December 4, 2007
Column: For nations, small is beautiful
Europe seems intent on slicing itself up into ever smaller pieces. In the next month, Kosovo is likely to declare independence – making it the seventh new country to emerge from the wreckage of Yugoslavia. The Soviet Union has given way to 15 new states. Even in western Europe, there is talk of Belgium dividing in two, while a pro-independence party has taken power in Scotland.
People tend to treat countries that split up a bit like married couples. It is a sad event. And it is true that a unilateral declaration of Kosovan independence could cause a new crisis in the Balkans.
But if the formation of new countries can be achieved peacefully, it is usually a cause for celebration. This is the age of the small state.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Comments can be made below.
Kosovo going its own way doesn’t seem to be a cause for mourning. It rather was inevitable given the violent nationalism uncorked by Milosevic, who began his devilish rhetoric in Kosovo.
The other much-discussed European separatist movements it seems to me are exaggerated. Do you really expect Belgium to break up? Or Spain?
Steve LeVine, author
Posted by: Steve LeVine | December 4th, 2007 at 3:35 am | Report this commentThe Oil and the Glory (Random House)
http://www.oilandglory.com
Sir, I disagree. Look at what the so called “big and generous” uncle sam did to Iraq and Afghanistan. Dare uncle sam do the same to Russia? I am afraid that nations have to be big to protect themselves.
Posted by: JX | December 4th, 2007 at 3:57 am | Report this commentAs far as break up is made peacefully, no problem. The problem comes from “ethnic homogeneity” because that, simply, doesn´t exist and the result is oftenly, if not ALWAYS, ethnic cleansing, ethnic hate, ethnic discrimination or, in the best places, forced assimilation.
Really it is ALWAYS the result and thousands or millions of citizens are discriminated, violated, expelled from their houses or just murdered.
Of course, we can say “but look at the result after some years of ethnic cleansing: a beautiful country”.
No way, the result is antidemocratic, racist, ethnic cleansing. ALWAYS. And i repeat ALWAYS, an absolute rejection of human rights. And, under the surface, the new nation will never tolarate individual rights. Individuals doesn´t exist, only the nation exist. That´s the TRUTH behind romantic ideals and beautiful landscapes.
Usually it is the ethnic Tyranny of the majority as minorities are considered a cancer that sooner or later should be eradicated. They NEVER accept minorities as equal human beings.
No matter if we talk about Greece, the Czech Republic, Poland, Israel, Germany…
If we are all human beings why should a country give special rights to some people just for their ethnic or religious origin?
The truth is multi-ethnic Empires like the Ottoman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire have been much more respectful to individual rights considering them ethnically equal. In fact the heads of the Empires were themselves multi-ethnic. Borbons and Habsbourgs in Spain for example.
The US itself was built also on “ethnic homogeneirty” through assimilation into the Anglo-Saxon mainstream. That led to the colonisation first of the East, then of the West, ending with dozens of indian nations, murdering several million people, annexing thousand of miles and expelling their inhabitants to be populated with Anglo-saxons. That´s how America was built. Texas was annexed by the US after Anglo-saxons led by Houston became the majority.
The same did the Czech and Polish Governments after WWII expelling hundreds of thousands of German individuals just for their ethnicity without consideration to their rights as individuals. They had NO RIGHTS.
The same did Greece and Turkey expelling hundreds of thousands of their own citizens just to achieve ethnic homogeneity. The same Israel with christian and Muslim Palestinians (not withe Jewish Palestinians) which are still considered unhumans. The Isreali Government doesn´t look at their ethnic minorities as individuals but just as a cancer. And the same happens in any Nationalist construction.
As we all know Adolf Hitler had in mind the American experience in their policy of “ethnic homogeneity” and assimilation as was expressed in “Mein Kamp”. Nothing new, just repeating in the East what Americans had done in the West. In fact he considered America the first and more important example for what he devised for Germany´s future. He wanted Germany to be another AMERICA…and he could have succeed and today would be considered a German Ataturk which built a Germany of 200 million people with three times its actual size. A success.
Posted by: Enrique Costas Mira | December 4th, 2007 at 5:14 am | Report this commentIt is true that most European nations have been very successful despite being quite small. However this is not quite replicated in the same way elsewhere in Africa or in Asia.
