COERCIVE AND NON-COERCIVE DIPLOMACY

ASSIGNMENT # 2…… SEMESTER FALL-2020

Submission date (NOVEMBER 30,2020)

BY

AYESHA IFTIKHAR

ROLL # 19010920-074

COURSE CODE: MGT-226

COURSE TITTLE

INTERNATIONA RELATION AND CURRENT AFFAIRS

SUBMITTED TO

MAM MARIUM SHABBIR

BBA 3rd SECTION B-

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

1
QUESTION

Write a detail note on coercive and non-coercive diplomacy?

COERCIVE DIPLOMACY

Coercive diplomacy or "forceful persuasion" is the "attempt to get a target, a state, a group (or
groups) within a state, or a nonstate actor-to change its unpleasant behavior through either the
threat to use force or the actual use of incomplete force". This term also refers to "diplomacy
presuming the use or threatened use of military force to attain political objectives".  Coercive
diplomacy "is essentially a diplomatic plan, one that relies on the threat of force rather than the
use of force. If force must be used to strengthen diplomatic efforts at persuading, it is employed
in an exemplary manner, in the form of quite limited military action, to demonstrate resolution
and willingness to escalate to high levels of military action if necessary".

Coercive diplomacy can be more clearly described as "a political-diplomatic strategy that aims to
influence an adversary's will or incentive structure. It is a policy that combines threats of force,
and, if necessary, the partial and selective use of force in distinct and controlled increments, in a
bargaining strategy that includes positive inducements. The aim is to induce an adversary to
fulfil with one's demands, or to negotiate the most favorable compromise possible, while
simultaneously managing the crisis to prevent unwanted military escalation.

Former Stanford University political professor, Alexander L. George, defined coercive

diplomacy as 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.” A successful example of coercive diplomacy is the 2018
U.S. missile strikes against the Syrian regime to compel them to stop chemical attacks on
civilians.
When employing coercive diplomacy, the coercing power must have a credible threat for non-
coercive.

OBJECTIVES OF COERCIVE DIPLOMACY

According to Alexander George, coercive diplomacy seeks to achieve three objectives.

 First, it attempts to persuade an adversary to turn away from its goal.

2
  Second, it seeks to convince an adversary to reverse an action already taken.
 Third, it may persuade an adversary to make "fundamental changes in its government".

When constructing a coercive diplomacy strategy, policymakers must consider certain variables
or "empty boxes" that must be filled. They must decide "what to demand of the opponent;
whether and how to create a sense of urgency for compliance with demand; whether and what
kind of punishment to threaten for noncompliance; and whether to rely solely on the threat of
punishment or also to offer conditional inducements of a positive character to secure acceptance
of the demand".

METHODS OF USIND CORCEIVE DIPLOMACY

Alexander George developed a framework in which a number of "variants" or methods of

using coercive diplomacy could be deployed to achieve these objectives. These variants include
the following:

1. Ultimatum
The first variant of the 'coercive diplomacy' strategy is the classic 'ultimatum'. An ultimatum
itself has three distinct components: "a demand on the opponent; a time limit or sense of
urgency for compliance with the demand; and a threat of punishment for noncompliance that
is both credible to the opponent and sufficiently potent to impress upon him that compliance
is preferable".
2. Tacit Ultimatum
The second variant of coercive diplomacy, ‘Tacit ultimatum’, is similar to 'ultimatum'
except that it doesn't set forth an explicit time limit.
3. Try-and-See
The third variant of coercive diplomacy, the 'Try-and-See', addresses strictly the first
component of the 'ultimatum' variant, "a demand on the opponent". There is no time limit set,
no sense of urgency conveyed, instead the coercer makes a single threat or takes a single
action "to persuade the opponent before threatening or taking another step".
4. Gradual Turning of the Screw
Finally, the 'Gradual Turning of the Screw' approach is similar to the 'Try-and-See' method in
that it makes a threat but then "relies the threat of a gradual, incremental increase of
coercive pressure rather than threatening large escalation to strong, decisive military action if
the opponent does not comply".

3
When using the coercive diplomacy strategy, it is important to understand that policymakers may
shift from one variant option to another depending on the success of each step taken.

CASE STUDIES

1. SUCCESS
President John F. Kennedy used coercive diplomacy successfully in 1962 when he was able
to bring about a peaceful resolution to the Cuban Missile Crisis and avert possible warfare
between the United States and the Soviet Union. When Kennedy learned of the Soviet
Union's attempt to deploy forty-two medium-range and twenty-four intermediate-range
ballistic missiles into Cuba, he established a naval blockade and threatened an invasion of
Cuba with force to remove the missiles already there. [5]
Instead of resorting to a strictly military strategy to forcibly remove the missiles, Kennedy
decided to use coercive diplomacy. He initiated this strategy by first using the 'Try-and-See'
approach. The giant naval blockade, along with a massive buildup of U.S. military forces,
was a message to Nikita Khrushchev to persuade him that the U.S. was able and willing to
use force if needed to remove this missile threat from Cuba. [13] The blockade limited the
showdown to Kennedy and Khrushchev rather than develop into all-out war. Because of
Kennedy's tough naval blockade, Khrushchev "directed all Soviet vessels carrying missiles
and other military equipment to Cuba to immediately turn back".[5]
To intensify the coercive diplomacy strategy, Kennedy shifted from the 'Try-and-See'
approach to a hybrid of a virtual 'ultimatum' and a carrot-and-the stick approach. [6] Kennedy
addressed the sense of urgency about the growing hostile situation by standing firm and
tightening the naval blockade as well as conveying to Khrushchev the continued threat of a
possible invasion of Cuba. As a result of Kennedy's successful use of coercive diplomacy
added to negotiated concessions, Khrushchev agreed to remove missiles in place and to
discontinue the deployment of new missiles into Cuba while the U.S. agreed to remove
its Jupiter missiles stationed in Turkey and to call off any invasion of Cuba.
2. FAILURE
During the 1990–91 Gulf War, coercive diplomacy failed to persuade Saddam Hussein to
exit Kuwait and move his military forces back to Iraq; though the use of deterrence effectively
convinced the Iraqi president that he could not invade further south into Saudi Arabia, it did
little to expel him from Kuwait.[5] Initially, the Bush administration along with the United
Nations issued sanctions to pressure Iraq to withdraw troops inside Kuwait. The UN Security
Council placed economic sanctions by imposing an embargo on Iraq's imports and exports.
This initial stage of the crisis was the United States' attempt to use the coercive diplomatic
variant, 'Gradual Turning of the Screw' to apply pressure on Saddam Hussein to comply to
the demands to leave Kuwait.[6]
Then the Bush administration, along with the UN Security Council, used the variant
'ultimatum' by setting a deadline of January 15, 1991, for the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from
Kuwait. When this deadline came and passed, without Saddam Hussein's compliance,
Operation Desert Storm commenced and military force was used to remove Iraq's forces
from Kuwait. Despite the massive build-up of U.S. forces along the Saudi Arabia/Kuwait
border, economic sanctions, and a declared deadline for withdrawal, Saddam Hussein failed
to remove his forces.[6] In this instance, coercive diplomacy failed, leading to the Gulf War,
which concluded with the United States and coalition forces succeeding in removing Saddam
Hussein's troops from Kuwait. Thus, when implementing coercive diplomacy not only the

4
benefits but also the aftermath must be considered. Especially in the 21st century, every
nation is interdependent so other forces by state actors may affect a nation's diplomacy.