The Small Power in the International System

The Small Power in the International System

Like a novice chess player, awed by the strategic power of his queen, students of International Relations tend to focus solely upon the Great Power as a source for policies and dictates which constitute his field of study. Paying little heed to small, developing nations, the student assumes that all that is important and significant to his study will flow from the Goliath's of the International System. Only with experience and an increasing eye for the subtle flow of policy will the student, like the chess player, learn that in addition to the Great Powers, the Small Powers--the pawns—do matter. Furthermore, to assume any differently invites swift defeat (poor analysis). The great Chess master Francois-André Danician Philidor said it best: "the pawns are the very life of the game."[i] Although the analogy fails in that the power disparity between a pawn and another more powerful piece is much smaller between the average Great and Small Powers, it suffices to highlight the common misconception of the inefficacy of Small Powers. The question of whether Small States matter in the International System (and the ambiguity of the question itself) will be addressed; four aspects of the importance of the Small Power will be reviewed in turn: Strategic, Military, Economic, and Alliance .

First, it is essential to address the ambiguity of terms and their implications to the analysis; some sort of definition of the descriptor 'small' and of the verb 'to matter' must be established. In the literature published on the subject, the question has been addressed in varying degrees of certitude. Traditional indicators of "smallness" center around simple objective specifications: military units, population size, gross national product, etc. For the sake of being brief, this essay will not attempt to provide a refreshed definition of the Small States; it will leave that ambitious undertaking alone. Instead, this essay will present examples of the unambiguous kind and, when needed, rely on the traditional (but sufficient) schema to make decisions regarding definition. On the other hand, the notion of mattering within the system is not quite so capable of standing on its own. Here, we will break from the traditional archetype: relying on conditions of power to determine the relevance of a state. The reason for this is simple: were the term "to matter" to be defined in terms of power, than in combination with the already established idea of smallness (defined in terms of power), the question in debate could be rewritten as such: "Do Small (non-powerful) States matter (have power).