Coercive Diplomacy Research Articles

Arctic cooperation with Russia: at what price?

Abstract After February 2022, it seemed that a breakdown of political, economic and scientific cooperation in the Arctic would be one of the many examples of collateral damage from Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. Two years on from the invasion, however, the Arctic 7 (the United States, Canada and the Nordic countries) have renewed their engagement with Russia on polar issues. The Arctic Council has emerged as the exceptional case of a regional body in which Russia and NATO nations continue to collaborate, albeit at a more limited level through the working groups. This article examines the dilemmas facing the Arctic 7 as they seek to balance a values-based policy and strong stance against Russia in solidarity with Ukraine, with a desire to ensure the continuing survival of the Arctic Council and its primacy in regional governance. We argue that Russia has sought to weaponize the Council—withholding vital climate data and threatening to bring China further into regional politics—as part of a wider strategy of coercive diplomacy and hybrid threats in the Arctic. The Arctic 7 should recognize that they ultimately stand to lose more from giving into Russian tactics than from freezing Moscow out of the Arctic Council while the war in Ukraine continues.

Negotiation Strategies in International Diplomatic Conflicts in United States

Purpose: The aim of the study was to analyze negotiation strategies in international diplomatic conflicts in United States. Methodology: This study adopted a desk methodology. A desk study research design is commonly known as secondary data collection. This is basically collecting data from existing resources preferably because of its low cost advantage as compared to a field research. Our current study looked into already published studies and reports as the data was easily accessed through online journals and libraries. Findings: Findings on negotiation strategies in U.S. diplomatic conflicts highlight the use of coercive diplomacy, economic sanctions, and multilateral negotiations. These strategies involve bilateral talks, international organizations, and third-party mediation. Leverage, including military power and economic incentives, is employed to advance U.S. interests. Challenges arise from divergent interests and power dynamics. Success requires a balanced approach of assertiveness and flexibility. Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: Game theory, constructivism & distributive and integrative bargaining may be used to anchor future studies on the negotiation strategies in international diplomatic conflicts in United States. Provide negotiators with training and resources to enhance their cross-cultural competence, including understanding cultural values, communication styles, and negotiation norms. Invest in the development of mediation and third-party intervention mechanisms to facilitate diplomatic negotiations in international conflicts.

Coercive Diplomacy, Military Strategy and Foreign Policy Projections

In foreign policy projections, leaders consider options and make decision based principally on their strategic situation and evaluation of relative power. The means and methods open to states may include strategic planning which implies states decisions to employ armed forces impressively in their pursuit of national goals by exerting influence and making concealed inputs on the output of other states policies, all aimed at convincing the target state of one’s political resolve and military capabilities. States without these capabilities are therefore in a dilemma. The aim of this paper is to place the relationship between coercive diplomacy, military strategy and foreign policy projections. The paper adopted the survey research design. The instrument for data collection was structured questionnaire while the simple linear regression analysis was used to examine the extent of the relationship that exist between the variables. The two hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance. Findings revealed that there is a significant relationship between the two independent variables of coercive diplomacy & military strategy and foreign policy projections, and that the possession of particular military technologies and weapons’ systems influences the relative state with which a state can support its foreign policy projections. The paper therefore recommends that for any state to become an active and credible international actor, able to shape its close environment and contribute to global peace and security, it must develop the military capabilities and political will to back up its foreign policy by force when necessary.

STRATEGIC TRANSFORMATIONS: INDIA'S PURSUIT OF COUNTERFORCE TARGETING AND REGIONAL STABILITY

In the intricate web of South Asia's security dynamics, India and Pakistan's relationship holds the key to equilibrium. Geographical proximity demands swift responses, prompting India's strategic shift towards Counterforce targeting. Official declarations and military posturing attest to India's resolute commitment to recalibrate its deterrence doctrine. This study critically examines the origins of India's Counterforce targeting strategy, drawing from existing literature and employing theoretical frameworks, including posture optimization, escalation ladder, superiority-brinkmanship, mathematical game theory, rational choice theory, and nuclear deterrence. These models collectively contribute to understanding the implications of India's pursuit of nuclear superiority for coercive diplomacy with Pakistan. Beyond enriching the understanding of South Asia's security, this research unravels the interplay between evolving nuclear strategies, the fluid dynamics of deterrence, and nuanced geopolitical ambitions. By deciphering India's counterforce targeting approach, this study fosters a nuanced discourse on South Asian strategic stability, offering insight into the pivotal role of nuclear deterrence in shaping the region. Bibliography Entry Ashraf, Mubeen and Syed Saif ul Haq. 2023. "Strategic Transformations: India's Pursuit of Counterforce Targeting and Regional Stability." Margalla Papers 27 (2): 14-26.