All neighbors of India are small, poor and hugely unstable; Afghanistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka. Burma & Pakistan are medium sized but again follow the general South Asian trend.
India has stayed democratic primarily because its size ensures that it is impossible to be managed otherwise by a centralized dictatorship. The size also ensures a critical mass of quality in the national level judiciary, bureaucracy and politics. This important in our part of the world , which is largely unlettered. The state level politicians in India are no different from their counterparts in our neighbors, sometimes sharing the common language and culture. Take from example Bangladesh and West Bengal, or the Indian Punjab and Pakistan.
Their are also serious border & water disputes between the Indian states, which make no news outside India, because they are usually resolved by a relatively neutral judiciary and national level politicians. Examples are Karnataka & Maharashtra over Belgaum, Karnataka & Tamil Nadu over Cauvery waters, Nagaland & Assam…..
It is actually impossible for me to foresee an India without a strong Iron hand emanating from its kernel, representing the nation as a whole..
There is also an emotional and illogical side to nation building. Europe finds no inclination to take on Muslim Turkey. India continues with poor and Muslim Kashmir, with no specific economic advantages. It is said that bulk of Indian national income comes from just two cities Bangalore and Mumbai. But that is still no reason to dismantle rest of the country.
Posted by: Sandeep Chowdhury | December 4th, 2007 at 6:03 am | Report this commentFascinating stuff.
The same forces are at work in the business world, except changes there are quicker: I am referring to the demise of the multi-industry conglomerate and the rise of companies focusing on core competencies. To further the analogy: in the same manner that the USA is an exception to the rules in geo-politics, GE is an exception in business.
Conglomerates or Japanese keiretsu are useful when the wider economy isn’t sufficiently developed, so that the conglomerate must fend for itself and develop its own infrastructure and supportive industries — Ford was once the largest operator of mines in South America. Conglomerates also allow for easier access to credit, when financial institutions are not sufficiently developed. However, as the wider economy develops, rule-of-law and property rights are enforced, conglomerates become redundant. Today, multi-nationals can outsource their production, their backoffice and even their supply-chains. Correspondingly in the political world, some countries today can outsource functions to supranational entities such as the EU!
Posted by: RCS | December 4th, 2007 at 7:18 am | Report this commentSir, in 1940, the Soviet foreign minister Molotov told his Lithuanian counterpart something like this: “You have to be a realist and grasp that the time for small states is over.” Unfortunately it took some 50 years to prove that Molotov had been wrong.
Political and economic systems in democratic small states have an advantage in the fact that all key decision makers know each other personally. At times that can however also turn into a disadvantage. Success requires a certain amount of “national responsibility” or even patriotism from these individuals.
I have often wondered whether an an ideal population size for a nation state could be somehow calculated. It might be that the openness of national economies (which is crucial for the success of any small state) has made that impossible a long time ago.
As far as security is concerned, alliances and defence agreements do have an importance - at least until the conflict actually breaks out.
Jukka Siukosaari
Posted by: Jukka Siukosaari | December 4th, 2007 at 7:54 am | Report this commentFinland (pop. 5 276 955 at the end of 2006)
In response to Mr Chowdhury’s thoughtful post:
I agree. Everything you say fits in with what I wrote in my previous post: The Indian sub-continent has yet to reach the phase where the grip of the central government can be loosened. Perhaps in the far future India will transform itself into an Indian Union.
But you are also quite right that there is an emotional aspect attached to countries, which doesen’t exist in the business world (or at least shouldn’t exist). Therefore the pace of change is slower; there isn’t a perfect isomorphism. But this too is malleable. Trans-Indian nationalism is a product of a certain ideology and indoctriantion. Admittedly these things tend to have strong historic roots. Europe was for most of its history fragmented, therefore allegiances are local, whilst India and China have strong traditions of empire.
There is a duality here: are small countries in vogue today, or are supranational entities in vogue? The answer is both: this is the same question framed differently.
Posted by: RCS | December 4th, 2007 at 8:00 am | Report this commentI want to criticise the idea that we should be promoting smaller ‘nations’ (and I would question the use of nation in this context as well because I think you mean states).
