DOCSLIB.ORG

Gunboat Diplomacy, 1919-1991

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gunboat Diplomacy, 1919-1991 GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY, 1919-1991 Published by Macmillan in association with the International Institute for Strategic Studies STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL SECURI'IY 18 NATIONS IN ARMS: The Theory and Practice of Territorial Defence Adam Roberts 20 THE EVOLUTION OF NUCLEAR STRATEGY (second edition) Lawrence Freedman 23 THE SOVIET UNION: The Incomplete Superpower Paul Dibb 24 ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE AND SUPERPOWER STRATEGIC STABILITY Donald C. Daniel 25 HEDLEY BULL ON ARMS CONTROL Hedley Bull 26 EUROPE IN THE WESTERN ALLIANCE: Towards a European Defence Entity? Jonathan Alford and Kenneth Hunt 28 THE DEFENCE OF WHITE POWER: South African Foreign Policy under Pressure Robert ScottJaster 29 PEACEKEEPING IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS Alan James 30 STRATEGIC DEFENCE DEPLOYMENT OPTIONS: Criteria and Evaluation Ivo H. Daalder AN INTRODUCTION TO STRATEGIC STUDIES: Military Technology and International Relations Barry Buzan MILITARY POWER IN EUROPE: Essays in Memory of Jonathan Alford Lawrence Freedman (editor) EUROl1f'.AN SECURITY AND FRANCE Franc;ois de Rose Series Standing Order If you would like to receive future titles in this series as they arc published, you can make usc of our standing order facility. To place a standing order please contact your bookseller or, in case of difficulty, write to us at the address below with your name and address and the name of the series. Please state with which title you wish to begin your standing order. (If you live outside the UK we may not have the rights for your area, in which case we will forward your order to the publisher concerned.) Standing Order ScJvicc, Macmillan Distribution Ltd, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, RG21 2XS, England Gunboat Diplomacy 1919-1991 Political Applications of Limited Naval Force Third Edition James Cable Foreword by Admiral of the Fleet Sir Julian Oswald, GCB First Sea Lord, 1989-1993 palgrave macmillan © James Cable 1971, 1981, 1994 Foreword © Julian Oswald 1994 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. First edition ( Gunlxxtt Dipummcy) published by Chatto &: Windus 1971 Second edition ( Gunlxxtt Diplimary, 19I 9-I 979) published by Macmillan 1981 Reprinted 1985, 1986 Third edition (C..unboot Dipl.omt!.r.j, I9I9-I99I) published by Macmillan 1994 This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. Published by THE MACMILlAN PRESS LTD Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 2XS and London Companies and representatives throughout the world ISBN 978-0-333-61680-2 ISBN 978-1-349-23415-8 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-23415-8 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. For Viveca, as always Also by James Cable GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY THE ROYAL NAVY AND THE SIEGE OF BILBAO BRITAIN'S NAVAL FUTURE DIPLOMACY AT SEA THE GENEVA CONFERENCE OF 1954 ON INDOCHINA POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND ISSUES IN BRITAIN NAVIES IN VIOLENT PEACE INTERVENTIONAT ABADAN: Plan Buccaneer As Grant Hugo BRITAIN IN TOMORROW'S WORLD APPEARANCE AND REALITY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Contents Foreword IX Introduction 1 1 Definitions 7 2 Principles and Precedents 15 I Definitive force: ALTMARK and PUEBLO 15 II Purposeful force: Corfu 33 III Purposeful force: the upper limit 42 IV Catalytic force: from the Baltic to Beirut 46 v Expressive force: DEUTSCHLAND to DEDALO 62 3 The Altered Environment 65 I Historical 65 II Technological 67 III Political 79 IV Conversely 90 4 Operations and Capacities 99 I Operations 100 II Capacities 116 5 In the Absence of the Soviet Union 128 6 The Future of Gunboat Diplomacy 140 Chronological Appendix: Seventy Years q[Gunboat Diplomacy 158 Notes and Riferences 214 Select Bibliography 233 Index 239 Vll Foreword Those who have known and admiredjames Cable's work in the past, and who have read both the first and second editions of Gunboat Diplomacy, might recall that while both volumes had a preface and an introduction, neither had a foreword. So the reader may justifiably wonder if a contribution in the form of a foreword is either necessary or justified. A foreword can have a variety of purposes: to outline the book, to explain its aims, or to introduce the writer. However, a different consideration occurs to me. By far the largest part of the book - the text, the refer­ ences, the bibliography, the introduction and the preface - comes from the pen of the author, and all of these inevitably reflect his characteristic modesty. It is only in the publisher's blurb on the dustjacket and in the foreword that anybody other than the author can pay tribute to the quality of james Cable's work. It seems to me that in a book as important as a new