What is coercive diplomacy? Different people offer different definitions, but its essential meaning is simple: it is a diplomacy of force, or “muscles.” In other words, coercive diplomacy comes under the guise of conventional diplomatic practices, but relies on military or economic power to force another country to submit.
As the world’s only superpower, the United States frequently practices coercive diplomacy against any country at any time. The methods of coercion are varied and numerous. Even countries that maintain close relations with the United States sometimes become targets of this practice.
An illustrative example occurred on April 25, 2021, when the Danish newspaper The politics revealed that the US embassy in Denmark had contacted the newspaper demanding assurances that it did not use technical equipment – such as routers or modems – supplied by Chinese companies, including Huawei, ZTE, Hytera, Hikvision and Dahua Technology. Otherwise, the embassy may cancel your subscription. This shows that even a newspaper subscription can become an instrument of American coercive diplomacy.
In his second term, President Trump has increasingly integrated trade tariffs into coercive diplomacy. It uses them not only as tools of economic protection, but also as central instruments of this diplomacy, even against European countries.
Those that the United States has long classified as “enemies,” “adversaries,” or “competitors” have been recurring victims of its coercive diplomacy, with Cuba being one of the most emblematic examples.
In February 1962, the United States began a comprehensive economic blockade—officially called the trade embargo—against Cuba. These sanctions remain in force to this day, becoming the longest ever imposed by a great power against a weak country in the modern history of international relations, despite the fact that the United Nations General Assembly has approved numerous resolutions demanding their lifting.
Recently, in a surprising decision, the Supreme Court of Panama declared unconstitutional the concession granted to a Hong Kong-based company to operate strategic ports along the Panama Canal. This decision caused a strong shock in China and other countries with economic ties to Latin America. Previously, Panama had withdrawn its participation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative. There is no doubt that US coercive diplomacy is behind Panama’s actions.
Likewise, the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro constitutes not only an act of coercive diplomacy, but also a military invasion against a sovereign nation.
More recently, President Trump once again expressed his ambition to acquire Greenland, this time with a harsher and more coercive tone. As numerous commentators have noted, even though he has ruled out the direct use of military force, coercion without armed invasion continues to erode international law. So far, it is unclear whether his coercive diplomacy will succeed.
A comment from Daniel Larison, editor of the magazine The American Conservativeis particularly illuminating. He argues that the Trump administration’s coercive diplomacy is not diplomacy at all, but a succession of insults, sanctions, tariffs and threats that produce nothing but disruption and suffering. Associated Press journalist Matthew Lee calls it simply “coercive diplomacy.”
In clear contrast, China has proposed the construction of a community with a shared future for humanity. For this ideal to become a reality, the international community must eliminate coercive diplomacy.
Chinese culture upholds the principle that “one should not do to others what one does not wish for oneself.” China has never had a hegemonic gene or an expansionist impulse, nor has it ever coerced any country. In the face of external interference, China’s actions constitute legitimate and legal countermeasures aimed at safeguarding the nation’s legitimate interests and preserving international equity and justice. China has never gone to other countries’ doors to provoke conflict, never reached into someone else’s home, and certainly has never occupied a single inch of foreign territory.
The invention, patent and intellectual property rights of coercive diplomacy unquestionably belong to the United States, which openly engages in unilateral sanctions, extraterritorial jurisdiction and interference in the internal affairs of other countries. The American rhetoric of “engaging with other countries from a position of strength” or seeking “peace through strength” consists, in essence, of intimidating the weakest through military power.
Everything indicates that the planet we live on needs a community with a shared future for humanity, and not a coercive diplomacy imposed through the use of force.
Jiang Shixue. Senior Researcher at Charhar Institute (China)
Rebelión has published this article with the author’s permission through a Creative Commons license, respecting his freedom to publish it in other sources.