Nationalism undoubtedly provides the supporting logic for the splintering process you are encouraging here. Nationalism is the idea and political movement (read: policy) that attempts to make the nation (a socio/political/cultural creation) congruous with political boundaries (legal-juridical). When the two are not the same(e.g. Kosovo viz. Serbia), the nascent nation/state’s leaders attempt to make it so. History, as others above have rightly pointed out, is full of different techniques for establishing this political fact on the ground with disastrous consequences.
But it is not just these consequences - the ethnic cleansing, evacuations and genocide - that should prevent us from supporting splintering states to form smaller nation-states. Minority rights regimes and federalism are chrystallising international norms which deserve our support for their orientation towards cooperation and compromise. These cooperative international norms fall victim to the idea that national identities are fixed and veritable and to whom are owed a political state.
We do a disservice to federalism and its attendant benefits of reconciliation and compromise if the technique which gains our support is simply to divorce.
Posted by: Michael Bookman | December 4th, 2007 at 8:52 am | Report this commentSurely this splintering of nations is part of a project to create more homogeneous populations within smaller states - this doesn’t seem a particularly progressive idea.
Of course there is some evidence that diversity undermines social solidarity, but much of our cultural richness comes from a more cosmopolitan approach.
Posted by: Dave | December 4th, 2007 at 10:57 am | Report this commentIN TWO PARTS: PART 1
Agree with many points made in this thread, but my professional instincts align with Michael Bookman. While amusing or intriguing, this discussion is somewhere between flippant and irresponsible for anyone who has public responsibilities. (Disclaimer: Some of the thoughts that follow depart fully from my professional instincts!)
Firstly, for our current world, the United Nations has defined what a nation is. The US seems not to acknowledge the UN as anything more than a tourist attraction. Many Americans do indeed like to send UNICEF holiday cards, but even they are increasingly clueless about the why behind the institution.
Secondly, apart from the UN mandates, Israeli exceptionalism has created a dangerous benchmark for aspiring racial/religious nations. The same rules agreed for others in 1949, and in post Charles V treaties in Europe and the Marbury v Madison ruling so central to US jurisprudence on so many matters, have NOT been applied there. Enough said. RCS and others will rant on in moments.
Thirdly, the relationships between “homogenous” peoples and geographies is an increasingly vague one. Current international laws assume such exist. Postal codes spanning bordered geographies offer statisticians a far more effective way to stratify economic, social and political behaviour identifiers and shared affinities. Today facebook.com is likely an even more reliable proxy to organise the under-35 year-olds in homogenous societies.
We in Europe may soon get a thrill passing through Flanders and picking up newly minted euro coins. As Flanders is very much within my “world”, I can even look forward to some lively discussions about what will seem little different than a rebranding for the professional classes. Ditto for Scotland, should they make the break.
For Belgian taxpayers, small business owners, students, legal immmigrants, workers in mid-sized businesses, and homeowners, I doubt the next few years will be so charmed. I have already pondered possible changes in the short commute between Brussels and Antwerp, not to mention new roadsign confusion. What about Thalys if they fail to agree new contributions in a timely manner? I do not worry for Albert Frères, the Solvays, the Janssens, the Boëls or the numerous ministers and CEOs who regard them as royalty. And certainly not the US expatriates and multinationals who/which, thanks to Didier Reynders, pay nil in Belgian taxes and are at the root cause of the issues there. (Reynders is the finance minister who has been a personal dependent of Albert Frères and met in April 2006 with George Bush and his prime minister to discuss a Deloitte-prepared powerpoint presentation on tax avoidance deals for US investors. Read Marco van Hees’ “DIDIER REYNDERS, L’homme qui parle à l’oreille des riches”, Les Editions Aden)
Enough for the Kingdom of Belgium.
END PART 1
Posted by: WCM | December 4th, 2007 at 11:20 am | Report this commentYour article carries the usual mix of fact and fiction on small states.
Posted by: Paul Sutton | December 4th, 2007 at 11:29 am | Report this commentFirst, what is small? The World Bank has had an annuual forum for small developing states since 2000. It defines small as those with a population under 1.5 million. On this criteria there are currently 51 small sovereign states. You go up to 10 million. Thats not far off half the UN membership.
Second, you say they are prosperous. Many small states (population 3 million or below)are in the middle income categories but some with a population below 1.5 million have very low per cap incomes - Guinea Bissau US$190, Gambia 310, Comoros 660, Sao Tome 780, Tuvalu 1100 (2006 figures, World Bank).
