Malcolm Rivera
Coercive diplomacy is a diplomatic strategy that involves using threats to persuade an adversary to cease or undo a specific action without waging war. It is a common practice in conducting inter-state relations and is often employed to achieve political objectives and foster a state's national interest. The Gulf War of 1990-1991 serves as an intriguing case study for scholars of coercive diplomacy. After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the USA, along with the UN, employed various measures, including economic sanctions, military threats, and ultimatums, to coerce Saddam Hussein into withdrawing his troops from Kuwait. Despite these efforts, Saddam Hussein refused to comply, which ultimately led to the use of military force in Operation Desert Storm. The Gulf War provides a complex scenario for examining the credibility and effectiveness of coercive diplomacy in international relations.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Definition of coercive diplomacy | "A defensive strategy that is employed to deal with the efforts of an adversary to change a status quo situation in his own favor, by persuading the adversary to stop what it is doing or to undo what it had done" |
| Coercive diplomacy vs compellence | Coercive diplomacy is a broader strategy that includes a range of threats and may couple threats of punishment with positive inducements. Compellence relies exclusively on military threats. |
| Coercive diplomacy vs deterrence | Deterrence can be described as "drawing a line in the sand" and acting only if the adversary crosses it; in contrast, coercive diplomacy "requires that the punishment be administered until the other acts rather than if he acts". |
| Credibility in coercive diplomacy | Credibility (or reputation) refers to the degree to which an actor is expected to uphold their commitments based on past behavior. A credible threat entails that defiance will be met with punishment and that compliance will be met with restraint. |
| Risks of coercive diplomacy | One major risk is the difficulty in calculating the adversary's response, which may lead to escalation. Coercive diplomacy also suffers when there is dissension and lack of unity among allies. |
| Examples of coercive diplomacy | The First Gulf War, the 2018 missile strikes on Syria, the 2020 drone strike on an Iranian general, the 1999 NATO air campaign in Serbia, the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Cuban Missile Crisis. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The 'carrot and stick' approach
Coercive diplomacy is a diplomatic strategy that involves the use of threats to persuade an adversary to cease or undo a specific action. It is a common practice in conducting inter-state relations and can be an alternative to war. The carrot-and-stick approach is a variant of coercive diplomacy that involves coupling threats of punishment with positive inducements and assurances to influence the adversary. This approach was famously employed by J.F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In the context of the Gulf War, the USA and the UN attempted to use coercive diplomacy to pressure Saddam Hussein into withdrawing his troops from Kuwait. They employed the 'carrot-and-stick' approach by constructing a multilateral sanctions regime, deploying military forces to the region, and issuing an ultimatum with a deadline for compliance. However, Saddam Hussein failed to comply with the ultimatum, and the use of coercive diplomacy ultimately failed to achieve its objective of persuading him to withdraw his forces from Kuwait without the use of military force.
The carrot-and-stick approach in coercive diplomacy can be effective if the inducements and assurances offered are credible. In the case of the Gulf War, the USA and the UN took several steps to make their threats credible, including economic sanctions, military build-up, and the issuance of an ultimatum. However, Saddam Hussein's non-compliance suggests that the credibility of the threats was not sufficient to persuade him to act.
One of the challenges in coercive diplomacy is the difficulty in calculating the adversary's response. There is a risk that the coercer may underestimate the target's will to resist, leading to an escalation of the situation. In the case of the Gulf War, the USA and the UN successfully prevented Saddam Hussein from invading Saudi Arabia further south, but they were unable to expel him from Kuwait without the use of military force.
The use of the carrot-and-stick approach in coercive diplomacy requires a careful understanding of the adversary's motivations and the potential consequences of non-compliance. While it can be an effective tool for achieving political objectives and fostering national interests, the credibility of the threats and inducements is crucial for its success.
Setting Up a Donate Button for Your Political Campaign
You may want to see also
The 'gradual turning of the screw' approach
The "gradual turning of the screw" approach is a variant of compellence, which involves making a threat and then gradually increasing the coercive pressure rather than threatening further action. This strategy was employed by the Bush administration and the UN Security Council during the Gulf War to pressure Saddam Hussein into withdrawing his troops from Kuwait.
The first step in this process was to issue sanctions and an economic embargo on Iraq, which was successful in constructing a multilateral sanctions regime. This was followed by the deployment of military forces to Saudi Arabia and a threat of force against Iraq. The final step was an ultimatum from the UN, setting a deadline of January 15, 1991, for the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
The "gradual turning of the screw" approach is designed to be flexible and allow for a range of threats and positive inducements to be employed. This method relies on the credibility of the coercer and their ability to make good on their threats. In the case of the Gulf War, the coalition of 35 states, including the USA, was successful in making their threats credible, however, Saddam Hussein failed to comply with the ultimatum, which resulted in the use of military force to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
The success of coercive diplomacy depends on understanding the adversary's motivations and what is at stake for them. It also requires credibility, which can be undermined by a track record of bluffing or issuing new demands as old ones are met. Coercive diplomacy is a risky strategy as it can be difficult to calculate the adversary's response, and miscalculations on either side could lead to an escalation of the conflict.
Who Are Political Surrogates and Why Are They Important?