edition of Gunboat Diplomacy, it is perfectly proper to have an external assessment of the significance of the task, and of how well the author has discharged it. The third edition, like its predecessors, concentrates on the period since 1919, but in this edition the author takes us up to 1991; this new volume, therefore, comprehends the period of the recent and cataclysmic changes in international security relationships consequent upon the collapse of the former Soviet Union. In this edition, 'gunboat diplomacy' is described and explained not only in the twenty-year period from 1919 to 1939, but also in the post-Second World War period of the so-called Cold War and, most interestingly and importantly, in the post­ Cold War state we now enjoy in which international security constraints are very different, and far less predictable, than those which pertained a few years ago. The early years of this period of new world order are a particularly appropriate time to revisit the concept of gunboat diplomacy and test it against the new strategic realities. In essence, these changes reflect the end of the confrontational stale-mate of the Cold War and the removal of the previous virtually automatic veto by one super­ power or the other of almost any peacekeeping or other activity involving the deployment of armed forces. (Of course, there IX X Foreword were exceptions, and the UN operations in Korea in the 1950s are perhaps the most celebrated, but the non-use of the veto on that occasion is a different, and fascinating, story). Of course, even the power of veto did not prevent action being taken in a considerable number of cases, as indeed this new edition of Gunboat Diplomacy well illustrates, but it did constrain the super­ powers on many occasions, which might well have furnished additional examples of the use of gunboat diplomacy had conditions been different. The reader will appreciate that the veto is off both ways as it were, and we can now expect the Russians to consider the use of coercive force in ways that would not have been likely during the Cold War. Initially, this has already been evident in the deployment of Russian forces to counter insurrection within the borders of the former Soviet Union. Increasingly, we can expect to see these forces, not least the Russian Navy, playing their part in peacekeeping operations on the world scene. Additionally, because those Cold War constraints are lifted, we see many more situations developing in which the superpowers, or even medium powers, may feel that the use of force is both necessary and justified in the pursuit of peace. We have only to look at the former Yugoslavia. In the days of the Cold War it was a pleasant country ruled by Tito, a popular holiday destination. One could certainly not describe the former Yugoslavia in those terms now. In the words of the old saying, 'The eat's away, the mice do play.' Thus we see a world security scene in which the need for deterrence against, for example, general war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact with major hostilities - possibly even including the use of nuclear weapons - has all but disappeared, but where the number of lower-level, more limited (but still very damaging and potentially serious) disputes is increasing at a worrying rate. It is worth giving a few moments' thought to the nature of peacekeeping operations, because to an important extent this affects the way in which gunboat diplomacy may be employed. We must begin from the unarguable premise that man is a land animal (and often, not a very sociable, caring or pleasant one at that!). He is capable of falling out with his neighbour and even his erstwhile friend on grounds of race, religion, language, politics, creed, economics and a host of other issues. Differences of ethnicity, tribe and culture are quite enough to have him at Foreword XI his neighbour's throat. He will squabble, and quite possibly fight, over land, food, water, economic rights and much more. The list of conflicts, even since the end of the Second World War, seems almost endless. The death toll has been estimated at between 20 and 30 million people, a figure that dwarfs that of many of the major declared hostilities in history. Because man lives on land (although he is often highly dependent upon the sea), the extent to which he can be influenced by gunboat diplomacy will frequently be limited - although watery coun­ tries like Vietnam and Cambodia provide interesting excep­ tions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gunboat Diplomacy: Political Bias, Trade Policy, And
