Subtle acts of manipulation in negotiations generally don’t go unnoticed but they can sometimes be hard to address publicly without one being portrayed as hostile.
Just as in diplomacy, coercive diplomacy makes for a strategic approach during behind-the-scenes negotiations and alliances. Coercive diplomacy is often seen in situations where manipulation is involved, especially in the context of gunboat diplomacy, where negotiations are influenced by the threat of force instead of relying solely on peaceful dialogue.
Gunboat diplomacy refers to the use of power, or the threat of military force, as a means of coercion in international relations, often during a diplomatic crisis or negotiation.
The term originates from the 19th century when powerful naval ships, referred to as “gunboats”, were used to intimidate or apply pressure on weaker states to force them to comply with certain demands, typically without the need for actual combat.
This form of diplomacy relies on the threat of using force, where a country uses its military power as leverage to influence decisions or to get what it wants.
Gunboat diplomacy can be seen as a form of coercive diplomacy, where negotiations are not just shaped by dialogue and persuasion, but also by the direct or indirect threat of military action.
Coercive diplomacy often takes place when traditional diplomatic methods, such as face-to-face meetings and the signing of treaties, fail or when one state seeks to impose its will upon another without resorting to war. This approach could include showing force in different ways against a disputed area, such as sending military planes into the airspace or blocking trade routes, which can send a clear message that not meeting demands might lead to stronger actions.
An example of gunboat diplomacy occurred when tensions between Namibia and Angola arose over maritime borders and offshore oil and gas rights. In 2015, Namibia increased its military presence near the disputed waters, signalling its claim to the area by conducting naval exercises and patrols. While Namibia maintained a peaceful, diplomatic stance, the display of naval strength was a form of gunboat diplomacy, pressuring Angola by suggesting that Namibia was ready to defend its territorial rights through force if necessary. This strategy served as a reminder of Namibia’s determination to protect its interests in the region.
Today, diplomacy takes place across many influential groups, not just governments. While states remain central, other powerful players include religious organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations, and even individuals like celebrities, philanthropists, or terrorists for instance. These different actors all contribute to shaping global relations.
Although the era of 19th-century gunboat diplomacy has passed, its core principles continue to shape today’s global politics in a more discreet way. Instead of warships threatening coastal nations, modern powers use tools like economic sanctions, cyber warfare, and the selective distribution or withholding of aid in order to apply pressure and influence other countries. Just like how the threat of naval force once coerced weaker countries into submission, the possibility of severe trade restrictions, frozen assets, or the release of sensitive information from cyberattacks can now force nations to make concessions when negotiating. In a world driven by technology and interconnected economies, these new methods of coercion are just as powerful as the gunboats of the past, allowing dominant powers to influence and shape global affairs without instigating excessive violence.
There is a thin line between intimidation and negotiation when it comes to this modern form of diplomacy.
Addressing manipulative diplomacy without seeming malevolent requires a delicate approach, much like an employee negotiating the implications of a project with an employer. For instance, an employer, who is eager to expedite a certain project, may begin to subtly undermine the employee’s opinions. They exaggerate their own understanding of the project’s challenges and belittle the employee’s expertise. The employer may also hint at career consequences and threaten job security. This manipulative behaviour creates a tense atmosphere, limiting productive collaboration and breeding resentment.
The employee, feeling intimidated and undervalued, may feel forced to submit to the employer’s demands, even at the cost of their well-being and the quality of their work. This scenario mirrors Gunboat Diplomacy, where a more powerful entity uses coercion and intimidation to achieve its desired outcome, disregarding the legitimate concerns and interests of the weaker party. Similarly, calling out coercive diplomacy requires timing, precision, and care, not simply reacting to every instance of manipulation with harsh words or accusations, which could escalate tensions.
Instead, it is about speaking up in a way that focuses on principles rather than power plays, using diplomacy to expose the manipulation while maintaining respect for the process. Just as a wise employee doesn’t rush to critique the employer, a skilled diplomat addresses manipulative tactics with calm diplomacy, understanding that sometimes the true strength lies in the subtlety of a well-timed and thoughtful response.