In the realm of international relations, the concept of coercion is deeply grounded in the context of anarchic international politics. In this setting, each state takes responsibility for its own security and economic well-being, and as a result, actively pursue their own national interests using all available elements of national power. Alexander Downes describes coercion as the “the art of manipulating costs and benefits to affect the behaviour of an state”. Coercion manipulates ones power to hurt and threaten a player to do something one has not done yet. For a nation the power it holds to hurt its adversaries is its power to bargain and the willingness to exploit that power is diplomacy – vicious diplomacy but diplomacy nonetheless. It was Alexander George who pioneered the concept of coercive diplomacy, in his view coercion in the diplomatic stage isn’t a direct use of force or an outright threat to one’s adversaries, it is a statecraft of series of adequately calculated approaches of deterrence and compellence that result in the coercing state’s victory. It requires a credible threat backed by the demonstration of capabilities in order for the adversary to concede. Coercion places the outcome in the hands of the state being coerced, meaning how well the state is taking coercion, is the state resisting it and how well is the state resisting it. In simpler words, the victory of the coercive state lies in the hands of the state being coerced and how well the power to hurt operates in exploiting other’s fears and needs.
Coercive diplomacy has been in play ever since the Cold War era, and has pragmatically evolved in the recent decades. Coercive states adopt many tactics for coercion which include: aid and trade embargoes, economic sanctions, scaling down of diplomatic ties, arm embargoes, political coercion, and cultural infiltration.
One of the prudent adopters of Coercive Diplomacy is the United States of America. Coercive practices have been a key part of its foreign policy play book as a superpower to promote its interests abroad and protect its national agenda. For decades it has undoubtedly been involved in employing coercive diplomatic practices to maintain its global influence, from the 1962 Cuban embargo to the recent blockade against the Chinese semiconductor industry in 2022. The US since long has preyed on the “weaker states” and used its status as a superpower to diplomatically coerce periphery nations as well as its allies into advancing its own nationalistic agenda. The application of containment and suppression strategies in political, economic, military, cultural, and various other domains has been a prevalent method of conducting coercive diplomacy on a global scale, primarily driven by self-interest.
One victim of such coercive practices is Pakistan. US and Pakistan have had a lopsided relationship since the latter’s inception in 1947, maintaining a drastic balance of highs and lows. Being the most allied ally at times to being the most sanctioned country, Pakistan has been at the receiving end of US coercion to this day. From the US, coercion takes the shape of a condition to be fulfilled by Pakistan, which is majorly backed by a threat of consequence. Post 9/11 era was evidently a time when Pakistan was a consistent target of coercive diplomacy by the US, especially when the US policy makers adopted a carrot and stick approach in dealing with South Asian nation. Pakistan’s acceptance to join the War on Terror in Afghanistan can be perceived as a product of strategic coercion by the US. Pakistan was presented with a hefty list of non-negotiable demands that had to be met if the nation did not want to be bombed back to the stone age, as General Musharraf claimed in his Memoir, In the Line of Fire. Moreover, the US pressurised Pakistan by withholding economic and security assistance it had promised, if Pakistan didn’t do more in its efforts – a term synonymous to coercive diplomacy, to counter the Taliban and the Haqqani network. In the context of conventional diplomatic interactions, countries participate in mutual agreements, concessions, and a basis of trust, all aimed at promoting bilateral relations. Nonetheless, in scenarios involving coercive diplomacy, characterised by stringent conditions, a more powerful nation takes on a commanding role, utilising phrases like ‘increase efforts,’ imposing requisites, and setting strict deadlines for compliance.
Failing to meet these requisites leads to predetermined repercussions. This approach to diplomacy departs from established norms and embraces the concept that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my ally. Significantly, the US, embracing this forceful position, has enlisted India’s participation to launch a coercive strategy directed at Pakistan. This deliberate manoeuvre relies on the expectation that New Delhi, acting as a counterbalance, possesses the potential to apply pressure on Islamabad, consequently aligning with the strategic objectives of the United States. In this the US also encouraged Afghanistan to build and strengthen its relationship with India in order to exert a three-pronged pressure by strategically coercing Pakistan from its two borders coupled with using hybrid war tactics, including digital and media warfare to sell the narrative blaming Pakistan for ‘supporting terrorists’. To this day the US manipulates the rivalry between India and Pakistan into coercing the nation to abide by US’s strategic interests. When Pakistan was put on the grey list of the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) in 2018, in response to its “strategic deficiencies” in anti-money laundering and terrorism financing regulatory practices; a move that Pakistan believes evidently came from India with the go ahead of the US.
The US-Pakistan relations can be termed nothing short of detrimental. The transactional relationship between two portray the lack of mutual strategic interests. The intricate relations between the US and Pakistan reveal a dynamic where financial aid often appears as the puppeteer’s strings, manipulating Pakistan into compliance within the region’s geopolitical stage. Not only does the US directly coerce Pakistan into meeting its terms through imposing sanctions or withholding security and economic aid as discussed during the period of the War on Terror, but it coerces Pakistan through channels of international financial institutions.
Pakistan has been at the door of IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank time and again, and the US leverages its voting power in these institutions to diplomatically compel Pakistan. Recently, in lieu of the CPEC investment in Pakistan, the US warned the IMF of issuing an additional bailout package to Pakistan, justifying it with the fear of Pakistan using the package to pay of Chinese debt. Changing South-Asian regional dynamics, with the rise of China’s influence, the US in fear of loosing its regional hegemony has continuously coerced Pakistan to keep the nation under its wing and away from the Chinese.
It was quite recently in 2022 when the relationship between US and Pakistan again took the spot light. With the ouster of former Premier – Imran Khan who outwardly declared the state of relations between the two nations as a “master-slave” relationship, the notion of US’s coercive practices was raised. The former PTI leader claimed to have been ousted on the orders directly from Washington in response to his visit to Moscow and his reluctance to allow establishment for US military bases. The statement even though came with no substantial proof did hold power as it indirectly portrayed the relationship Pakistan has with the US. The people of Pakistan were not late to jump on the bandwagon of blaming the US, because they have seen such practices being adopted by the US most notably in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Pakistan has been a continuous target of the US’s strategic diplomatic coercion, and its case shows the significance of coercive diplomacy in US foreign policy. With changing world dynamics, US interests abroad have also evolved, but the tactics to achieve them still remains the same. Coercive diplomacy has been in US foreign policy for decades and it will be for decades to come. Through economic sanctions, and cultural penetration, coercive diplomacy is US’s means to justify its end.
Research Intern
The Pakistan Institute of International Affairs
PIIA Library Blog 