    Gunboat Diplomacy Political Bias, Trade Policy, and War∗ Brendan Cooley† 13 November 2019 Abstract Countries with deep trading relationships rarely ght wars with one another. Here, I develop a theory of trade, war, and political bias, in which both trade and war are endogenous objects. Governments can rectify poor market access conditions abroad through war and subsequent regime change, in which the victorious country installs a liberal “puppet” government abroad. Trade policy bargaining is therefore conducted “in the shadow of power,” with counterfactual wars shaping the policy choices that prevail in times of peace. When peace prevails, militarily weak countries are more open to trade than powerful ones, all else equal. Equilibrium trade policies balance domestic interests against military threats from abroad. War is less likely between liberal governments because they prefer less protectionist trade policies. As a result, trade ows and the probability of peace are positively correlated in equilibrium, even though trade does not cause peace. JEL Classication Codes: D72, D74, F13, F51, F52, F54 ∗Ph.D. candidate, Department of Politics, Princeton University. Previous versions of this paper were circulated under the titles “Trade Wars, Hot Wars, and the Commercial Peace” and “Trade Policy in the Shadow of Power.” For helpful comments and discussions on earlier drafts of this paper, I thank Timm Betz, Adrien Bilal, Tyson Chatagnier, Rob Carroll, Andrew Coe, Noel Foster, Erik Gartzke, Kishore Gawande, Dan Gibbs, Joanne Gowa, Gene Grossman,
    [Show full text]
  • Gunboat Diplomacy of the Great Powers on the Ottoman Empire
    Journal of International Eastern European Studies/Uluslararası Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol./Yıl. 2, No/Sayı. 2, Winter/Kış 2020) ISSN: 2687-3346 Araştırma Makalesi Gunboat Diplomacy of the Great Powers on the Ottoman Empire: With Particular Reference to the Salonika Incident (1876) and Armenian Reform Demands (1879-80) Fikrettin Yavuz* (ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3161-457X) Makale Gönderim Tarihi Makale Kabul Tarihi 01.12.2020 08.12.2020 Abstract Throughout history, gunboat, a small vessel of a naval force, has been turned into a term of coercive diplomacy. Gunboat diplomacy, associated with chiefly the activities of the Great Powers, means the use of naval power directly or indirectly as an aggressive diplomatic instrument. It seems highly probable to see many examples of this coercive diplomacy in the world history, particularly after the French Revolution. Naturally, the Ottoman Empire, always attracted attention of the Great Powers, was exposed to this policy of the Powers. During the nineteen century, the rivalry among the European Powers on the Ottoman territorial integrity became a common characteristic that led them to implement gunboat diplomacy on all occasions. In this context, this article firstly offers a critical analysis of gunboat diplomacy of the Great Powers on the Ottoman Empire within the dimension of two specific examples: The Salonika Incident and Armenian reform demands. In addition, it aims to contribute to the understanding of gunboat diplomacy of the Great Powers and Ottoman response by evaluating it from native and foreign literatures. Keywords: European Powers, Ottomans, Gunboat Diplomacy, Salonika, Armenian, Reform * Assoc. Prof. Dr., Sakarya University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of History, Turkey, [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Imperial China and the West Part I, 1815–1881
    China and the Modern World: Imperial China and the West Part I, 1815–1881 The East India Company’s steamship Nemesis and other British ships engaging Chinese junks in the Second Battle of Chuenpi, 7 January 1841, during the first opium war. (British Library) ABOUT THE ARCHIVE China and the Modern World: Imperial China and the West Part I, 1815–1881 is digitised from the FO 17 series of British Foreign Office Files—Foreign Office: Political and Other Departments: General Correspondence before 1906, China— held at the National Archives, UK, providing a vast and significant primary source for researching every aspect of Chinese-British relations during the nineteenth century, ranging from diplomacy to trade, economics, politics, warfare, emigration, translation and law. This first part includes all content from FO 17 volumes 1–872. Source Library Number of Images The National Archives, UK Approximately 532,000 CONTENT From Lord Amherst’s mission at the start of the nineteenth century, through the trading monopoly of the Canton System, and the Opium Wars of 1839–1842 and 1856–1860, Britain and other foreign powers gradually gained commercial, legal, and territorial rights in China. Imperial China and the West provides correspondence from the Factories of Canton (modern Guangzhou) and from the missionaries and diplomats who entered China in the early nineteenth century, as well as from the envoys and missions sent to China from Britain and the later legation and consulates. The documents comprising this collection include communications to and from the British legation, first at Hong Kong and later at Peking, and British consuls at Shanghai, Amoy (Xiamen), Swatow (Shantou), Hankow (Hankou), Newchwang (Yingkou), Chefoo (Yantai), Formosa (Taiwan), and more.
