Small nations in the big world
THE number of small nations is bigger than the number of big nations in the world. G. Pascal Zachary writes in The Global Me, published in 2000, that the world had 74 small nations in 1946. At the time of writing his book, he counted 190 small nations, of which 87 had populations below 5 million, 58 less than 2.5 million and 35 lower than 500,000. But does size matter in international relations? As Bob Dylan sang, "the answer my friend is blowing in the wind."
Some of these small nations are islands. Others are either archipelagos or enclaves. Vatican City is the world's smallest state with an area of 0.2 square miles and a population of 770, none of them being permanent residents. There are small nations in dire straits. For example, Seychelles is 1,500 kilometers from any other country. Cost of living is very high, because almost everything is imported from faraway neighbours.
A good number of the small nations don't make economic sense. Economies of scale don't permit the smallest of these small nations even to operate universities on their soils. They are constrained to send their students abroad. Some of these nations also don't make military sense. They can't raise their own armies, and rely on alliance with larger countries to defend their territories against foreign invasion.
But what makes a nation a nation is its sovereign autonomy. It's said that good things come in small packages. But what is good about small nations when bigger countries literally rule them? From many small countries to a few large ones, the realm of effective influence narrows down to one superpower.
According to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a sovereign state is one which governs itself independently of any foreign power. Is that true for the small countries? Are these countries capable of warding off the meddling foreign hands muddling their internal affairs?
Seventeen of the smallest nations have a combined territory of less than 200 square miles. Their combined population is 1.4 million. What does sovereignty mean for them? These are independent countries with their respective governments. The question is, do these governments have supreme and independent authority over their respective territories and populations?
In 1985, a report of the Commonwealth Secretariat concluded that small countries weren't simply scaled-down versions of large countries. These small countries have ecology of their own. But does that ecology enable them to exercise control over their own fates and resources? Are these countries sovereign in the true sense of the word?
Imagination needs a twist here. Small nations don't always have to be small in area and population. There can be large countries with large territories and population, but small because of the size of economy and military might. The CIA Fact Book shows that Israel has an area of 22,072 square kilometers and a population of roughly 7 million.
By comparison, Bangladesh is 6.5 times the size of Israel in terms of area, and more than 22 times in terms of population. But Israel is a more powerful country compared to Bangladesh in economic and military strengths. Which proves Zachary's point. There is no statistical relationship between country size and economic growth rates.
Instead, experience shows that small countries at times outperform big ones, which are endowed with oil, minerals and other resources. Nigeria, Iran and Indonesia are an example of what Terry Lynn Karl, a political economist, calls "the paradox of plenty." Their opulence became a handicap for their economic growth.
Even if we believe that small countries can have big economies, does it mean they can enjoy their authority without the blessings of big countries? In other words, are the small countries independent enough not to depend on large countries? Do these countries have sufficient autonomy to stand with big countries on an equal footing?
These questions are nothing new, because the viability of small nations has always been suspect. In 1843, the independence of Belgium and Portugal was argued as a "ridiculous" concept. Giuseppe Mazzini, the nineteenth-century unifier of Italy, had said that the ideal number of European nations would be twelve. That number today is fifty.
Then, what gives the small nations their right to exist? Most of them are neither powerful nor resourceful nor successful. Most of these nations are struggling with democracy, a good number going through economic hardship and political upheavals. They are culturally invaded. Their governments are remote controlled. Their intellectuals are indoctrinated. Their markets are dominated.
Paul Saffo, a futurist, offers optimism to the small nations. The critical ingredient has shifted from natural resources to knowledge. In the emerging order, a country won't be successful if it has the most brains, unless these brains can also act in concert. Competition not cooperation will make a small nation big.
Dear leaders, hope it rings a bell.
Mohammad Badrul Ahsan is a columnist for The Daily Star.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments