitriadis
Lecture 1 - On Statecraft and Strategy
What is the primary purpose of the state?
states act like living organisms
its main purpose is to ensure its own survival
the state will defend us only so we can pay our taxes
regardless of its political nature (it makes absolutely no sense what party is in power) its goal will always be its
own survival
we are only the means to that goal
Lecture 1 - On Statecraft and Strategy
Broad picture of what Statecraft and Strategy are:
What is the primary purpose of the state?
states act like living organisms
its main purpose is to ensure its own survival
the state will defend us only so we can pay our taxes
regardless of its political nature (it makes absolutely no sense what party is in power) its goal will always be its
own survival
we are only the means to that goal
How does a state achieve their survival?
by adhering its own national interests
by adhering to its national security
national interests
means its long term interest
it is then used to justify its own foreign policy
what sort of attitude do you take when you formulate your own policy?
you have to have a realistic (real politic) approach to judge what it should be
national security
by and large focused on immediate health, security of state, and independence
back in the 17th century you had to guarantee your own borders
as long as you were able to maintain your borders you could ensure your sovereignty
now: security of aerial space is just as crucial
e.g. WWII: airspace security was important (as whole states could be wiped out with an air strike)
three modern elements of national security: land, sea, and air
Statecraft a.k.a. diplomacy is the first line of defense
in negotiations - what do you need?
www.notesolution.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

common interest in settling the issue of concern/conflict
need a desire for resolution
if you don’t have a conflict you dont have negotiations
Deterrence
one level above diplomacy
youhighlight” to the other state that pursuing a certain course of action may lead to war thus discouraging
further action from them
there is plenty of historical evidence that speaks of failure and success
Coercive Diplomacy
e.g. economic embargo
it involves some military action although the cost is always less, smaller and more manageable
it shows that you are ready for military action
the other side must be run by a rational politician - if not the outcome may be disastrous
Japan and Pearl Harbor an example of failure vs. Cuban missile crisis an example of success
Force a.k.a. war
when all three above options are exhausted
Kosovitz: tried to prevent war
war is foreign policy by other means: the association of war a is so close
the last tool at your disposal
applying force is what most states did historically
they thought it was an easier task / straight forward solution
ever since war started they turned out to be the riskier and most unpredictable of all the endeavors
if you don’t calculate the risks of war (even if you win) you will lose a lot
to ensure war serves its purpose you must have good strategy:
economic objectives
cultural or ideological factors are very important
war runs on two levels: operational (on the ground fighting) and strategic (planning) levels
if you do not have good strategy you will always lose - even if the operational level is a success
strategic failures e.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan
US vs Canada
80-85% of our trade goes down south
there is a common cultural heritage
common political tradition - both Western democracies
we shared USSR as common enemy at one point
e.g. of careful balance: NORAD was useful but it changed when Canada declined to join the war in Iraq
War - why do we study it?
it is so deeply embedded in our psyche
Ötzi the iceman: 1st evidence that 5000 years ago there was a territorial war
we will cover nothing new - war has been going on as long as we have been alive
unpredictable, expensive and many times it ruins its creators
we are concerned w/ what approach to take to prevent war
www.notesolution.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version