    [Show full text]
  • International Relations in a Changing World: a New Diplomacy? Edward Finn
    INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN A CHANGING WORLD: A NEW DIPLOMACY? EDWARD FINN Edward Finn is studying Comparative Literature in Latin and French at Princeton University. INTRODUCTION The revolutionary power of technology to change reality forces us to re-examine our understanding of the international political system. On a fundamental level, we must begin with the classic international relations debate between realism and liberalism, well summarised by Stephen Walt.1 The third paradigm of constructivism provides the key for combining aspects of both liberalism and realism into a cohesive prediction for the political future. The erosion of sovereignty goes hand in hand with the burgeoning Information Age’s seemingly unstoppable mechanism for breaking down physical boundaries and the conceptual systems grounded upon them. Classical realism fails because of its fundamental assumption of the traditional sovereignty of the actors in its system. Liberalism cannot adequately quantify the nebulous connection between prosperity and freedom, which it assumes as an inherent truth, in a world with lucrative autocracies like Singapore and China. Instead, we have to accept the transformative power of ideas or, more directly, the technological, social, economic and political changes they bring about. From an American perspective, it is crucial to examine these changes, not only to understand their relevance as they transform the US, but also their effects in our evolving global relationships.Every development in international relations can be linked to some event that happened in the past, but never before has so much changed so quickly at such an expansive global level. In the first section of this article, I will examine the nature of recent technological changes in diplomacy and the larger derivative effects in society, which relate to the future of international politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Hearing on China's Military Reforms and Modernization: Implications for the United States Hearing Before the U.S.-China Economic
    HEARING ON CHINA'S MILITARY REFORMS AND MODERNIZATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES HEARING BEFORE THE U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2018 Printed for use of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission Available via the World Wide Web: www.uscc.gov UNITED STATES-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON: 2018 U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION ROBIN CLEVELAND, CHAIRMAN CAROLYN BARTHOLOMEW, VICE CHAIRMAN Commissioners: HON. CARTE P. GOODWIN HON. JAMES TALENT DR. GLENN HUBBARD DR. KATHERINE C. TOBIN HON. DENNIS C. SHEA MICHAEL R. WESSEL HON. JONATHAN N. STIVERS DR. LARRY M. WORTZEL The Commission was created on October 30, 2000 by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for 2001 § 1238, Public Law No. 106-398, 114 STAT. 1654A-334 (2000) (codified at 22 U.S.C. § 7002 (2001), as amended by the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for 2002 § 645 (regarding employment status of staff) & § 648 (regarding changing annual report due date from March to June), Public Law No. 107-67, 115 STAT. 514 (Nov. 12, 2001); as amended by Division P of the “Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003,” Pub L. No. 108-7 (Feb. 20, 2003) (regarding Commission name change, terms of Commissioners, and responsibilities of the Commission); as amended by Public Law No. 109- 108 (H.R. 2862) (Nov. 22, 2005) (regarding responsibilities of Commission and applicability of FACA); as amended by Division J of the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008,” Public Law Nol. 110-161 (December 26, 2007) (regarding responsibilities of the Commission, and changing the Annual Report due date from June to December); as amended by the Carl Levin and Howard P.
    [Show full text]
  • Exercising Diplomatic Protection the Fine Line Between Litigation, Demarches and Consular Assistance
    Exercising Diplomatic Protection The Fine Line Between Litigation, Demarches and Consular Assistance Annemarieke Künzli* I. Introduction The last Draft Article that was proposed by the Special Rapporteur to the Inter- national Law Commission for inclusion in the Draft Articles on Diplomatic Pro- tection concerns the relationship between diplomatic protection and consular as- sistance. International law distinguishes between (at least) two kinds of interna- tional relations.1 This is stipulated by the existence of two separate treaties: the two Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963 have codified the rules with respect to dip- lomatic and consular relations respectively.2 A fundamental difference is that a dip- lomatic agent is a political representative of a state, while a consular officer has no such function.3 As a consequence, the establishment of a consulate in non- recognised territories does not always imply recognition while establishing an em- bassy usually does and immunities granted to ambassadors are markedly different from those granted to consuls.4 In accordance with the two regimes applicable to international relations, international law recognises two kinds of protection states can exercise on behalf of their nationals: consular assistance and diplomatic protec- tion. There are fundamental differences between consular assistance and diplomatic protection. A persistent subject of debate and controversy however is the question of which activities by governments fall under diplomatic protection and which ac- tions do not. This debate is fuelled by an equally persistent misunderstanding of * Ph.D-fellow in Public International Law, Leiden University. The author wishes to thank Prof. John D u g a r d and Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • The Early Us-Japan Economic Relationship and the Rise of Shōwa