British Coercive Diplomacy Under Prime Minister Boris Johnson to Russia as an Effort to Resolve the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Russia's military attack on the legal territory of Ukraine is considered to be a serious threat to the national interests of the countries on the European continent. Prior to the military attack which Russia calls a “Special Military Operation” starting on February 24, 2022, various efforts to resolve the conflict have been taken by Europe, the United Nations, and other international relations actors. Britain is one of the countries that is actively pursuing diplomacy to stop Russia's actions, which the West calls an illegal invasion. In carrying out its foreign policy, the UK practices Coercive Diplomacy, namely diplomacy with pressure on Russia. This was marked by an ultimatum accompanied by economic, political and military sanctions against Russia. This study uses a qualitative research method based on secondary data from various credible sources and the conceptual theory put forward by Alexander L. George (1971) as the first initiator of the Concept of Coercive Diplomacy. Therefore, this research raises the research question How does Britain apply British Coercive Diplomacy towards Russia as a Conflict Resolution effort?” and will be answered using the characteristics given by Alexander L. George in the concept of Limited Power in Coercive Diplomacy.

Iran’s Ballistic Missile Program: From Coercive Diplomacy to Missile Diplomacy

Iran’s ballistic missile program can be considered an integral part of its nuclear strategy, because ballistic missiles are capable of carrying multiple warheads. This is why the Iranian missile issue is considered one of the most prominent international issues that can destabilize the region and the world. Consequently, the international community, led by the US, has been trying to reduce this risk since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) through a policy of coercive diplomacy. This paper is an attempt to assess the level of effectiveness of coercive diplomacy in resolving the Iranian missile case from the signing of the JCPOA deal in July 2015 until July 2023. It indicates that the policy has not been highly successful in achieving its aims, and Iran has continued its efforts to increase its missile capabilities, pursuing missile diplomacy in order to achieve its regional and international goals. This study employs a qualitative methodology. The findings highlight that coercive diplomacy fails to compel Iran to abandon its missile program and, instead, incentivizes Iran to further develop its missile capabilities.

Improved conceptualising of hybrid interference below the threshold of armed conflict

ABSTRACT European policymakers have identified the need to understand influence operations on social media, cyber-attacks or hidden economic investments – activities that can be characterised as hybrid threats or hybrid warfare. Yet, the difference between hybrid threats and hybrid warfare is unclear. In 2019, Mikael Wigell therefore coined the term “hybrid interference” to clarify the distinction between “hybrid warfare” and “hybrid threats”. However, less attention has been given to the activities hybrid interference may consist of. To address this gap we have used a morphological analysis, which is a structured tool for analysis that addresses all aspects of a concept. Through this method, we propose categories that make more sense of the complex phenomenon of hybrid interference. These five categories are international politics, coercive diplomacy, priming, covert coercion, and sabotage and assassinations. This article also identifies problems with referring to activities in the category of international politics as hybrid interference activities. The result is novel because we place all combinations of tools and methods within the concept of hybrid interferences in one of the five above-mentioned categories, and as such have provided a detailed operationalising of the concept in a transparent manner.

Rethinking Gore-War: Counterfactuals and the 2003 Iraq War

ABSTRACT This paper offers a constructivist critique of Frank Harvey’s ‘Gore-War’ counterfactual, in which he argues that the hypothetical President Al Gore also would have gone to war with Iraq. Harvey overlooks how the George W. Bush administration shaped the structural context in which it acted in ways that made war increasingly likely. I trace two key phases in the road to war in which this dynamic occurred: 1. The half-year after 9/11 in which Bush established Iraq as the centerpiece of his response to terrorism. 2. The period from fall 2002 to early 2003 in which Bush pursued the strategy of ‘coercive diplomacy’ in a manner that all but predetermined the failure of inspections. Using historical evidence about the views of Gore, his likely advisors, and the Democratic policy establishment, I argue for the plausibility of the ‘Gore-Peace’ counterfactual in which President Gore shaped the context of decision-making on Iraq differently than Bush, prioritized Iraq less, and thereby avoided generating pressure or momentum for war. I conclude with reflections on this argument’s implications for counterfactual methodology, historiography, and policy.

