Gunboat Diplomacy

The term dates back to the practice of the imperial powers of Europe in the 19th century to display naval might to establish new trade partners, colonial outposts, and expansions of empire. In a transferred sense, the term has come to encompass the diplomatic use of intimidation by the demonstration, threat, or use of military force generally, thus making it more or less synonymous with the term coercive diplomacy.

James Cable has defined gunboat diplomacy as “the use or threat of limited naval force, otherwise than as an act of war, in order to secure advantage, or to avert loss, either in the furtherance of an international dispute or else against foreign nationals within the territory of the jurisdiction of their own state” (1981, p. 14). Gunboat diplomacy did not end with the decline and fall of European colonial powers. During the cold war, the rivaling superpowers used their navies frequently for diplomatic purposes, and the contemporary use of U.S. military strength is often labeled gunboat diplomacy by critics.

Naval forces have proved particularly useful for diplomatic purposes. They permit accessibility, freedom of action, and an open line of retreat from impending collision; capable of conspicuous presence and withdrawal, they offer readily perceived and understood signaling instruments, and they do not depend on bases in the interior of other states' territory. In the 20th century, aircraft carriers became the most often used means of power projection.

Gunboat diplomacy, in the narrow sense, is therefore the most frequently used variety of shows of force or coercive diplomacy. It can be subdivided into four categories: definitive force, designed to create a fait accompli; purposeful force, designed to change the policy of a foreign government; catalytic force, designed to use force to deal with an unforeseen or unspecified threat; and expressive force, designed to express attitudes, underscore policy statements, and provide an emotional outlet.

The fundamental controversy surrounding gunboat diplomacy concerns its legitimacy and utility. With its historically bellicose connotations, the term is frequently used in a deprecating way. Yet studies of the occurrences of gunboat diplomacy in the 20th century indicate that it has been an effective instrument. The result of one study of 133 incidents of gunboat diplomacy between 1956 and 1978 indicate that it has been most effective when involved a definitive, deterrent display of force undertaken by an assailant who had engaged in war in the victim's region and who was militarily prepared and politically stable compared with the victim.