Third, are small countries more homogenous than large ones? One of your examples - Belgium - is anything but harmonious. Homogenous? What about Fiji or Guyana? Small states are no more homogenous than large ones and if they have a better record of political stability it is because the costs of civil breakdown are so very obvious.
Kososvo cannot support its independence and independence will not support Kososvo. If independence is so wondeful then why have the Bermudans (who have the 2nd highest per capita income in the world) drawn back from this option having so recently examined it.
The key you have missed out is inherent vulnerability. Yes - the present international system is kinder than it was to small states but as the Commonwealth Secretariat established in 2000 small states (under 1.5 million) remain very vulnerable to economic shocks. In a sample of 111 developing countries (34 classed as small and 77 as large) 26 of the most vulnerable were small states while all of the 28 countries with low vulnerability were large. Globalisation increases the risk of economic vulnerability, not reduces it. Small can be beautiful and can be prosperous, but it can also be the reverse!
PART 2/2
Now let me take an even more contrarian position: Mr Rachman’s reasoning reflects a more profound trend towards feminised reasoning in geopolitics. The nation-state system in its very arbitrariness stands as a monument to male reasoning in attaining a solution to the dysfunctional territorialism that had undermined economic development for millennia. The world you propose, and I must admit the stats are gratifying and fit with my bourgeois desire to leave a 65-million-plus nation for a 9-million one, will only be created through the buy in of women. Just imagine the debates. Start with the US and discussions to separate Manhattan as an island, connected to Connecticut and then onto Boston, or to insist it remain attached to Buffalo or worse, New Jersey. Guys will be unhappy with any of these discussions. But women!
This comes to mind when I watched the US Undersecretary for Africa, Jendayi Frazer, be interviewed last night on al-Jazeera by Riz Kahn. As I know you read John Bolton’s new book, you will recall that Bolton singled out this lady’s incompetence as having not only caused him to loose face in the UN, but having reversed a border agreement between Eritrea and Ehtiopia at horrific and ongoing consequences to local populations. In the interview, she first denies knowing of Bolton’s accusations, which were then aired by Kahn from a recent interview, and then she said he “didn’t understand”. (Subsequent comments would have made a litigator for Bolton quite happy in a libel case.)
Since first hearing of this matter, I have tracked it and wondered how on earth did this woman get this post. As you know, I have wondered quite loudly as to how Bolton got to where he is/was. But on this matter, I realised the terms had shifted and that this woman represents a contemporary dumbing-down trend in the US, where educational rigour has fallen to feminised senses of rights and entitlements. The point here is not to claim brainpower as masculin, but to say that breaking the stronghold of egregious biases has allowed for dangerously undeserving to rise through hierarchies that are presumed to still be merit-based and intellectually rigorous. Before we speak of recasting nations, we must revisit what it is we expect from our institutions and societies.
Before Zeus and Hera, Greece was a culture dominated by goddesses. Before the 5th millennium BC, young, healthy males were selected to mate with goddesses and to keep them amused for one-to-three year periods, at the end of which they were sacrificed in ritual elaborated in accord with the status of the respective goddess. Perhaps this is when Greek men decided to institutionalise sexual alternatives. Needless to say, the first capital was not raised upon a column until the time of Zeus, when his wife reversed the theory of female domination in society and created dependency, child support and pension plans.
Before the likes of women like Condoleeza Rice, or neo-modernists like Miliband and Sarkozy and Clinton, recast the global order with a 5-sentence Rice press release, think hard. This UN-ordered world may be past its expiry date, but the alternatives require thoughtful thinking. The world will not serve most if we continue thinking it can be run like a US multinational or a Citibank.
Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin, the Chinese, the Indians, the Arabs and likely the Japanese have moved to a different page.
Posted by: WCM | December 4th, 2007 at 11:31 am | Report this commentWhat is a country?
Must it have a currency? Must it issue passports? Must it have a foreign policy?
Aren’t we moving to a world where security, standards and economics are set on a big scale, and ever-smaller areas set their own detailed rules and identity?
So the nation-state is going out of fashion?
Posted by: Ian Slater | December 4th, 2007 at 12:07 pm | Report this commentDo only those customized for you,for the sake of hungry children,for the sake of burning earth, ultimately for the sake of yourself.
