Malcolm Rivera
Forceful diplomacy, also known as coercive diplomacy, is a strategy that involves the use of threats, limited force, and incentives to persuade an adversary to comply with demands without resorting to all-out war. It is a complex and multifaceted approach to international relations, often employed during crises and peace operations, that aims to affect the enemy's will rather than negate their capabilities. Coercive diplomacy involves several variables, including clear and consistent demands, adequate motivation, the ability to instill a sense of urgency, and the possible use of incentives or punishments. While it may be less costly than full-scale military conflict, the success of coercive diplomacy is difficult to predict due to the psychological nature of its key influencing factors.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Coercer | A single country, a collective group or an alliance of states (such as NATO) or an international organization (such as the United Nations) |
| Target | Can be a country, a collective group or an alliance of states, an international organization, or a terrorist group |
| Intention | An alternative to war |
| Use of force | Limited |
| Use of threats | Yes |
| Use of positive inducements | Yes |
| Strategic guidelines | Demand, means used for creating a sense of urgency, threatened punishment for non-compliance, and the possible use of incentives |
| Contextual variables | Integrative potential of the conflict, the costs of war, the parties' sense of urgency, and the presence of allies for each party |
| Factors favouring success | Clear and consistent demands, adequate motivation, ability to instill a sense of urgency in the opponent, and the opponent's fear of escalation |
| Factors influencing success or failure | Psychological in nature |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Coercive diplomacy as an alternative to war
Coercive diplomacy is a peaceful option that serves as an alternative to war. It involves "forceful persuasion", focusing on affecting the enemy's will rather than negating their capabilities. Alexander George, in his book "Forceful Persuasion: Coercive Diplomacy as an Alternative to War", provides a conceptual framework for coercive diplomacy. He identifies four basic variables: the demand, the means to create a sense of urgency, the threatened punishment for non-compliance, and the possible use of incentives.
Coercive diplomacy can be employed by a single country, a group, or an alliance of states or international organizations. It is often used during crises and peace operations, combined with soft power, intelligence, and economic sanctions. Negotiations and bargaining are key tools in this type of diplomacy. While it may be less costly than military force, coercive diplomacy is rarely a high-confidence strategy due to the psychological nature of its key influencing factors, which makes predicting success difficult.
George examines several historical cases of coercive diplomacy, including the US's successful defence of royalist forces in Laos in 1961, and President Kennedy's successful coercion of the Soviet Union to remove ballistic missiles from Cuba in 1962. During the Vietnam War, President Johnson unsuccessfully attempted to coerce Hanoi into ending their support for the Viet Cong. In the 1980s, the US employed coercive diplomacy in Nicaragua to limit Marxist influence, and against Libya to end its support for terrorism, with varying degrees of success.
Coercive diplomacy involves offering positive inducements or "carrots" alongside threats or "sticks". Robert Art defines the success of coercive diplomacy as not having to fully escalate to the use of military force to achieve objectives. While coercive diplomacy provides an alternative to war, it operates in a grey area where diplomacy is linked to the potential use of military force.
Kamala Harris: Age and Political Career Timeline
You may want to see also
The use of force and threats
Coercive diplomacy is a strategy that involves the use of threats and force to persuade an adversary to comply with a demand. While it may be seen as a contradiction in terms, with diplomacy typically associated with peaceful means, coercive diplomacy is considered a peaceful alternative to war.
The success of coercive diplomacy depends on several factors, including clear and consistent demands, adequate motivation, and the ability to instil a sense of urgency in the opponent. The opponent's fear of escalation is also a critical factor. However, due to the psychological nature of these factors, the success of coercive diplomacy can be challenging to predict or guarantee.
The use of threats in coercive diplomacy has ethical implications. While threats can be effective in avoiding the unnecessary use of force, they can also be ambiguous, leading to questions of bluffing and deception. The credibility and clarity of threats are essential, as demonstrated by President Kennedy's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Additionally, the ethical issuance of a threat should imply a sincere desire not to have to carry it out.
The use of force in coercive diplomacy should be a last resort, employed only when diplomacy has failed and with a clear objective that attracts public and political support. Limited force can be used in support of diplomacy to achieve limited ends without escalating to full-scale conflict. However, there is a danger of 'over-coercing', where issuing similar threats repeatedly can increase 'audience costs', making it harder for the target to concede without losing face.
Secret Diplomacy: Understanding Covert International Relations
You may want to see also
The role of the coercer
Coercive diplomacy involves four basic variables: the demand, the means to create a sense of urgency, the threatened punishment for non-compliance, and the potential use of incentives. The coercer must carefully calibrate these variables to increase the chances of success. Alexander George, in his book "Forceful Persuasion: Coercive Diplomacy as an Alternative to War", provides strategic guidelines for using coercive diplomacy effectively.
The choice of a specific coercive diplomatic strategy is highly dependent on the context of the crisis event. Variables such as the integrative potential of the conflict, the costs of war, the urgency felt by both parties, and the presence of allies for each party, all play a significant role in strategy selection. The coercer must also be mindful of the danger of 'over-coercing', as issuing similar threats repeatedly can increase 'audience costs', making it harder for the target to concede.
