Recently the US president, Donald Trump, has talked tough about North Korea….actually it more in the line of threats instead of talk……then after a couple of months of threats Trump went public and said that he is willing to talk with North Korea even went so far as to compliment the leader of People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK…..this was a type of diplomacy known as “Coercive Diplomacy”.
Coercive diplomacy is the diplomacy of threats. Rather than relying on negotiation, diplomats will sometimes threaten adverse consequences if a demand is not met. Sometimes this works; at other times, it does not. Factors that influence the success of coercive diplomacy are similar to the factors that influence the success of other types of threats: the threat must be credible, the adverse consequence must be severe enough that the potential recipient really wants to avoid that outcome, and the demand must be clear and possible to meet. Even when these factors are present however, coercive diplomacy is risky. As with other threats, it tends further damage relationships and lead to a potential backlash against the threat and/or the threatening country later on. Backlash can, at times, be limited if the threat is combined with more integrative or exchange-based approaches. If rewards for compliance are offered in addition to the threat for non-compliance, the chances of success may be greater; also if the threat is seen to be legitimate, the chances of success may also rise.
Trump is using this “type” of diplomacy….since there is no experienced diplomats left in his State Department….this is his only option……but a total farce as written in The American Conservative……
With his recent “my (nuclear) button is bigger than yours” taunt, Donald Trump’s rhetoric has fully descended into school yard braggadocio, with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un as a convenient foil. But his administration’s overwhelming reliance on military and economic pressure rather than on negotiations to influence North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ICBM programs is hardly new. It is merely a continuation of a well-established tradition of carrying out what the national security elite call “coercive diplomacy”.
This is NO way to carry out diplomatic missions…..but it is all that we have…..”A bully in the pulpit”.