The Influence of Small States in a Changing World

Abstract

In a world of disparate states, the enormous wealth and military power of the United States and the Soviet Union appear to prejudice the independence of small states and confirm the concept of bipolarity. However, small states con tinue to exist, proliferate, and influence the great powers. The contemporary state system cannot be labeled bipolar except in discussing nuclear strategy. Most international relations exist at the levels of bargaining and seeking influence, and here the small states have great strength. Small states can be seen to have been better served by the "aid" relationship with the United States than the donor. This is partly a function of cold-war competition, but, more importantly, of the potent effect in bargaining of small-state specific interests and great-power general interests. Contemporary world politics demonstrates that no clear correlation exists between wealth and military force and the ability to produce results (power). Economic influence is subject to political control outside state frontiers, and weapons are no more impressive than the ability of peoples to resist them. Effective foreign policy requires mutuality of interest between interested parties; open, candid communication; and the confidences that make trust in agree ments possible. Disparities of size probably make these more difficult, not easier, in American and Soviet policy.