The Cold War Computer Arms Race

The Cold War computer arms race illustrates the military’s role in strategic competition. The Soviets bought and stole, versus creating computer technology themselves. A U.S.-led coalition integrated economic, diplomatic, and information mechanisms, embargoing computer technology to disadvantage the Soviets. President Ronald W. Reagan’s offset strategy integrated military power, openly demonstrating computer-infused weapons lethality that jeopardized Soviet quantitative military advantage. President Reagan’s use of the computer arms race shows a way to conduct and integrate a strategic competition campaign of deterrence that includes coercive diplomacy with diplomatic efforts that can deter China and Russia while encouraging them to reverse harmful foreign and domestic policies.

Hezbollah's Coercion And the Israel‐Lebanon Maritime Deal

AbstractIn late 2022, Israel and Lebanon signed a US‐brokered maritime agreement establishing their permanent maritime boundary and exclusive economic zones, and regulating their rights to gas exploration in the eastern Mediterranean. Preceding the agreement was a sustained coercive‐diplomacy campaign by Hezbollah. Between June and October, the organization conveyed overt and covert threats, and it pursued actions that were unprecedented in the Israel‐Hezbollah conflict: openly threatening to target Israel's entire gas production and risk all‐out war if Israel proceeded with its plan to unilaterally extract gas from the contested Karish gas field. A textbook case of coercive diplomacy, Hezbollah's maneuver was calculated and deliberate, which reflects the group's strategic expertise. Drawing on open‐source materials and public statements in Arabic and Hebrew, this article analyzes Hezbollah's coercive‐diplomacy campaign and examines its implications for escalation scenarios between Israel and its central military opponent.

Taming the Nuclear Elephant: The US Indo-Pacific Strategy on North Korea

Assessing its coercive diplomacy in retrospect, the United States should deal with the North Korean nuclear issue with a more sophisticated combination of coercive measures and positive inducements to overcome past failures. Simultaneously, based on an analysis of current challenges and opportunities, the United States should consider this nuclear agenda within its Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) with a long-term regional vision. The active engagement of the United States in the North Korean nuclear issue can create opportunities for cooperation with China or provide the United States with the strategic means to influence China. In addition, the US–ROK alliance and US–ROK–Japan trilateral cooperation could be a driving force in resolving the nuclear agenda of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and support the IPS of the United States. Ultimately, the linkage between the US' coercive approach to the DPRK and its IPS could help prevent regional tension and the possible demise of the international nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime, which is threatened by North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

‘Stand up like a Taiwanese!’: PRC coercion and public preferences for resistance

AbstractTaiwan's opposition to PRC demands such as acceptance of the ‘92 Consensus’ and ‘One Country, Two Systems’ formula since 2016 has invited a series of retaliatory measures from Beijing, designed to coerce Taiwan into compliance. Given the stark asymmetry in economic size, military capability, and diplomatic status, Taiwan provides a case for studying coercive diplomacy that takes the form of threats to punish. Material differences suggest that Taiwan should capitulate, and ‘cheap talk’ theses expect PRC threats to have no discernible effect, while balance of threat arguments expect resolve. In this article, we use the survey data collected in the 2016, 2019, and 2020 rounds of the Taiwan National Security Study to examine how Taiwanese respond to China's intensifying and expanding threats. Our paper identifies four strategies that the public sees as responses to PRC coercion: isolation, bandwagon with China, balance against China by allying with the USA and Japan, and hedge by deepening economic ties with China while aligning with the USA and Japan against China. We show that the popular support for balancing against China rises as PRC coercion grows and Taiwanese citizens increasingly perceive China to be a threat. Our findings imply that citizens in a liberal democracy can develop the will to pushback against pressure from an authoritarian regime despite sharp asymmetries in capabilities and material limitations.

“Дипломатия принуждения” как инструмент влияния ЕС на мирный процесс: приднестровский казус

“Coercive diplomacy” is often described as a protective and non-offensive political and diplomatic tool, an alternative to military action based on the threat of force instead of its use. The article shows how “coercive diplomacy” has evolved nowadays, when it is applied in the form of sanctions and special economic regimes both as an incentive to action and as a requirement to change policies. The emphasis is placed on the role of trade policy in the context of settlement of a protracted conflict. The experience of using trade and economic instruments by the European Union within the framework of the “carrot and stick” strategy is analyzed on the example of stimulating the reorientation of Transdniestrian producers from the Russian to the European market and then involving this unrecognized de facto state in the regime of the deep comprehensive free trade area (DCFTA) of the EU in order to influence the peace process and the reintegration of the Republic of Moldova. The author concludes that trade instruments allow the EU not only to keep the Transdniestrian elites in its zone of influence, but also to balance Russian presence in this region. The article has been prepared on the basis of an extensive number of sources, including statements of participants in the processes described in the article, as well as the recorded results of the author’s working meetings, for a number of years directly involved in the negotiation process on the Transdniestrian settlement in the “5+2” format and negotiations with the leadership of the EU Trade Department on the implementation of certain aspects of the DCFTA regime in Transdniestria.