    THE EARLY U.S.-JAPAN ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP AND THE RISE OF SHŌWA MILITARISM A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of The School of Continuing Studies and of The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Liberal Studies By Keith J. Kennebeck, BBA Georgetown University Washington, D.C. 03/27/2012 Copyright 2012 by Keith J. Kennebeck All Rights Reserved ii THE EARLY U.S.-JAPAN ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP AND THE RISE OF SHŌWA MILITARISM Keith J. Kennebeck, BBA MALS Mentor: Michael C. Wall, PhD ABSTRACT The notion that the bilateral economic relationship between the United States and Japan played a central role in prompting the Pacific War is not a novel concept. In particular, the number of scholarly and popular works that have identified the United States’ escalating use of trade and financial sanctions in the late 1930s and early 1940s as a response to Japan’s increasing military advances in Asia are numerous. Such discussions on the Pacific War emphasize that the U.S.-imposed export embargoes on strategic goods and resources and freezes on Japanese financial assets eventually prompted Japan to attack Pearl Harbor in late 1941. More importantly, these discussions are punctuated with the moral argument that the U.S.-imposed embargoes were necessary, and that war was essentially inevitable, given Japan’s brutal occupations of China and Southeast Asia. In short, so the standard argument goes, Japan’s unjustifiable rise towards militarism prompted an end to the bilateral economic relationship, which in turn prompted the onset of the Pacific War.
    [Show full text]
  • Csu Japanese American Digitization Project Collections
    CSU JAPANESE AMERICAN DIGITIZATION PROJECT COLLECTIONS CSUJAD Partners California Historical Society California Polytechnic University San Luis Obispo California State University, Bakersfield California State University, Channel Islands California State University, Dominguez Hills (central hub) California State University, East Bay California State University, Fresno California State University, Fullerton, Center for Oral and Public History California State University, Fullerton, University Archives and Special Collections California State University, Long Beach California State University, Monterey Bay California State University, Northridge California State University, San Bernardino California State University, Stanislaus Claremont University Consortium Libraries Claremont School of Theology Eastern California Museum Go For Broke National Educational Center Historical Society of Long Beach Japanese American National Museum Palos Verdes Library District Sacramento State University San Diego State University San Francisco State University San Jose State University Sonoma State University Topaz Museum University of California, Santa Barbara Whittier Public Library The central focus of the California State University Japanese American Digitization Project is the digitization and access to primary source materials focused on the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II, but also related to the history and progress of Japanese Americans in their communities throughout the 20th century. An enormous range of subjects and
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Gunboat Diplomacy: Power and Profit at Sea in the Making of the International System J.C. Sharman, University of Cambridge, J
    Gunboat Diplomacy: Power and Profit at Sea in the Making of the International System J.C. Sharman, University of Cambridge, [email protected] Abstract: The making of the international system from c.1500 reflected distinctively maritime dynamics, especially ‘gunboat diplomacy’, the ‘profit from power’ strategy of using naval force for commercial gain. Much more than in land warfare in Europe, war and trade at sea in the wider world were often inseparable, with violence being a central part of the commercial strategies of state, private and hybrid actors alike. Gunboat diplomacy was idiosyncratically European: large and small non-Western powers with equivalent technology almost never sought to advance mercantile aims through large-scale naval coercion, instead adopting a laissez faire separation of war and commerce. Changes in international norms first restricted the practice of gunboat diplomacy to states in the nineteenth century, and then led to its effective abolition in the twentieth century, as it became illegitimate to resolve trade and sovereign debt disputes through inter-state violence. Evidence is drawn from macro-historical comparisons of successive European-Asian encounters from the sixteenth to the twentieth century. 1 From the late 1400s, the European military and commercial engagements with the rest of the world that first created the modern international system were essentially maritime in nature. Yet in crafting theories of international politics, social scientists have generally maintained a firmly terrestrial orientation in concentrating on armies, states and land, rather than navies, seaborne commerce, and the oceans. European maritime expansion had a distinctive character in both its means and ends.
