Holding Fire: Coercive Diplomacy and Weapons of Mass Destruction

Abstract

Coercive diplomacy is frequently used as a tool to achieve foreign policy objectives, but is criticized as a beguiling, risk-laden, and often ineffective form of diplomacy. This study evaluates the extent to which coercive diplomacy can be used as an effective tool for weapons of mass destruction disarmament. Using a framework based on Alexander George’s and William Simon’s abstract model of coercive diplomacy, it analyzes three case studies where coercive diplomacy was employed for WMD disarmament: Iraq (1979-2003), Libya (1980-2004), and Iran (2003-2015).

Each case is measured against ten strategic and contextual variables. Across the cases, striking patterns emerged, from which it was possible to draw policy implications and recommendations for the future application of coercive diplomacy.

Coercive diplomacy was most effective when:

1.Both coercer and adversary clearly communicated their objectives and intentions. 2.The strategic objective was singularly focused on the WMD issue and not regime change. 3.Sanctions were favored over force in the latter stages of diplomacy. 4.Mechanisms to improve the effectiveness of the provocation were used, including coalition building, a balance of positive inducements and punitive measures, and sound intelligence. 5.Coercive diplomacy was not employed in isolation, but alongside other forms of diplomacy like backchannel talks and traditional diplomacy. 6.Contextual factors (that are harder to control) aligned with the coercer’s interests and were exploited.

Because the nature of coercive diplomacy and WMD disarmament is inherently complex, each of the core policy recommendations is accompanied by several other more nuanced policy implications in the discussion chapter. It is important to be aware of these nuances in order to have a well-rounded understanding of the thesis.

The findings in this study have important implications for the future application of coercive diplomacy, especially current policy debates on WMD proliferation among states that threaten international security. This issue will remain pertinent over the coming decades.