Eleanor Finch
Coercive diplomacy, a concept first put forward by Stanford University professor Alexander George in 1971, involves the use of threats or limited force to coerce an adversary to stop or reverse its actions. Since the 1950s, the United States has increasingly resorted to coercive diplomacy as a tool to achieve its foreign policy objectives. While some argue that it demonstrates American strength and resolve, others criticise it as a form of bullying that undermines global stability and development. The effectiveness of coercive diplomacy is debated, with some studies suggesting it fails more often than it succeeds. This paragraph will explore when and how the US has employed coercive diplomacy, the challenges it faces, and the impact on other nations.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Effectiveness | Open to debate |
| Use since 1950s | Increasingly |
| Success rate | 20% |
| Difficulty | Compellence is more difficult than deterrence |
| Political support | Difficult to maintain over long periods |
| Use cases since the Cold War | At least eight |
| Countries targeted | Serbia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Laos, Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia, Kosovo, India, Malaysia, Iran, China |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
US sanctions on Indian companies for trading oil with Iran
Coercive diplomacy has become an increasingly popular tool for US policymakers since the 1950s. In recent times, the US has used coercive diplomacy in several instances, including sanctioning Indian companies for trading oil with Iran.
In October 2022, the US imposed sanctions on a Mumbai-based petrochemical trading company, Tibalaji Petrochem, for engaging in the oil trade with Iran. This marked the first instance of the US imposing sanctions on an Indian company for dealing with Iran. The US Department of State justified the sanctions by stating that Iran's oil exports are enabled by a network of illicit shipping facilitators who load and transport Iranian oil for sale to buyers in Asia. The revenue generated from these sales is used by the Iranian regime to fund its destabilizing activities, including its nuclear threat, ballistic missile program, and support for terrorist groups.
In February 2025, the US sanctioned four more India-based companies as part of the Trump administration's "maximum pressure campaign" on Iran. These companies, including Navi Mumbai-based Flux Maritime LLP, National Capital Region-based BSM Marine LLP, Austinship Management Pvt Ltd, and Thanjavur-based Cosmos Lines Inc, were accused of facilitating the transportation of Iranian petroleum products. The US Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the US Department of State imposed sanctions on over 30 persons and vessels in various countries, with these four Indian firms making the list.
In April 2025, the US continued its crackdown on Indian companies aiding Iranian oil sales, sanctioning a United Arab Emirates (UAE)-based Indian national, Jugwinder Singh Brar, and four of his firms for their alleged involvement in the trade and transportation of Iranian crude oil and petroleum products. According to the US Department of the Treasury, Brar owned multiple shipping companies that collectively operated nearly 30 vessels, many of which were part of Iran's "shadow fleet." The sanctioned companies included India-based Global Tankers and B and P Solutions, and UAE-based Prime Tankers and Glory International.
The US sanctions on Indian companies trading oil with Iran demonstrate its commitment to targeting all aspects of Iran's oil supply chain and its willingness to use coercive diplomacy to achieve its foreign policy goals. While the US justifies these actions by citing Iran's destabilizing activities, the sanctions have had significant economic and political impacts on the targeted Indian companies and have complicated India's energy trade.
Diplomacy's Role in War: Strategies and Impact
You may want to see also
US-Cuba relations and the 61-year-old embargo
The United States has a long history of employing coercive diplomacy, which involves the use of threats, limited force, or sanctions to coerce adversaries into compliance. Since the 1950s, this approach has become an increasingly popular tool for US policymakers. One notable example of US coercive diplomacy is the 61-year-old embargo on Cuba, which has been in place since 1962.
US-Cuba relations have been strained for decades, with the US imposing an economic, commercial, and financial embargo on the island nation. The embargo was initially implemented in response to the Cuban government's nationalization of US-owned property, which included vacation homes, bank accounts, sugar factories, mines, and oil refineries. This move by Cuba was seen as a threat to American interests in the region, particularly during the Cold War era when Cuba aligned itself with the Soviet Union.
The embargo has been enforced through various acts and regulations, including the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Cuban Assets Control Regulations of 1963, and the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, among others. It has had significant economic and humanitarian impacts on Cuba, limiting their access to essential goods and services such as fuel, food, medicine, and daily necessities.
Despite the restoration of diplomatic relations in 2015, the US has not fully lifted the embargo. In 2017, the Trump administration even tightened sanctions on Cuba. While there have been efforts by some US advocates and politicians to normalize relations and lift the embargo, there is still resistance within the US government, particularly among Republicans. Cuba has also insisted that normal relations require more than just lifting the embargo, demanding that the US give up its naval base at Guantanamo Bay and cease broadcasting "subversive" media into the country.
The effectiveness of the US embargo on Cuba has been questioned, with critics arguing that it has failed to achieve its intended goals and has only harmed the Cuban people. The embargo has provided an excuse for the failures of Cuba's socialist programs, and its negative economic impact has made the Cuban people worse off by denying them access to low-cost goods and services. As a result, there have been increasing calls for a different approach to US-Cuba relations, with some arguing for a more humanitarian focus that prioritizes the well-being of the Cuban people.
Political Campaigns: Commercial Entities or Not?
You may want to see also
US interventions in Somalia and Kosovo
Coercive diplomacy has become an increasingly popular tool for US policymakers since the 1950s. Robert Art, in his study of coercive diplomacy by the US, found that it had only succeeded in meeting its policy objectives 20% of the time. One of the cases he examined was the US intervention in Somalia.
