The United States' recent record of coercive diplomacy is not 
encouraging. A combination of sanctions, inspections, and threats led 
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to freeze his weapons of mass destruction
 program after the Gulf War, but it did not coerce him into accepting a 
long-term agreement. The reasons, as researchers have learned since 
Saddam's ouster, had to do with his motives and perceptions. The Iraqi 
leader not only sought regional dominance and the destruction of Israel 
but also worried about appearing weak to Iran, saw his survival in the 
wake of the Gulf War as a victory, and was so suspicious of the United 
States that a real rapprochement was never within reach. All this 
rendered ineffective the threats issued by the George W. Bush 
administration during the run-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and 
would likely have made promises of a reasonable settlement ineffective 
as well.The Iraq case, moreover, is less an exception than the norm. Coercive diplomacy has worked on a few occasions, such as in 2003, when the Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi chose to stop developing weapons of mass destruction partly as a result of pressure and reassurances from the United States. More often than not, however, in recent decades the United States has failed at coercive diplomacy even though it has had overwhelming power and has made it clear that it will use force if necessary. A succession of relatively weak adversaries, including Panama (1989), Iraq (1990 and 2003), Serbia (1998), and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (2001), did not respond to American attempts at pressure, leading Washington to fall back repeatedly on direct military action. Coercive diplomacy did convince the military junta that ruled Haiti to step down in 1994, but only once it was clear that U.S. warplanes were already in the air. And today, Iran is hardly alone in its defiance: despite issuing many threats and promises, the United States has been unable to persuade North Korea to relinquish its nuclear arsenal or even refrain from sharing its nuclear expertise with other countries (as it apparently did with Syria).
No comments:
Post a Comment