    [Show full text]
  • Social and Behavioural Sciences
    European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences EpSBS www.europeanproceedings.com e-ISSN: 2357-1330 DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2021.06.03.92 AMURCON 2020 International Scientific Conference COMBINATORIAL POTENTIAL OF A WORD IN CROSS- LANGUAGE CONSIDERATION (BASED ON COGNATE WORDS) Inna O. Onal (a)* *Corresponding author (a) Novosibirsk State Technical University, 20 K. Marksa Ave., Novosibirsk, Russia, [email protected] Abstract The article gives the analysis of combinatory and semantic features of the English lexeme diplomacy and its Turkish equivalent diplomasi in cross-language consideration. The study is conducted in the framework of combinatorial linguistics that studies the linear relationship of language units and their combinatorial potential. To answer the research questions of the study, the most productive structural patterns of the collocations with the lexemes diplomacy and diplomasi are identified as well as semantic groups of words the given lexemes combine with. Then a comparative analysis of English and Turkish collocations with the given lexemes is performed. The research is based on the lexicographic sources, the national corpora of the given languages as well as collections of media texts compiled by the author. The main method used in this study is combinatorial analysis, which allows to establish both regular and possible syntagmatic connections of a word at the syntactic and lexical-semantic levels, due to various extralinguistic situations. The appeal to the media texts is explained by the fact that political discourse and media discourse are currently among the most popular areas of attention for linguists, since it is in political discourse that the processes associated with changes in the vocabulary of any language are most pronounced.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Meiji Diplomacy Viewed Through the Lens of the International Treaties Culminating in the Annexation of the Ryukyus
    Volume 19 | Issue 6 | Number 2 | Article ID 5558 | Mar 15, 2021 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Early Meiji Diplomacy Viewed through the Lens of the International Treaties Culminating in the Annexation of the Ryukyus Marco Tinello Abstract: This paper focuses on Meiji Japan’s imposed an “unequal treaty” on Korea, annexation of the Ryukyus as seen through the employing the same kind of gunboat diplomacy eyes of key Western diplomats in the 1870s. that Commodore Matthew Perry had used Although it played out over seven years, the against Japan in 1853-54. Finally, in 1879, annexation process unfolded relativelyJapan formally annexed the former kingdom of smoothly on the international stage. One the Ryukyus reason for this was the skill with which Japanese diplomats handled inquiries and potential protests by Western diplomats. In this article, I show that, as early as 1872, leading members of the Meiji government were gaining familiarity with the nuances of Western diplomatic maneuvering. Indeed, in some ways the annexation functioned as a rehearsal for future diplomatic challenges the regime would face. In retrospect, it offers an excellent lens through which to view Japanese diplomacy of the 1870s.1 Keywords: East Asian diplomacy, Meiji Japan’s diplomacy; Ryūkyū shobun; the Ryukyu Kingdom’s annexation by Japan; Western imperialism; international treaties. Following the restoration of imperial power, Meiji Japan embraced modernization and, as part of this process, it sought to determine its national borders in order to create a modern
    [Show full text]
  • Master Thesis in Political Science with a Focus on Crisis Management and Security
    THE SWEDISH NATIONAL DEFENCE COLLEGE 2012-06-04 1 (45) Annelie Gregor Master Thesis, 15 Credits Master Thesis in Political Science with a Focus on Crisis Management and Security Author: Annelie Gregor Date: 2012-06-04 Advisor: Professor Fredrik Bynander Examinator: Professor Jan Hallenberg Limited Military Pressure – An Analytical Framework to Assess No-Fly Zones as a Single Instrument in Coercive Diplomacy Abstract: Coercive diplomacy attempts to use military force in a limited fashion as a diplomatic and political tool in order to persuade an opponent to cease aggression rather than to bludgeon him into stopping. The use of limited military force in coercive diplomacy is not a military strategy, but rather a refined political and psychological instrument used for resolving a crisis. One relatively new instrument in the toolbox of limited force when engaging in coercive diplomacy, fashioned to deter adversaries, is the use of no-fly zones. The term no-fly zone describes the physical area of a nation that is patrolled using the airpower of another sovereign state or coalition. However, despite its relatively frequent use in its short history, it has largely been ignored in theoretical studies of coercive diplomacy. As scholars, such as Daniel Byman and Matthew Waxman, have presented a critical view on the limitations of approaching a study on a single instrument in coercive diplomacy, this paper grounds the argument that there is still value in this approach. Thus, the research question is posed as follows: Given that the conditions of coercive diplomacy mainly focus on an array of coercive instruments at a political level, are the conditions in the theories of coercive diplomacy sufficient to explain the political success of the military instrument of no-fly zones? Hence, this paper illustrates the theoretical reach of the theories of coercive diplomacy by highlighting the fungibility of the coercive diplomacy’s theoretical ‘success conditions’ when assessing a single military instrument.
    [Show full text]