US Intervention in Somalia
In 1991, the Somali dictator Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in a military coup. The following year, the United Nations humanitarian effort, known as Operation Provide Relief, arrived in Somalia. However, the operation faced difficulties as various Somali militias disregarded the ceasefire and engaged in fighting, hijacking, and looting of international food convoys. In his last weeks in office, US President George H.W. Bush proposed sending American combat troops to Somalia to protect aid workers, a proposal accepted by the UN. On December 9, 1992, around 25,000 US troops began arriving in Somalia. The operation was challenging from the start due to the lack of a centralised Somali leadership and the ongoing chaos in Mogadishu, the capital.
On October 3-4, 1993, the so-called Battle of Mogadishu took place, resulting in the deaths of 18 US soldiers and hundreds of Somali militia fighters and civilians. Soon after, Clinton withdrew all US troops from Somalia, and the country descended into clan warfare.
US Intervention in Kosovo
The US intervention in Kosovo took place within the broader context of the Kosovo War, which involved NATO forces. The objectives of the US and NATO in Kosovo were to stop the killing and achieve a lasting peace that would prevent further repression and provide democratic self-governance for the Kosovar people. Specifically, they aimed to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, preserve stability in Europe, and maintain NATO's credibility. The conflict in Kosovo had already resulted in a significant number of displaced people, with estimates suggesting that up to 30,000 Kosovars had been forced from their homes since the adjournment of the Paris talks in March 1999.
The intervention in Kosovo was supported by various countries, including Jordan, Japan, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, and Albania. However, it was criticised by some, such as China, which accused the US of using the conflict to expand its influence and interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
Understanding the PDI Number: A Diplomatic Identification Code
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Clinton administration's 1994 negotiations with North Korea
The Clinton administration's negotiations with North Korea in 1994 centred on the threat posed by North Korea's nuclear program. North Korea, a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, refused to allow international inspectors to review two nuclear waste sites in 1994, amid suspicions that it was reprocessing spent fuel into plutonium for manufacturing nuclear weapons.
The Clinton administration's approach to North Korea involved a combination of diplomatic efforts and the threat of military force, which can be characterised as coercive diplomacy. Clinton considered a military strike on the Yongbyon nuclear reactor but was advised that a potential war could result in significant casualties. Instead, the Clinton administration pursued diplomacy, with US representative Robert Gallucci reaching the "Agreed Framework" with North Korea, freezing activity at the Yongbyon nuclear complex from 1994 to 2002. This agreement kept the site under international inspection and maintained peace in the region.
However, North Korea broke off from the treaty in 2002, restarting plutonium production and testing its first nuclear weapon in 2006. This prompted negotiations involving the US, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Russia, and China, leading to a temporary closure of North Korea's nuclear station. While the Clinton administration's coercive diplomacy initially succeeded in freezing North Korea's nuclear activities, it ultimately failed to prevent the country from developing nuclear weapons.
The Clinton administration's negotiations with North Korea also included efforts to improve relations and address trade issues. In 1996, Clinton met with Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto in Tokyo, agreeing to return one of the controversial military bases on Okinawa. In 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met with Kim Jong Il, reporting that he seemed ready for a deal on missiles and nuclear disarmament. However, progress was hindered by Clinton's focus on other issues, such as mediating Israeli-Palestinian differences.
Managing Money for Political Campaign Success
You may want to see also
US intelligence services and the politicization of COVID-19 origins
The US has a long history of coercive diplomacy, which involves the use of threats or limited force to coerce adversaries to stop or reverse their actions. Since the 1950s, US policymakers have increasingly turned to coercive diplomacy as a tool to achieve their foreign policy goals. While some argue that coercive diplomacy is difficult to sustain and often fails to meet its objectives, others maintain that it is a powerful instrument in the US foreign policy toolbox.
US intelligence services have been accused of politicizing the origins of COVID-19, disregarding the "Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019" and issuing their own assessment. This has been criticized as an attempt to manipulate the narrative and shift blame, rather than focusing on global cooperation to combat the pandemic. The US has been accused of using intelligence-led origins tracing, which is seen as proof of politicization. This has been met with opposition from various countries, political parties, civil organizations, and think tanks who support a science-based approach to origins tracing.
The US has been urged to stop scapegoating and instead direct its efforts towards domestic and global cooperation in fighting COVID-19. This includes creating enabling conditions for scientists worldwide to conduct origins-tracing cooperation. Additionally, the US has been criticized for attacking and smearing China, and there have been calls for the US to respond to the legitimate concerns of the international community and open up its biological labs for inspection.
The politicization of COVID-19 origins by the US has been described as a disregard for international justice, undermining global cooperation, and potentially costing more lives. It remains to be seen whether the US will shift its approach and prioritize global collaboration over political manipulation in addressing the pandemic.
Moral Diplomacy: Wilson's Vision for a Post-War World Order
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The concept of coercive diplomacy was first put forward by Stanford University professor Alexander George in 1971, to summarise the policies of the US on Laos, Cuba, and Vietnam.
Developing countries have been the "worst-hit areas" of America's coercive diplomacy, with Cuba facing a 61-year-old embargo that has brought about enormous economic losses and humanitarian disasters. Other countries impacted include Serbia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Laos, and Vietnam.
The US has demonstrated coercive diplomacy through economic sanctions, technical blockades, political isolation, and the threat of force. For example, the US imposed sanctions on an Indian company for the first time in 2022, for engaging in oil trade with Iran.