The weaponization of private corporate infrastructure: Internet fragmentation and coercive diplomacy in the 21st century

In the early 1990s, US leaders promoted the internet as post-nation “global information infrastructure.” However, throughout the 2000s, critical internet infrastructure became centralized under the tight control of a handful of US-based multinational companies. This paper examines the US government’s willingness to leverage its regulatory control over privately run critical infrastructure to exercise massive internet surveillance ( pulling information from sovereign states), massive influence campaigns ( pushing information into sovereign states), and, increasingly, to levy unilateral cyber-sanctions on other sovereign states ( cutting information flows through blockages and digital lock-outs). The US government is now asserting its territorial sovereignty over what it had presented as global infrastructure in order to advance its narrow national goals. I argue that the weaponization of corporate internet infrastructure by the US government marks a new era of internet governance and is one of the key drivers of what is often discussed as internet fragmentation in internet governance forums.

Political conflicts and modern methods of their resolution in the legal field: potential and limitations

The article is devoted to the consideration of modern methods used in the process of resolving political conflicts. The subject of the study is conflict as a political and legal phenomenon. The purpose of the article is to consider legal methods of resolving political conflicts as the most effective and civilized ways to achieve peace.The following scientific methods were used in the work: system, structural and network analysis, which allowed us to consider the totality of the main modern methods of resolving political conflicts, their potential and limitations. Psychological, philosophical, political and legal approaches were also applied in determining the category of "conflict" and its main characteristics.The study reveals the features of modern political conflicts, taking into account which the need to consciously approach the search and practical application of certain methods of their resolution is formed. It is emphasized that a special responsibility lies on the nuclear Powers, as well as on the leading world states and international organizations that create and maintain stability and unity of the global space of the modern world.As the results of this study, the most optimal, effective and rational methods of resolving political conflicts were noted as the most destructive and destructive types of confrontations. Their potential and limitations are highlighted. These methods are in demand in the plane of real conflict-prone realities and do not lose relevance in the modern world. Thus, such methods of resolving political conflicts as the game method, coercive diplomacy, civilizational approach, socio-cultural integration, structural functionalism and the network method were identified and analyzed. Also, legal methods were considered separately, which, according to the results of the study, were recognized as the most fair and consistent for a number of reasons. Among them, negotiations, mediation, arbitration (arbitration), the method of institutionalization of political conflict, political mediation and judicial proceedings are considered. The appeal to legal methods of resolving political conflicts becomes particularly relevant during the wartime period, when the threat of the use of nuclear weapons increases and war crimes are committed.According to the results of the study, it was concluded that legal methods of resolving political conflicts are the most effective and civilized among others. They are structured, clearly formulated in the form of regulatory legal acts, some of them can be implemented in the form of procedures with mandatory execution of the decision, are politically neutral, are carried out with the support of professionals and based on previous constructive experience.

Security in the Asia-Pacific and signaling at sea

Abstract How do states signal resolve and conduct coercive diplomacy differently on land and at sea? This question has important implications for security in the Asia-Pacific, which is predominantly a maritime region. While the field of International Relations has been criticized for exhibiting a Cold War and European bias, this article is based on the observation that the field may suffer from continentalism: a reliance on land-based issues and ideas. We thus examine the potential for incorporating the maritime domain more explicitly into IR to better address the challenges to security in the Asia-Pacific. Specifically, we consider how signaling restraint, costly signals of resolve, and engaging in limited conflicts to conduct violent coercive diplomacy differ on land and at sea. Our findings suggest that addressing the challenges to security in the Asia-Pacific can benefit from a deeper understanding of signaling, coercive diplomacy, and international relations in the maritime domain.