You may want to see also
The 'try-and-see' approach
The try-and-see approach is the third variant of compellence. It is a strategy that involves making a single threat or taking a single action to persuade the opponent before threatening or taking another step. This approach is similar to the 'gradual turning of the screw' method, which also makes a threat but relies on the threat of a gradual, incremental increase in coercive pressure.
In the context of the Gulf War, the try-and-see approach could be applied by the United States and its allies as a means to coerce Saddam Hussein into complying with their demands. Instead of setting a deadline or issuing an explicit ultimatum, the coercer, in this case, the US and its allies, would make a single threat or take a single action, such as imposing economic sanctions or deploying military forces to the region. This initial threat or action would be designed to persuade Saddam Hussein to comply with their demands without the need for further escalation.
The try-and-see approach can be an effective strategy in coercive diplomacy as it allows the coercer to gauge the opponent's response before deciding on the next course of action. It provides an opportunity to assess the opponent's will to resist and their motivations, which is crucial in understanding how they may respond to further threats or actions. This approach can also enhance the credibility of the coercer by demonstrating their commitment to their demands and their willingness to act.
However, one of the main challenges of the try-and-see approach, and coercive diplomacy in general, is the difficulty in calculating the adversary's response. There is a risk that the opponent may misjudge the situation, leading to an unintended escalation. Additionally, the try-and-see approach may not be effective if the coercer is not perceived as credible or legitimate. In the case of the Gulf War, the United States and its allies had to consider not only Saddam Hussein's response but also the potential reactions of other actors in the region and the international community.
Overall, the try-and-see approach in coercive diplomacy involves a delicate balance of threats, actions, and negotiations. While it can be an effective strategy for persuading an opponent to comply with demands, it also carries the risk of miscalculation and escalation if not carefully executed.
Donating to Biden's Campaign: Easy Steps to Support Him
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The ultimatum approach
In the context of the Gulf War, the United States and the United Nations employed the ultimatum approach to coerce Saddam Hussein into withdrawing Iraqi troops from Kuwait. They first imposed economic sanctions and assembled a coalition of 35 states to increase the credibility of their threats. The deadline for compliance was set as January 15, 1991. However, Saddam Hussein did not comply, which led to the commencement of Operation Desert Storm and the use of military force to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
In summary, the ultimatum approach to coercive diplomacy involves issuing demands, setting deadlines, and threatening punishment for non-compliance. The Gulf War case study illustrates the complexities of coercive diplomacy, where the successful construction of a multilateral sanctions regime and a broad coalition did not ultimately prevent the escalation of conflict.
Communicating with Tact: Professionalism and Diplomacy at Work
You may want to see also
The 'tacit ultimatum' approach
The tacit ultimatum approach is a variant of compellence, which involves coercion and the use of threats to achieve political objectives and a state's national interest without waging a war. It is a strategy employed in coercive diplomacy, which is one of the most common practices in conducting inter-state relations.
The tacit ultimatum is similar to a regular ultimatum in that it has the three components of a demand on the opponent, a time limit or sense of urgency, and a threat of punishment for non-compliance. However, the key difference is that a tacit ultimatum does not set an explicit time limit. This approach allows for more flexibility in the strategy, as the coercer can make a single threat or take a single action to persuade the opponent before escalating the situation.
In the context of the Gulf War, the United States and the United Nations employed coercive diplomacy to pressure Saddam Hussein to withdraw Iraqi troops from Kuwait. They issued sanctions, deployed military forces, and threatened the use of force, but Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the demands. The deadline of January 15, 1991, for the withdrawal of Iraqi forces passed without compliance, leading to the commencement of Operation Desert Storm and the use of military force to remove Iraq's forces from Kuwait.
The tacit ultimatum approach in this case study demonstrates the challenges of coercive diplomacy, particularly in calculating the adversary's response. Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply and the eventual use of military force highlight the limitations of employing coercive diplomacy to achieve political objectives. It also underscores the importance of understanding the adversary's motivations and the potential risks of escalation when using coercive tactics.
Overall, the tacit ultimatum approach in coercive diplomacy involves employing threats and demands without setting explicit time limits, allowing for flexibility and gradual escalation. While it offers a non-violent strategy for inter-state relations, its success depends on credibility, the adversary's response, and the potential for escalation.
Dollar Diplomacy: Protecting America's Open Door Policy in China
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Coercive diplomacy is a diplomatic strategy that involves the use of military and non-military threats to persuade an adversary to cease a specific action or to uphold the status quo. It is a way to achieve political objectives and foster a state's national interest without waging a war.
One major risk of coercive diplomacy is the difficulty in predicting the adversary's response. If the coercer underestimates the adversary's will to resist, they may have to escalate the situation and use larger amounts of force, potentially leading to war. Additionally, if a state has a reputation for bluffing or not following through on threats, their credibility is diminished, and future threats may be ineffective.
Yes, coercive diplomacy was employed during the Gulf War. After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the USA and the UN attempted to pressure Saddam Hussein into withdrawing his troops from Kuwait. They issued sanctions, deployed military forces, and set an ultimatum with a deadline of January 15, 1991. However, Saddam Hussein did not comply, and the Gulf War ensued.
The coercive diplomacy employed by the USA and the UN in the Gulf War had mixed results. On the one hand, they successfully constructed a multilateral sanctions regime and gathered a coalition of 35 states. They also issued a credible ultimatum with a clear deadline. However, Saddam Hussein did not back down, and military force had to be used to achieve the objective of removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