Posted by: hf | December 4th, 2007 at 1:13 pm | Report this commentRCS,
China and India are like any other and their ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities are like any other.
In fact, the Independence of Guangdong was already proclaimed in 1911 after the Xinhai Revolution…
And the segregation of China promoting Nationalism is an old aim of the Anglo-saxon agenda: Divide and rule.
Of course in Taiwan and Tibet it is evident, but Hong Kong is just the place where Anglo-Americans try to forge the bases for the Secession of Guandong (about 110 million people including immigrants, Hong Kong and Macau) In 30 years Guangdong alone will be an economic power bigger than Germany.
In Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia…the goal is clear and the Pentagon has always watched that outcome as interesting and good for American geopolitical interests.
About India, secessionist movements are common and you just have to wait for the right time when the Romantic idea of Nationalism arrives as it has already done in dozens of ethnicities. The same happened in Europe before.
Ethnic nationalism is basically a XIX Century construcction in Europe, a consequence of Romanticism, based on Myths (true or false myths) Greek Nationalists returned to the Century IV BC, Jewish Nationalists even resurected a dead language and returned to the Century V BC, German Nationalists retuned to the Cenruty V AC, Quechua Nationalists returned to the Century XVI AC…all was false because that romantic past had vanished centuries ago.
Posted by: Enrique Costas Mira | December 4th, 2007 at 2:07 pm | Report this commentEnrique,
With the American population comprised of over one-third non-Anglo-Saxons (and rapidly increasing), it cannot rationally be used as an example for the triumph of racial homogeneity.
Further, Hitler viewed America as a “mongrel” state and was puzzled that it had not expanded into and conquered Canada and Mexico.
Posted by: kc | December 4th, 2007 at 2:20 pm | Report this commentkc
Gideon,
“These days invading and occupying small countries can be a massive pain in the neck”. That is true - up to a point. Russia has not seemed to suffer unduly for the crushing of Chechnya, nor China for Tibet. The pain in the neck point only works for countries that are accountable - Syria for example proved to be accountable internationally (at least to a point) over Lebanon and even then it has not totally bowed out of that country; the US administration is accountable to its electorate. Neither Russia or China are accountable in either of these ways in any meaningful sense, hence why they do not suffer from a pain in the neck.
The second point I would like to make is that a world of successful smaller states is not a new phenomenon. Think of Germany or Italy before their respective unifications in the 19th century. Prior to that, who would have argued that Venice or Prussia would be subsumed into a greater entity?
History teaches that these trends are not immutable. Once the pendulum swings too far in a particular direction, it will inevitably swing in the other, with all the upheavals this brings.
One of the main points that stands out from your piece is that the examples of thriving smaller states you cite are all in Europe - under the protection of the EU and Nato, as you say. Whilst there are examples in rougher parts of the world - Dubai for example - the point is clearly made that in the long term might is right.
Posted by: AYC | December 4th, 2007 at 2:28 pm | Report this commentAYC–Chechnya has been a part of “Russia” for roughly the same period of history as the countries carved out of the Ottoman Levant, Arabia and Babylon. It had been a de facto part of the Russian empire since the 16th century. (Need to fact check this.) Tibet had never been seen before 1955 as a modern internationally enfranchised nation. So, the argument of accountability that attempts to bring us back down into the Golan is weak for me.
Looking at Venice and Prussia in the same historical context also fails for me. I cannot say much aobud pendulum theories, anymore than to note they work as well as day and night.
The Eurocentric point is valid, but Dubai is yet to be seen as a beacon for a new era in mini-nation states. Much has been written in other threads recently about the expense of the masses that help deliver it.
Singapore, in contrast, has always existed out of the remains of the 14th duchy of the Malaysian peninsula that was uniquely Hakka Chinese. Again, it is questionable contribution to a world order that emerged from a European Enlightenment.
The fundamental question as to whether states are merely geographically determined or ethnically determined administrative contrivances. Or is there another approach that better sustain us now that the US and even the EU models seem inadequate for much of the globe?
Posted by: WCM | December 4th, 2007 at 2:52 pm | Report this commentCorrection: first sentence in last post should read: “Chechnya has been a part of “Russia” for roughly the same period of history as the countries carved out of the Ottoman Levant, Arabia and Babylon have had international borders.” Sorry.