Coercive Diplomacy: Camp David 2000

July 2000 hosted the most significant talks at Camp David bringing the final status issues to the negotiating table. However, no deal was completed; moreover, since then, violence and instability have escalated in the region, with the arrival of President Donald Trump to the White House, the Palestinian/Israeli peace process had taken a dramatic shift mainly because of the decisions that the administration had adopted regarding the final status issues; and more specifically on Jerusalem and refugees, which were finalized with the so called Trump Peace to Prosperity Plan. This paper sheds light on the theory of Coercive Diplomacy and applies it into the Palestinian/Israeli negotiations taking the Camp David 2000 Peace talks as case study and then examining what was presented at those talks in relation to what is now being implemented by the current US administration which dared to translate previous threats into reality. Reviewing past literature and relying on a number of books and conducting interviews with prominent negotiators from the American, Palestinian and the Israeli sides who participated at those peace talks, the study tells the true story of Camp David, demonstrates Coercive Diplomacy in Practice as it illustrates how the third party mediators have strongly crossed their limits by abandoning their role as mediators and by wearing the hats of interveners, the paper also demonstrates how Trump’s arrangement to an extent considered what was discussed at Camp David.

Russia's power projection into Syria and its interactions with local states

Abstract By analysing Russia's engagements with Israel and Turkey in the Syrian theatre, this article sheds light on the kinds of interactions that may occur between an external great power and local states following the former's projection of power into the latter's region. The literature on power projection examines interactions between regional and extra-regional actors in the context of competition between great powers, thus overlooking interactions between great powers and non-great powers. Other literature, such as that on coercive diplomacy, does deal with this neglected issue, but it treats local states as the great power's target states. This, however, need not be the case, since great powers may engage local states while pursuing wholly different goals in a region. As this article illustrates, although Israel and Turkey have not been Russia's target states, Russia has frequently interacted with them to ensure that they refrain from acts harmful to its interests in Syria. Russia has succeeded in this endeavour, as local states have mostly complied with Russia's rules and restrictions while operating in Syria. When this was not the case, Russia introduced restrictive or punitive measures against Israel and Turkey, which enabled Moscow to keep the local environment conductive to its interests.

Diplomasi Koersif Amerika Serikat Terhadap Indonesia Melalui Embargo 1991-2005

This article aims to analyze the effectiveness of the coercive diplomacy carried out by the United States against Indonesia. These coercive diplomatic actions are in the form of embargoes, such as arms embargoes and IMET Ban. This study uses qualitative research methods using secondary data. The long duration of the IMET Ban and the arms embargo that occurred more than once made the United States' coercive diplomacy towards Indonesia look ineffective. Therefore, this study raises the research question "Why is the United States' coercive diplomacy towards Indonesia through the Arms Embargo and IMET Ban not effective?" and will be answered using the variables provided by Tom Sauer in the concept of the effectiveness of coercive diplomacy. Seeing the current conditions, if Indonesia buys military equipment from Russia, such as the Su-35, it will be subject to sanctions, so this research can conclude that the coercive diplomacy carried out by the United States against Indonesia is not effective.

The Japan Differential? China's Policy toward Japan during the Trump Era

executive summary: This article seeks to explain China's seemingly preferential treatment of Japan during the Trump administration in the U.S.—in comparison to its harsh, "wolf warrior" style of diplomacy toward other countries that challenged its core interests—by examining the perspective of the Chinese government and policy elites with regard to Japan. main argument In recent years, Japan has been spared China's diplomatic intimidation to a large degree because of its uniquely advantageous bargaining position vis-à-vis China, derived from its economic and technological strength as well as its crucial role in an emerging security network in the Indo-Pacific. Japan's importance to China's regional ambitions was only magnified during the Trump administration when China battled the headwinds of both domestic and international challenges. But China's softer attitude to Japan proved more of a short-term gesture than a genuine change of heart toward the country, and most Chinese elites have felt little need for China to make substantial compromises to address Japan's deep-seated security concerns or to resolve thorny bilateral disputes. This argument complements two other commonly mentioned factors to explain a "Japan differential" in China's foreign policy during the Trump years: Japan's artful diplomacy in balancing its interests between the U.S. and China, and China's need for Japan as a counterweight to hedge against the Trump administration. policy implications • Treating Japan and other countries differentially was consistent with the advice of some Chinese strategists for moderation and retrenchment at a time when China faced an increasingly antagonistic U.S. and global isolation amid the Covid-19 pandemic. These factors created a policy space for China to forge limited détente with countries like Japan that were deemed to be a secondary threat (compared to the U.S.). • Because China's conciliatory gestures to Japan were for tactical expediency, Sino-Japanese relations in the foreseeable future will likely continue the cyclical pattern of alternating between friction and friendship that has been present over the past decade. • The Japan case shows that, due to China's security and economic anxieties under the shadow of the U.S.-China strategic rivalry, countries that are probable targets of China's coercive diplomacy have a chance to improve their position if they can identify and acquire certain key leverage points vis-à-vis China, either on their own or through international coordination.