Small states are “damned dots”, not “real” states. They should behave and do as they are told, destined as they are to be on the losing end of geopolitics. They are so insignificant that even major political scientists leave them out of their studies.

The success of small states in international relations – mice that roar? edited by Godfrey Baldacchino and published recently by Routledge, challenges these perspectives. Scholars go through 300 years of success stories by small states showing that size is a very real constraint but it does not determine outcomes on its own.

The arrogant and powerful do not always prevail.

These scholars define the small states on their own terms, decolonising and deconstructing the coloniality of those who wish to dominate them and disempower them to make them “feel less” than real states. Reproposing the small state, Baldacchino concludes: “It appears more correct to state that, in the world today, there are many states, among which there are a few large states … Small players are made to think and believe that they are anomalies, quirks in the international system, when actually they are the norm and it is the large countries that are the outliers.”

The central message is that small states should not accept the imposed inferiority, miniaturisation, boundaries and limitations that others set for them. As Juan Ramón Jiménez advises: “If they give you ruled paper, write the other way.” This is not easy.

As Amartya Sen says: “… even when we are clear how we want to see ourselves, we may still have difficulty in being able to persuade others to see us in just that way.”

Small states make life more difficult for themselves when they have national political elites who have an inferiority complex and are culturally dependent, “their minds stuffed with foreign values and theories…” From his direct practical experience of former colonies, Dudley Seers, the British/New Zealand development economist, observed “that the capacity of a government to adopt an independent strategy might lie not so much in its productive structure, technology, natural resources or military capability, important though these were, as in the strength and homogeneity of its culture which can help it and its leadership avoid cultural dependence on an imported way of perceiving the nation’s own needs”.

This book is a valuable vademecum for the national political elites of small states, urging them not to be easily intimidated or pushed around, not afraid to speak up, not to hide from a challenge. Looking at themselves through their own eyes. Not begging to be validated by others: “States in the 21st century function as best as they can with the resources available: no one is perfect and the state without threats or challenges is mere fiction and an ideal type.”

Baldacchino asserts that historical evidence shows that small states are not impostors when, despite the reticence and demands of the great powers, they take proactive and legitimate initiatives to shape the world in which they exist.

It is the major powers who believe that might is right when it suits them- Evarist Bartolo

Baldacchino: “They are not deficient models or scaled-down versions of ‘fuller’ and ‘more’ complete states, missing this and that, they are not and should not be treated as disabled cousins of larger, presumed more healthy, more complete jurisdictions.”

People, not pawns

James Jay Carafano, of the Heritage Foundation, says: “Little nations are not sand to be ground between the great wheels of major powers. They are made up of people, not pawns. Citizens in small states have the same hopes, aspirations and natural rights as those in world powers. These people have every reason to expect and demand a life of freedom, peace and prosperity.”

He thinks that America should “Avoid Us-or-Them-ism…. America can’t ask countries not to do business with China. After all, the United States does business with China. The goal is not to get countries to take sides but to engage and help them act consistently with their own interests…”

More nations are pursuing their own paths and seek to control their own destiny, even by freely forming blocs in an increasingly multipolar world facing unprecedented global challenges. A new challenge for small states is not to let shared sovereignty become neo-colonial. Small states can offer important answers to large questions.

Ban Ki Moon told the Forum of Small States in 2012: “Being small does not mean an absence of big ideas.”

Kofi Annan told Barbados in 2002: “What happens in your nations is of great concern to the rest of the world. Your countries are places where, in concentrated form, many of the main problems of development and environment are unfolding. Your experiences, your experiments, your transformation – can guide the way to a brighter future for all peoples.”

Small island states are playing a crucial role on the existential issue of climate change, like they did on the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. The Arms Trade Treaty and the establishment of an International Criminal Court are among the achievements of small states. It is the major powers who believe that might is right when it suits them.

The new and old conflicts and the arms races in different regions show that the ideal global conditions for small states – a peaceful and equal order governed by international cooperation – is still a very distant dream. Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley calls for a truly inclusive UN whose security council does not have the power of veto and for a change in the main financial and trade global organisations that, to this day, continue to reflect an imperialistic order. “The global order is not working; it is not delivering in the areas of critical importance necessary to achieve the goal of sustainable development for the majority of the world’s population,” she says.

In their own interests, small states need to work with those countries that want to create a new world order that works for them.

Evarist Bartolo is a former Labour education and foreign minister.