Posted by: WCM | December 4th, 2007 at 2:55 pm | Report this commentIn my earlier posting, I cited international tax games in relation to Belgium’s woes. I think it is useful to step back from this lofty, but historic idea of nation-states, and look for a moment at tax states. The map looks different, and then, expanding it to multinationals and resource economics, we can discuss where third-world dictators can fit into the framework.
Posted by: WCM | December 4th, 2007 at 3:05 pm | Report this commentWCM,
The point about accountability is valid for Russia in Chechnya as much as for any other entity. The corollary is US interference in the British suppression of Irish nationalism during the recent past - don’t see the Russians coming under the same pressure, do you? Also, the Golan wasn’t the issue - the point about Syria having leverage in Lebanese politics, even without a physical presence in Beirut, is key here. As for nations which have only recently been recognised internationally, ever hear of the Palestinians?
The point about Venice and Prussia, is that they were highly successful smaller states, later subsumed into larger ones. The fact that Belgium, Finland, Estonia or a host of other countries are for now independent does not mean much given the vagaries of history. My bet is that in another hundred years many of the small states we see today will not exist - they will be parts of larger entites.
Hope that’s clarified things.
All the best.
Posted by: AYC | December 4th, 2007 at 3:26 pm | Report this commentIreland and Switzerland? Poor choices. Not sure who would invade them — Syria? Russia? But I’m pretty sure that Nato is even better as a frontier than a medium-sized mountain range. I know I’d invade the land of clocks and chocolate, you know, if I didn’t have to drive through NATO to get there.
Point: Foreign relations aren’t independent of location. Geography plays a massive role.
Importance: Eritrea, Abkhazia, and Somaliland all disagree with the purported ease of being a small country in the 3rd millenium.
Posted by: Bill | December 4th, 2007 at 3:59 pm | Report this commentSmall has its drawbacks. Ever lived in a small town? Everyone knows who you are, whom you are with and what you are on about. The Basque Country (Euzcadi) and Cataluña (Catalonia/Catalunya) are two emerging small states in Spain. As far as I can judge they are in the trall of client politics (often corrupt) and submitted to absurd mytholgies about their past and linguistic exclusion to boot. If individual freedom is the issue, which on balance it should be, small states tend to choke it. Nationalist politicians, as well as self seeking, can be nasty.
Posted by: Tom Burns Marañón | December 4th, 2007 at 4:16 pm | Report this commentkc,
I was talking about the American historical trend until the mid XX Century, when America expanded…taking even half of the Mexican Territory as you now (even if American maps say “Ceded by Mexico”), a land ten times bigger than the part of Poland annexed by Hitler, TEN TIMES BIGGER. Hitler´s territorial expansion was peanuts compared to America´s.
Now, of course, America is not a country in expansion but living from its expansionist past the same way as if after Hitler a Democratic Government in Germany kept its territorial expansion (a democratic Germany of 200 million people with full rights and three times its actual size)…or is America going to return California, Texas, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Utah and New Mexico back to MEXICO? Or is America going to give Independence to Hawaii?
Remember that during America´s territorial expansion blacks (20% of the population by then) were slaves and native americans (indians, another 10% of the population by then) were not considered even human, just killed like animals and their lands expropriated by the US Government.
The only difference is that Hitler failed in his American Dream.
Posted by: Enrique | December 4th, 2007 at 6:09 pm | Report this comment1– America did not expand in the “mid XX Century” — you need to read some basic history and proof your emails.
Posted by: kc | December 4th, 2007 at 6:37 pm | Report this comment2– Hitler failed because he was defeated by the US, the former Soviet Union, the UK, and their allies.
kc
kc,
I mean Alaska and Hawaii were incorporated as states in the mid XX century (I know expansion to Hawaii and Puerto Rico took place in 1898)
And about Hitler, we agree: he failed.
Posted by: Enrique | December 4th, 2007 at 9:01 pm | Report this commentWeak article with very doubtful arguments. I won’t get into too much detail. Two points: 1. Countries like Norway have a small population and huge natural resources. If you divide Germany, for example, into sixteen 5-million-countries, you can’t expect them to flourish like Norway. 2. Many small countries parasitically profit from the wealth of big countries. Switzerland (its cantons independently and very differently to be exact) and Ireland reduced taxes drastically, thus attracting big companies and rich people from big countries (France, Germany, etc.). So, most small countries would be much less without the big countries. The interesting question is: Do small countries have a structural advantage over big countries? The article fails to answer this.
