OPINION Vol.1, No.1 June 2013 - National Defence University

proportionate validity of any threats and the ‘stick’ must not be overplayed because it is unlikely to get
international support or be credible. Lastly, it will be more about ensuring stability than risking instability.
LESSONS LEARNT AND WAY FORWARD
Coercive statecraft has a long history, although geographically non-contiguous countries could live
in isolation and function in a “business as usual” environment. However, due to globalization, the world is
a smaller place. Although wars are still being fought, the frequency has dropped, giving rise to coercion as
a preferred statecraft option.
Coercive statecraft is viewed as more effective in asymmetric situations; conventional diplomacy
works better amongst equals. But as an indispensable component of contemporary security, coercion
merits thorough study, although it is not sufficiently consistent to be captured by theories. Thus, it should
be handled carefully and used within a larger toolkit. The case studies indicate that coercive statecraft is
more of an art than a science.
Coercive statecraft also emphasizes the intangibles of a state’s Elements of National Power. Most
studies agree that success in coercion depends largely on the coerced side, in particular its motivation to
challenge and willingness to take risks. The coercer, especially in deterrence, cannot control the situation
unless the coerced side has a low motivation to challenge.
In order to obviate the chances of aggravating further the relationship among states, it is
recommended that coercion is implemented with positive tools such as conflict resolution or some
incentives such as financial help.
Strategic coercion is about the challenger deciding on his terms for using the threat of force or the
use of force. Nuclear weapons are neither entirely irrelevant, but nor do they dominate. Likewise, military
superiority is not the only key and military balance is often unimportant. Thus decision-making models are
central to coercion.
Deterrence, though sometimes overly emphasized, is not always effective in application. On the
contrary, “general coercion” with its long-term impact is not studied enough, although it is far more
effective.
If a nation is united and motivated to defend its legitimate national interests and ready to bear any
cost for pursuing its own goals and objectives, it will have a large capacity to resist coercion.
National decision makers need to accurately assess the art of the possible, both as coercer and as a
potential coercion target. States with fully functioning institutions and diplomats, effective intelligence
services and think tanks, that can coordinate objective, tailored and multi-layered analyses of regional and
global politics, tend to provide such assessments.
There is less chance of employing successful coercion against nations with geostrategic
importance or who remain aligned and relevant to great powers. Whenever Pakistan comes under coercive
pressure, factors that always emerge are its close relationship with Great Powers and its geostrategic
position.
At the first sign of coercion, coerced states have to take difficult decisions about their response.
Democratic institutions that constantly take stock of changing global and regional environments respond
better to emerging challenges.
A state vulnerable to coercion cannot passively observe events. They should anticipate worldwide
developments and proactively influence situations that directly affect their interests. Dynamic,
constructive, pragmatic, flexible and proactive diplomacy can avoid or reduce the chances of being
coerced.
The role of national leadership during difficult times cannot be underestimated. Leaders with
charismatic qualities like vision, character and articulation, sensitivity to national interests, courageous risk
taking and unconventional behaviour, can make the nation stand behind him while taking difficult but
correct decisions. States with such leadership find themselves in less difficult situations or cruise through
hard times more smoothly.
Under the present global information and media revolution, the environment is shaped more by
international actors who influence states and masses through narratives, which are becoming a key
coercive statecraft tool. States having the vision to strategize narratives that justify their actions against
OPINION Vol.1 No.1 30 June 2013