To be successful, the coercer must make clear and consistent demands, possess adequate motivation, and be able to instil a sense of urgency in the opponent, leveraging the opponent's fear of escalation. While these factors do not guarantee success, they increase the likelihood of achieving the desired outcome. The coercer must also offer positive inducements, or 'carrots', alongside the 'stick' of threatened punishment, to navigate the delicate balance between persuasion and coercion effectively.
Ultimately, the role of the coercer is a challenging one, requiring careful consideration of numerous factors and the ability to adapt strategies to the specific context. The success of coercive diplomacy relies on a combination of strategic choices, psychological factors, and the careful navigation of the ''grey area'' between diplomacy and the use of force.
Trip Wire: Military Tactic or Diplomatic Strategy?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Factors influencing the success of coercive diplomacy
Coercive diplomacy, also known as "forceful persuasion", is a strategy employed by states to achieve political objectives and foster national interest without engaging in warfare. It involves using threats of punishment and military force, along with positive inducements, to influence an adversary's behaviour. While it can be an effective alternative to war, coercive diplomacy is challenging to execute and maintain, especially in the context of multinational efforts.
Political Support and Flexibility
Coercive diplomacy demands strong political support, both domestically and internationally. It is often employed during crises and peace operations, combined with soft power, intelligence, and economic sanctions. The strategy requires flexibility, as political objectives may change during its implementation.
Clear and Consistent Demands
Articulating clear and consistent demands is essential for success. These demands should be backed by a credible threat of punishment for non-compliance, creating a sense of urgency for the adversary. The coercer must also offer positive inducements, or "carrots," to enhance the strategy's flexibility and persuade the target to comply.
Opponent's Fear of Escalation
Understanding and leveraging the opponent's fear of escalation is crucial. The coercer must carefully calibrate the use of force, employing it in a limited and selective manner to avoid the perception of "over-coercing." The opponent's leadership wants to maintain power and resist foreign pressure, so repeated threats may increase their resistance and make it more challenging to reach an agreement.
Contextual Variables
The choice of coercive diplomatic strategy depends on the context of the crisis. Variables such as the integrative potential of the conflict, the costs of war, the sense of urgency felt by both parties, and the presence of allies for each party, all influence the success of coercive diplomacy.
Multinational Efforts and International Support
Coercive diplomacy is more challenging to implement when multiple states or international organizations are involved. The interests and objectives of different parties must be aligned, which can be complex and impact the unity of the coalition. However, support from the international community, such as through the UN Security Council or NATO, can increase the likelihood of successful coercion.
Nigeria's Political Campaign Season: When Does it Begin?
You may want to see also
Examples of successful and unsuccessful coercive diplomacy
Coercive diplomacy is a means to achieve political objectives and foster a state's national interest without waging a war. It involves making an enemy stop or undo an action without resorting to military action but by issuing a specific demand backed by a threat of punishment for non-compliance. The threat must be credible and potent enough to persuade the opponent that it is in their interest to comply with the demand.
Some conditions that favour the successful use of coercive diplomacy are: clarity of the objective, efficient communication of intentions, symmetric information about each side's willingness to escalate, strong leadership, adequate domestic and international support, and isolation of the adversary.
An example of successful coercive diplomacy is the Clinton administration's 1994 negotiations with North Korea, which resulted in the Agreed Framework. Robert Gallucci, who worked as part of the State Department team during these negotiations, argued that the use of the threat of force brought added leverage to working with North Korea and unquestionably improved the U.S. position. He saw it as a success meant as a means to manage North Korea's nuclear ambitions, rather than an end in itself.
On the other hand, Robert Art's research on applications of coercive diplomacy by U.S. policymakers over a 12-year period found that coercive diplomacy fails more often than it succeeds. He found that it only succeeded in meeting its policy objectives 20% of the time. Art notes that it is challenging to sustain coercive diplomacy over long periods, especially in a multinational effort or campaign, as it is difficult to maintain political support.
Another example of unsuccessful coercive diplomacy is the United States' use of coercive diplomacy against Iraq from 1990 to 1998.
Spreading the Word: Political Campaigning and Awareness Strategies
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Forceful diplomacy, also known as coercive diplomacy, is a strategy that involves using threats of military force or other forms of pressure to persuade an adversary to comply with one's demands. It is often considered an alternative to war.
The four basic variables of coercive diplomacy are the demand, the means used to create a sense of urgency, the threatened punishment for non-compliance, and the possible use of incentives.
Regular diplomacy is generally associated with peaceful purposes. Forceful diplomacy, on the other hand, involves the use of threats and limited force to achieve a country's objectives.
In 1962, US President John F. Kennedy successfully employed coercive diplomacy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He established a naval blockade and threatened an invasion of Cuba to compel the Soviet Union to remove their ballistic missiles from the island.
One challenge is the danger of 'over-coercing', where issuing similar threats to a target can increase 'audience costs', making it harder for the target to concede. Additionally, the success of coercive diplomacy relies on the credibility and potency of the threat, and it may lead to reputational costs if the threat is not carried out.
![Austin Powers Triple Feature (International Man of Mystery / The Spy Who Shagged Me / Goldmember) [Blu-ray]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/91YNHjASr0L._AC_UY218_.jpg)
