Analyse the challenges of implementation coercive strategies

www.ukessayslondon.com coercive-diplomacyAnalyse the challenges of implementation coercive strategies

  • The power coercive strategy forces individuals to act and comply to enforced and imposed sanctions by authorities. Surprisingly coercive strategy has evident result of people to act their best when under pressure.

Analyse the challenges of implementation coercive strategies

  • Strategic coercion is an alternative that seeks to manipulate states’ behaviour through political and military means. It involves exerting pressure against an opponent in an attempt to compel his behaviour in accordance with the wishes of the coercing nation. This action implies that a lower level of force may be sufficient in achieving political ends in comparison to the force requirements for a traditional “victory.”

Analyse the challenges of implementation coercive strategies

  • A proposed military strategy must address these recurring problems associated with modern conflict. Military strategies based on strategic coercion appear to offer a solution to this quandary. They offer the means to compel an adversary to terminate a conflict, without incurring the cost and destruction associated with a brute-force strategy. They also seem particularly well suited to the asymmetric environment. Finally, it may be able to prevent the problem of long-term military involvement.

Analyse the challenges of implementation coercive strategies

  • Traditionally, coercion is broken down into deterrence and Deterrence involves attempts to prevent something from happening. Compellence involves the use of force to revise an action that has occurred. It is useful to make a distinction between coercive diplomacy and military coercion. The difference is the balance between diplomacy and compellence in efforts to coerce others. Coercive diplomacy calls for economic measures and military force to add weight to diplomatic activities. Deterrence is more important than the actual use of force.
Analyse the challenges of implementation coercive strategies
  • Four categories of interventions can be identified: Diplomatic interventions, aimed at isolating or punishing a regime. Sport and cultural boycotts make clear that certain behaviour cannot be tolerated. Economic interventions such as sanctions, blockades and embargoes. Armed forces can be used to implement economic sanctions. Purely military interventions to defend one’s interests. The threat to a country’s interests may occur through the spill over of a conflict in a neighbouring country or region, or may be the result of deliberate aggression. Third-party military interventions aimed at restoring international peace and security or promoting norms.

Analyse the challenges of implementation coercive strategies

  • In the changing geostrategic context of the early twenty-first century, as the world moved from War on Terror to Arab Spring, the language of intervention shifted in line with the politics of the moment, despite the fact that interventionist foreign policies remained worryingly static. Just as the ‘War on Terror’ was perceived to grant Blair and Bush right and reason to lecture states ‘harbouring’ terrorists, the Arab Spring was, once again, interpreted to afford political elites a platform to demarcate oppressed citizen from oppressive ruler. And, as before, this demarcation enabled western (coalition) military intervention in non-western states.
  • What changed was the manner in which such policies were justified for British and American publics. This article explores these shifts in justification, finding them to be driven by a consistent logic: a desire to win a ‘war of position’ at home. We argue that instrumental considerations, conditioned by the context of recent events and public perceptions of them, inspire the linguistic choices of political elites. The empirical evidence for this argument is found in British and American justifications for intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 and Libya in 2011. Uniquely, this article undertakes a discourse analysis of elite language in order to explore the ways in which secondary justifications for intervention have been emphasised in making the case for war. We argue that this emphasis can usefully be understood as an attempt to coerce and acquiesce potential domestic opponents, as elites strategically balance their rhetoric in order to win a war of position through the silencing of alternatives.

Analyse the challenges of implementation coercive strategies

  • It is clear that recent interventions have required much more than mere military campaigns. There have been criticisms of levels of engagement in the political sphere in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria too. It is also clear that there is no single formula for success but that understanding the local political and cultural context, as well as the nature of the situation on the ground, is absolutely essential.

Analyse the challenges of implementation coercive strategies

  • Many scholars have approached coercion theories from the aspect that one could target either a state’s expected costs or expected benefits. This self-imposed dichotomy overlooks the possibility that effective coercion may require that denial and risk be simultaneously manipulated. Perhaps denial and risk are self-compensating. For instance, a nation’s military strategy may be denied, but they might still resist coercion until core values are put at Alternatively, a coercer nation may put a target state’s core values at risk, but the state will not be coerced as long as they perceive their military strategy to be effective; this keeps alive the hope of countering the coercer’s threat. Therefore, a more promising means of coercion may be a Denial-Risk strategy that both denies expected benefits and increases expected costs by threatening higher order values (risk).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *