Small States in International Relations

3. The Inequality of States: A Study of the Small Power in International Relations

3 THE INEQUALITY OF STATES A Study of the Small Power in International Relations DAVID VITAL Introduction This study is an attempt to spell out some of the practical political implications of the material inequality of states. While the formal equality of states is a valuable and, on the whole, valued convention of international relations, it is evident that in peace, no less than in war, diªerences of size have political consequences for both large and small nations. All things being equal, the state with great economic resources and a large populationhasmorein fluenceoneventsoutsideitsfrontiers,greatersecurityfrom pressure and attack, more prestige, and a larger element of choice in respect of the national policy it pursues. A small state is more vulnerable to pressure , more likely to give way under stress, more limited in respect of the political options open to it, and subject to a tighter connection between domestic and external aªairs. In other words, the smaller the human and material resources of a state, the greater are the di‹culties it must surmount if it is to maintain any valid political options at all and, in consequence , the smaller the state, the less viable it is as a genuinely independent member of the international community. Of course, sheer physical (human and material) size is not the only factor. The level of economic and social development that has been attained, the chance eªects of geographical proximity to areas of conflict and importance between and to the great powers, the nature of the environment in which the state is placed, the cohesion of the population, and the degree of internal support given the government of the day—these are some of the factors that modify the ability of the state to perform as a resistant rather than vulnerable, and David Vital, The Inequality of States: A Study of the Small Power in International Relations (London, UK: Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1967). Cross references to pages and notes refer to the original publication. 77 active rather than passive, member of the international community. But material size is the factor which is least of all given to modification through the deliberate eªorts of governments. It sets the limit to what can be attained and fixes the international role and status of the nation more securely than any other. Since the Second World War the economic and military power available to the great states has vastly increased. It is true that for reasons which are beyond the scope of this book (but of which the most important are the acquisition of nuclear power and the strategic deadlock that has ensued), the great powers have been reluctant to employ their power to the full. Some very great states have, in eªect, abdicated from positions of influence; in other cases there is uncertainty as to whether and how available power can be safely and eªectively exploited in the national interest. One consequence of this has been that the post-war proliferation of small states has occurred in an atmosphere peculiarly conducive to illusions about national strength and to a corresponding emphasis and reliance on the formal, legal, equality of nations. This may be a good or a bad thing; what is uncertain is whether it will last. But the fact that great states have, from time to time, broken through their inhibitions to exert some part at least of the vast economic and military power available to them in order to imposetheirwillonotherssuggeststhatrelianceontheseinhibitionswould be misplaced and that the operative factors in crisis remain the national interest as seen at the time and the material bars, if any, to its pursuit. The strength and weakness of states and their long-term viability must therefore be examined not in terms of current, typical international practice , still less in terms of legal and moral rights. It is the capacity of the state to withstand stress, on the one hand, and its ability to pursue a policy of its own devising, on the other, that are the key criteria. And these can best be explored in terms of limiting cases, exposed positions, and barriers which cannot, possibly, be surmounted. In alternative terms, this study attempts to answer three questions: (a) Whatarethepracticalconsequencesforthesmallpowerof thematerial inequality of states? (b) What are the limits of the small power’s strength and, in particular , its capacity to withstand great external stresses? (c) Given its limited resources and the ease with which overwhelming strength can be marshaled against it, what national...