THE POWER OF SMALLER STATES IN GLOBAL AFFAIRS

The reference to Joseph S. Nye that occurs in the first paragraph of the "Scenario"-Document for the 2011 Bled Strategic Forum seems fully pertinent: Professor Nye is perhaps the political scientist that has contributed more significantly to a better understanding of power in the contemporary world. He has given us not only the modern version of the concept of soft-power but the -enlightening- notion that, in the era of global information, power is distributed in a tri-dimensional chessboard:

• a military one, where power remains highly concentrated;

• an economic board, where power is shared among many players (including vigorous, emerging ones); and,

• a de-centralised one, where the main players are non-state actors operating routinely beyond national-state control¹.

If globalisation and ensuing interdependence foster and deepen the diffusion of power, multilateralism appears as the diplomacy of globalisation and interdependence.

William Hague: multilateralism implies much more bilateral work because you depend on many more countries.

In the Outcome Document of the 2005 United Nations summit we read that peace and security, development and human rights are the pillars of the United Nations system and the foundations for collective security and well-being. We recognize that development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing². Thus, while the note of interdependence lies at the very essence of the multilateral system, the inter-linkage of the main chapters of the multilateral agenda (security, development and human rights) create enhanced opportunities for small states.

So, my first key message would be that multilateralism has a growing role in the new world of the future, and in that front small states are much more than in the bilateral arena.

Moreover, the very idea of small states is put to test when we introduce regional and sub-regional multilateralism in our scenario: how small was Luxembourg in the Benelux context? How small is Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean milieu? And how small was the impact of Tunisia -with a 0.15% of the world population- in the Arab Spring? How small is Palestine in the UN General Assembly this month? Of course this will lead to a discussion of a new world government.

This increased importance of the multilateralism in this new globalized world and the possibility of being a part of much larger regional organizations increase the power of smaller states. It also increases their security because they can't rely only on their diplomatic strength or armed forces to defend themselves, but a strong set of multilateral organizations will help prevent the use of weapons by other larger states.

Nevertheless, to be relevant small states cannot rely only on multilateralism (or/and international law), they also need to awake a very strong decision: to have serious political and economic policies. Very large countries can make mistakes and live with that for a long time (not forever) but not smaller ones.

This starts with their duty to keep their own house in order (the global negative impact of domestic conflict cannot be over-emphasized. Ex: Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti and many others).

Moreover, no small country can exercise influence in global affairs if it don't have a strong democracy, sound fiscal management and a solid development strategy. Small states also need to have good credentials in transparency and accountability. This is the only way to have lasting social peace and stability, the basic ground to pretend to have a voice in regional and world affairs.

Because of their size, small states have to be very focused in their international efforts. Economist say that the best way to use the economic resources of a country is to concentrate them in the areas where that country has comparative advantages against the rest of the world, and that every country have some comparative advantages. In the international political field I think there is a similar situation. The best possible of our political resources is to focus them where we need them the most and where we can make a difference.

In the case of Chile for example, we opened the economy many years ago and we are one of the countries with more trade agreements in the world. The average import tariff is 0,8% and trade represents more than 70% of the GNP. So, we concentrate our efforts in promoting free trade in every forum we can, and promote FTAs with every major country or region. The same is true in the human rights arena. We had a very tough experience in the 70´s and 80´s, but we overcome that in a just and peaceful way, that allowed to reunite the country.

We use that experience on the international field supporting all efforts to promote human rights around the world, including being a member of the UN Human Rights Council, recently reelected. The miner's rescue was an example of the value we put in human life and its defense. The efforts in these fields have made Chile widely recognized and respected, on a much higher degree than what its size deserves.

This is my second key message: small countries will receive no gifts, they have to earn their position among world states. The only way for that are serious and sound internal policies, plus a focused and stable action on the international arena based on carefully analyzed advantages.

We have stated that every country has comparative advantages; the difference in outcome when we assess the history of small states seems to lie in the way in which they have used their opportunities.

Take for instance the case of Haiti, which at the beginning of the XIX century was the richest colony in America, so rich that France relinquished Louisiana -larger but strategically more vulnerable at the time- in order to retain it. Today Haiti is the only Least Developed Country in the Americas.

On the contrary, today Chile, a frontier military post which was the poorest among the Spanish colonies enjoys the highest per capita income in Latin America.

When we talk about small countries we normally figure in our minds small population and/or territory. But both -territory and population- are relative categories. Let us take territory first: my country is known to be exceptionally narrow, having between 200 and 400 kilometres in width but Israel is only 35 kilometres wide at its narrowest.

And when we turn to population Chile more than triples the population of Singapore.

However, Israel ranks very high in technological development and military prowess and Singapore is a trading giant harbouring the largest maritime transportation hub in the world.

Could it be then that the difference between big and small is related to the amount of fields where each can excel? Because large countries can aspire to lead in a variety of productive and technological dimensions while small ones simply cannot.

Therefore, could it be that the key for small countries lies in their ability to correctly identify the niches where they can succeed?

And that is my question for our debate.

Many thanks.

¹Joseph S. Nye Jr., "The paradox of American Power", 2003.
²UN General Assembly Resolution A/Res/60/1, paragraph 9