Escalation Control, Deterrence Diplomacy and America's Role in South Asia's Nuclear Crises
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12532141 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Bidhan Chakma (0000-0002-3410-6167, Hull City Council, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Volume | 33 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 554-576 |
| Publication date | 2012-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Arms Control (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0144-0381 • E-ISSN: 1743-8764 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/13523260.2012.727684 |
| OpenAlex | W1995649633 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
This article assesses the significance of American diplomatic intervention in the de-escalation of two South Asian nuclear crises - the 1999 Kargil conflict and the 2001-2002 military stand-off. The American role in those crises is often referred to as crisis manager or secondary in the context of the region's strategic and crisis stability. A careful analysis of American diplomatic interventions, however, reveals that the role is much greater, conceptualized here as deterrence diplomacy, meaning intense, focused diplomatic activity specifically to forestall crisis escalation and the outbreak of large-scale Indo-Pakistani war. More than is commonly realized, the United States was integral in the crisis strategies of both countries. It played a pivotal role preventing crisis escalation and the outbreak of large-scale conflict between India and Pakistan in both confrontations. And the American role was instrumental in the termination of those confrontations, particularly the Kargil conflict. Without America's effective deterrence diplomacy, any of the past South Asian crises could have escalated to the nuclear level. No global generalization can be made from this analysis because it is mostly South Asia specific. However, it is plausible to argue that the United States, as the key systemic power, will have an important role in future regional deterrence
China · Context (archaeology · Deterrence theory · Development economics · Diplomacy · Economics · Geography · Great power · Intervention (counseling · Nuclear weapon · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Medicine · Peacebuilding and International Security · Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.17 |
| Citation span | 2014 - 2015 (2) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |