Coercive Diplomacy Case Study

744 Words2 Pages

The concepts coercive diplomacy the India-Pakistan Context was, articulated with the superpower rivalry or situations involving a superpower and a minor power in mind.It couldnot be applied wholesale to the India-Pakistan context. The circumstances are quite different in the India-Pakistan context. The United States and the former Soviet Union did not share a common border and, more importantly, did not dispute territories that the other possessed. Their rivalry was more geopolitical in nature and the world at large was the stage on which it played itself out. As a result, they had greater freedom for manoeuvre and a more elaborate menu of options. Compromise was also easier given that the contest was invariably over third countries.Where a superpower confronted a weaker adversary, the menu of options available to the former was even larger. Relative strength was in favour of the superpower across the military-diplomatic spectrum. This, of course, did not always result in the successful exercise of coercive diplomacy, especially where motivation levels were skewed in favour of the weaker party. A good example is the U.S. failure to coerce North Vietnam into ceasing support for the Vietcong. But the point being emphasised here is the unequal nature of the contest and the weaker power's lack …show more content…

In contrast, India and Pakistan are not all that mismatched at the conventional level.
India and Pakistan not only share a common border but are also parties to a territorial dispute. Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir is tied to the contending conceptions of nationhood and identity articulated by the two countries. This enmeshing of national identity with national interest makes their.conflict that much more intense and limits the scope for compromise. The motivation levels of both parties are thus quite high and each perceives the conflict as a zero-sum

Open Document