The collapse of the Soviet Union heralded the onset of an era that was seen as a unipolar moment. The United States was the global power without peers. And yet, that didn't quite mean that America could do as it pleased. Small and nimble nations could leverage their unique attributes to frustrate US policy. With a growing rivalry between China and the US, is the unipolar moment coming to a close? If so, what does that mean for smaller nations? Are they likely to matter more or less?
To start at the beginning, size does have its advantages. A large nation, such as the United States, will necessarily have a large population that sustains a large economy. Larger states are bound to be dominant economically by virtue of the size of their financial and commercial activities. These larger economies can support a larger level of governmental activity and a larger military. It also makes them an attractive destination for migration as a cultural magnet internationally. These are the sources of large nation power - economic power, military power, and cultural influence. In this sense, small nations are at a disadvantage and matter less.
This, however, is not entirely the case. On each of these bases of power, it is possible for smaller nations to find a niche role. The global economy is one that is highly specialised and inter-dependent. If one part of the network ceases to function fully, the whole network becomes vulnerable. We have seen this in a number of cases in recent years. For example, flooding in Thailand in 2011 disrupted the production of key motor components that had a knock on effect to disrupt the production of motor cars on a global scale. This was the result of a natural disaster, but had it been the result of governmental policy, the effect would have been very similar. These vulnerabilities were made quite clear in the vaccine nationalism that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this sense, size does not matter.
Equally, a large military establishment does not always guarantee the effective use of military power. The various conflicts that have arisen in the Middle East this century amply demonstrates this point. The most recent - the Americans and NATO withdrawing from Afghanistan - suggests that hostile forces, whilst less numerous and not as well armed as their opponents from larger nations, can prevail over mighty military establishments. Whilst size generally suggests a path to victory, this is not always the case.
Cultural influence is a further concept where size counts, but not absolutely. There is a large degree of cultural influence from larger entities, but there is also a role for niche players. For example, American cinematic blockbusters tend to dominate, but European cinema has a role to play in producing films of greater artistic content. The Oscars serve one audience, whilst Cannes serves another. The dominance of the genre does not lead to a blanket monoculture and there are plenty of niche crevasses in which cultural variety thrives.
Even in a period that is seen as unipolar, there has been ample opportunity for smaller nations to exert a degree of influence that is not suggested by their size. If we are moving away from the unipolar moment, it is not unreasonable to expect this situation to change. It is not clear whether this change will favour smaller nations or not. On the one hand, the deft nation will be able to play one of the larger nations against the other, to it's advantage. Turkey provides an example in this case, where the United States is played against both Russia (for military support) and China (for economic support). This has the potential to become a feature of the immediate future as the larger powers vie for influence with the smaller nations.
On the other hand, it is also in the interests of the larger nations to ensure a degree of conformity amongst their client states. It is interesting to see this process in action though the funding arrangements of the various BRI projects. Recipients of China's BRI largesse are left in no doubt about their role as client states and their obligations to support a wider Chinese view of the world. In this respect, small nations do not matter as much as they might because they are expected to follow a given line. Some smaller nations find this conditionality unacceptable, whilst others see it as perfectly acceptable.
Looking ahead, it is likely that we shall see this process in operation at the COP26 meeting of nations later this year. There is a broad desire to construct some form of agreement, but little consensus over how that agreement should be structured. In the end, power politics will come into play and determine that eventual outcome. This will prove to be the key test as to whether or not small nations matter. For effective action, they need to. But will the greater powers be willing to surrender their interest to the lesser powers? That remains to be seen.
Stephen Aguilar-Millan
© The European Futures Observatory 2021