Diplomacy of Deterrence

The two terms 'Diplomacy' and 'Deterrence' are amazing in terms of survivability. These two concepts, given to us by ancient thinkers, have survived the evolution of mankind and remain relevant today. All ancient religions and the Abrahamic religions reflect the efficacy of these two concepts to manage the affairs of the state. The Creator sent Prophet Musa (Peace and Blessings Upon Him) to Pharaoh to convince him to give up tyranny and let the people of faith go with him. Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings Upon Him) sent his messengers to various Empires of the time with a message of peace before any campaign. As I always say, diplomacy and deterrence work 24/7; particularly, diplomacy never sleeps. However, in today's short article, I will highlight how Israel employs diplomacy only through deterrence. The US also does so, but not always; Israel does not believe in any form of diplomacy except that of deterrence and that too not by denial but by punishment. This world could be a far better and safer place if the stakeholders employ diplomacy and deterrence in their proper context instead of applying them on the shoulders of the other. I have written earlier also that the concept of deterrence in the domain of wars and conflict is as primitive as warfare itself. However, it needs to be understood before it is relied upon as a primary tool for the security of a state. In modern times, the concept and the definitions draw reference to the birth of nuclear weapons in 1945. Bernard Brodie was of the view that 'if aggressor feared retaliation in kind, he would not attack.' Explaining further, Brodie wrote, 'Thus far the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win wars. From now on its chief purpose must be to avert them.' However, Israelis do not believe in deterring the adversaries by merely creating fear in the hearts and minds of the opponents. They tear them apart if their opponents even look at them. Let me expand my argument. We should understand that the feeling of fear in any living being is a natural phenomenon. The fear could be due to the physical threat of losing life and property, or in the psychosocial domain, losing a job or status in society. The enemy can achieve its objective of creating fear in an individual (leadership), community (armed forces), or the people through various methods. For instance, a relatively stronger state can create fear among the leadership of a relatively weaker state through strategic communication containing threats of dire consequences in the wake of the failure to comply. The US President George W. Bush's statement that 'Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,' in the GWOT is an example of effective strategic communication. Likewise, similar warnings to President Musharraf of Pakistan for seeking support against the Taliban-led Afghan government proved very effective. We should understand that nations do not wage war without specific politico-military objectives, because war is a serious business in which both men and materials are faced with a high degree of probability of deaths and destruction. Therefore, it is extremely important to understand the motives behind a militarily strong state to attack and nearly annihilate a much weaker state to claim victory. Israel and, to some extent, the US follow the strategy of fear and terror. Trump's action in Venezuela was not without a purpose. It has created fear in any and every leader of the region and beyond that he/she can be taken away if he/she does not follow the diktat of the sole superpower. Likewise, Israel has taken out the leaderships of nearly all the resistance groups in the region so that it does not face any opposition for its illegal acts of Jewish settlements on the Palestinian lands and genocide of the Palestinian people. Unfortunately, Israel appears to pursue diplomacy only with states that have already submitted to it. Likewise, the US' diplomats too rely more heavily on the diplomacy of deterrence. 'With us and without us' is just one example of US diplomacy with countries which are important but dealt with differently. This world could be a far better and safer place if the stakeholders employ diplomacy and deterrence in their proper context instead of applying them on the shoulders of the other. Diplomacy to find solutions, and deterrence to avert war, as it was envisaged by the ancient thinkers and some contemporary thinkers too. The writer of this article has authored four international books: Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan, South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace, Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War, and Diplomacy and Deterrence. The writer of this article has authored four international books: Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan, South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace, Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War, and Diplomacy and Deterrence.