Overview of the Program
Please note: this series has been cancelled. If you are interested in these topics please contact us about future offerings.
Statecraft + Strategy seeks to give the participant an insight into the key drivers that will determine future wars, international disputes and their aftermath.
These drivers include accommodating rising powers such as India – a country surrounded by contentious and unstable neighbours, all of which are struggling to fulfil their national ambitions against a backdrop of resource depletion, overpopulation, concerns over pollution and climate change, terrorism, insurgency and the enhancement of international prestige in a competitive international environment.
Statecraft + Strategy will also examine the human cost of modern political violence, asking the question - what is the price of gaining security? When a nation such as Australia invests its blood and treasure in stabilising foreign lands which have little pedigree of stable, legitimate government, what are the human costs of these operations? How do military personnel cope in being deployed to a political/military environment where strategic and tactical objectives are unclear? How do local civilian personnel in these countries feel about foreigners imposing a Western brand of ‘law and order’ at the point of a gun?
Underlying these major issues is the highly asymmetrical nature of contemporary wars and international disputes. As the West is considered the paragon of good governance and evolved structures based on efficiency and effectiveness, it is often faced by enemies whose modus operandi lacks similar unity of purpose, clear chains of command or emphasis on heavy, sophisticated weapons. Will this asymmetry lead to ‘open-ended’ campaigns, or, worse still, lead to a series of humiliating Western back-downs?
Participants should gain a greater understanding of the very real complexities of contemporary political violence outside of the more simple views provided by partisan political statements and inaccurate or misleading media reportage. A degree of healthy scepticism is necessary for clarity in political and military decision making.
Background
For decades international relations (IR) and strategic studies (SS) have been treated as different spheres of thought.
One, (IR), is the preserve of the diplomat, the 'pragmatist' who understands the nature of international affairs and how it affects the national interest. The other, (SS), is the preserve of the soldier who understands the nature of modern weaponry and how it can be used to intimidate challengers to the nation-state.
While the diplomat may have some peripheral knowledge on the nature of force, diplomacy, in itself, is usually about conflict avoidance. For the military, while peripherally aware that they occupy space within an anarchic international system, strength through force is generally considered the absolute arbiter of national power.
For politicians and policymakers, these often mutually conflicting spheres of national endeavour, can lead to inconsistent and ineffective outcomes.
In an age where many traditional barriers between diplomacy and national security are being eroded, it is important that those in either field know and appreciate the perspective of the other.
In military parlance, this is called ‘unity of effort’.
Through ‘unity of effort’ diplomats may see the advantage of utilizing – even if only sparingly – the military instrument to preserve, expand or defend the national interest. Through ‘unity of effort’ soldiers may see that a small, pre-emptive presence, or the provision or protection of aid, can secure the national interest far more than disproportionate destruction. Through ‘unity of effort’, politicians and policy makers ought not be torn between two separate camps when forging policy directions on the international stage.
The objective of this seminar series is to examine the use of force in the modern era. It will challenge current thinking on this topic and give course participants a greater appreciation of when the use of force is appropriate, the implications of using the military instrument during civil emergencies, whether the tension in civil-military relations can be better managed and the socio-psychological aftermath of military intervention.
| 
The University of Adelaide
