Domestic vs. Territorial Integrity

The image is my head after reading this week’s question is of a “state leader” wandering the perimeters of his state supervising the building of huge defense walls, while at his back his country and his people lay in waste from disaster(civil, natural, by disease- you choose). I understand my fantastical image is rather extreme and unlikely; however, it presents a good starting point and illustration for my argument against territorial integrity as a leader’s first priority. Rather the defense of interior harmony should reign as a leader’s priority. I hold this to be true for most states but grant that there are obvious and rational reasons during times of warfare or outside aggression when a nation must temporarily look more towards its “territorial integrity” than its domestic integrity.
Interior harmony or at the very least stability though often incorporates territorial integrity in that for a leader to keep the faith of his people he needs to present them with a secure nation amongst other responsibilities. For a stable state such as Canada, it would be ridiculous to say that territorial integrity should be its prime minister’s main concern. Certainly there are border issues that the prime minister might address, but it is not a huge issue for Canadians. Georgia on the other hand presents a very current example of where territorial integrity is a national worry. With the possibility of the country losing significant chunks of territory and very effectively weakening its authority and power, Georgians expect their leader to be mainly concerned with this issue. For all practical purposes (remembering Machiavelli’s pragmatism) it is really in consideration of the people’s priorities that the leader concerns her or himself with territorial integrity above other issues.