2 research outputs found
A critical review of smaller state diplomacy
In The Peloponnesian War, Thucydides (1972: 402) highlights the effects of the general, overall
weakness of smaller states vis-Ă -vis larger, more powerful ones in a key passage, where the
Athenians remind the Melians that:
â⊠since you know as well as we do that, as the world goes, right is only in question
between equals in power. Meanwhile, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer
what they must.â
Concerns about the vulnerability of small, weak, isolated states have echoed throughout history:
from Thucydides, through the review by Machiavelli (1985) of the risks of inviting great powers
to intervene in domestic affairs, through 20th century US-led contemporary political science
(Vital, 1971; Handel, 1990) and Commonwealth led scholarship (Commonwealth Secretariat,
1985). In the context of 20th century âBalkanizationâ, the small state could also prove unstable,
even hostile and uncooperative, a situation tempting enough to invite the intrusion of more
powerful neighbours: a combination, according to Brzezinski (1997: 123-124) of a power
vacuum and a corollary power suction2: in the outcome, if the small state is âabsorbedâ, it would
be its fault, and its destiny, in the grand scheme of things. In an excellent review of small states
in the context of the global politics of development, Payne (2004: 623, 634) concludes that
âvulnerabilities rather than opportunities are the most striking consequence of smallnessâ. It has
been recently claimed that, since they cannot defend or represent themselves adequately, small
states âlack real independence, which makes them suboptimal participants in the international
systemâ (Hagalin, 2005: 1).
There is however, a less notable and acknowledged but more extraordinary strand of
argumentation that considers âthe power of powerlessnessâ, and the ability of small states to
exploit their smaller size in a variety of ways in order to achieve their intended, even if unlikely,
policy outcomes. The pursuance of smaller state goals becomes paradoxically acceptable and
achievable precisely because such smaller states do not have the power to leverage disputants or
pursue their own agenda. A case in point concerns the smallest state of all, the Vatican, whose
powers are both unique and ambiguous, but certainly not insignificant (The Economist, 2007).
Smaller states have âpunched above their weightâ (e.g. Edis, 1991); and, intermittently, political scientists confront their âamazing intractabilityâ (e.g. Suhrke, 1973: 508). Henry Kissinger
(1982: 172) referred to this stance, with obvious contempt, as âthe tyranny of the weakâ3.
This paper seeks a safe passage through these two, equally reductionist, propositions. It
deliberately focuses first on a comparative case analysis of two, distinct âsmall state-big stateâ
contests drawn from the 1970s, seeking to infer and tease out the conditions that enable smaller
âLilliputianâ states (whether often or rarely) to beat their respective Goliaths. The discussion is
then taken forward to examine whether similar tactics can work in relation to contemporary
concerns with environmental vulnerability, with a focus on two other, small island states. Before
that, the semiotics of âthe small stateâ need to be explored, since they are suggestive of the
perceptions and expectations that are harboured by decision makers at home and abroad and
which tend towards the self-fulfilling prophecy.peer-reviewe