Posted by: hans | December 4th, 2007 at 9:04 pm | Report this commentDear Mr. Rachman,
Posted by: manuel riesco | December 4th, 2007 at 11:20 pm | Report this commentI guess this time you may be looking just at one tendency - namely the rather evident recent one leading to small nations to assert their independence from or within national existing states - but as it happens many times, there is a parallel one in the same direction and oppositve sense.
The latter of course, is the also quite clear impulse pushing existing nations to unite into larger integrated bodies that may excert at least some degree of sovereignity. The same impulse in the XIXth century led to national states.
Why? Maybe, there is something like an optimal size of sovereign space, which has been increasing in accordance with the size of the leader: Great Btitain in the 19th century, US in the 20th, China in the 21st?
Maybe, the result will come out not out of one, but both above mentioned tendecies acting together.
How would your fine artist figure out the birds in this more complex picture?
I agree with you Manuel. Gideon’s analysis is really just a snapshot taken at an unrepresentative moment in history. Under Pax Americana the world feels relatively secure and being small does not attract a penalty. As US power wanes small states will become subject to bullying from larger ones. I suspect that the increasingly fragmented Europe will suffer enormously from this and may well become the holy roman empire of the 21st century.
Posted by: James Dakin | December 5th, 2007 at 1:33 am | Report this commentSir,
Posted by: Vanessa Landaverde | December 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pm | Report this commentIn your article you say that small nations are more likely to have a better human developpent. However this can only be the case if the neighbour countries help, or if the country is lucky to get a “godfather” (which is the case with the new european states). But think of other regions in the world, such as Central America which is an ensemble of small states that got their independence from Spain 200 years ago. Even with small populations and some natural resources, none of them (apart from Costa Rica which has received a lot of american investment) has been able to reach a descent human developpent. I think the title of your article should be “For nations, Small is beautiful, with a little help from their friends”.
Is it not worth noting that there are far more small nations than big ones?
Hence why the top, middle and bottom of each index of success has a high proportion of small nations. (the rich and democratic world only has six nations with 50million+ people - Italy, France, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the USA.
Add to that that big countries and small seem to change their performance over time irrespective of their size, and this seems a weak analysis.
eg - the UK was sick man of europe with 60million people in the 1970s, and the major driver of European growth over the last ten years, still with 60million people.
oddly it did that at the same time that Ireland rose from the status of european backwater to celtic tiger with no noteworthy change in population.
Posted by: Margin4Error | December 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pm | Report this commentMr Rachman, you say that “[a]bove all, small countries tend to be more homogenous. This makes them less prone to civil strife or dictatorship. It also means higher levels of social trust”.
This received view, that homogeneity somehow equates to stability, is bandied about too often.
It is not a group of people being the same that leads to stability and trust, but their having common interests. And they can have such interests even if they are not are not all made the same. People working in the City of London are not “homogenous”: you just need to look around any open plan space to see that. But they all have a largely common purpose, being to make money and gain experience in the financial capital of Europe. An example is also provided, on a much smaller scale, by my department at work. The 10 of us represent 4 nationalities and many more ethnic backgrounds, but what we have in common is our education, our professional backgrounds, the work we do and the way we do it. And it is this that enables us to work as a team, trust one another as professionals and deal with any differing points of view in a civilised manner.
Homogeneity is outdated. Not to mention dangerous, because it can lead to other undesirable outcomes, e.g., attempts at homogenisation, the general mistrust of “foreigners” in Britain today and the resulting opposition to immigration. As long as people like you continue to draw these lines along old boundaries, the world is not going to change.
Posted by: Red | December 6th, 2007 at 1:55 pm | Report this comment“Will for the first time in the U.N.’s history a decision be taken — contrary to the will of a democratic state and, what is more, of a U.N. founding member — to redraw its internationally recognized borders, to abolish its sovereignty and to amputate 15 percent of its territory?”
Kostunica at the UN SC December 19, 2007
I surely looks and sounds like Munich in 1938 History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | December 19th, 2007 at 10:26 pm | Report this comment