The Diplomacy of Small States: Exploring Opportunities and Limitations in the Case of Timor-Leste
https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2023-3-90-138-152
Abstract
This article examines the diplomacy of small states, focusing on the case of TimorLeste. It analyzes the foreign policy strategies of small states, which encompass bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, engagement in international organizations and global governance, and the utilization of public diplomacy. These diplomatic tools enable small states to pursue their foreign policy objectives despite their limited resources, while also fostering cooperative relationships with larger powers. Diplomacy is regarded as a universal mechanism through which small states like Timor-Leste can integrate into the global international relations system.
Given the inherent limitations of small states in contesting with major and middle powers, they seek to enhance their international influence through collective actions, such as forming or joining coalitions in international organizations or intergovernmental forums. Additionally, small states employ public diplomacy to draw attention to their issues and needs, thereby reducing their reliance on greater powers and forging more advantageous collaborations with other states. Strategies such as imitation and balancing, participation in coalitions, promotion of international initiatives, provision of expertise, and adherence to the principles of international law are utilized to cultivate a positive image of small states as responsible actors in international relations and reliable partners.
The article concludes that Timor-Leste has been successful in maintaining bilateral and multilateral relations and actively participating in international organizations. However, it faces systemic challenges in effectively employing public diplomacy mechanisms. These challenges can be attributed to underdeveloped national public institutions and the enduring influence of greater powers, which affect not only Timor-Leste but also the wider region.
About the Authors
O. A. Krasnyak
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Olga A. Krasnyak – Dr., Head of the Center for International Cooperation of the Faculty of Law
20 Myasnitskaya, Moscow, 101000
P. S. Shaternikov
Institute of Oriental Studies of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of China and Modern Asia of Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Pavel S. Shaternikov – Postgraduate Student; Researcher
Rozhdestvenka str., 12, 107031, Moscow.
References
1. Aodha É.M. 2011. Human Rights Diplomacy of Small States. Human Rights Diplomacy: Contemporary Perspectives. M. O'Flaherty, Z. Kędzia, A. Müller, and G. Ulrich (eds.). Leiden, Boston: Brill. DOI: 10.1163/ej.9789004195165.i-301.2
2. Baehr P.R. 1975. Small States: A Tool for Analysis? World Politics. 27(3). P. 456-466. Cooper A., Shaw T. (eds.). 2009. The Diplomacies of Small States: Between Vulnerability and Resilience. Palgrave Macmillan. Cooper D. 2011. Challenging Contemporary Notions of Middle Power Influence: Implications of the Proliferation Security Initiative for “Middle Power Theory. Foreign Policy Analysis. 7(3). P. 317-336.
3. Dunn J. 1996. Timor: A People Betrayed. Sydney: ABC Books for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. No3.
4. Handel M. 1981. Weak States in the International System. London: Frank Cass.
5. Heng Y.-K., Syed M. 2015. Can Small States Be More than Price Takers in Global Governance? Global Governance. 21(3). P. 435-454. DOI: 0.1163/19426720-02103006
6. Insanally R. 2013. Multilateral Diplomacy for Small States: “The Art of Letting Others Have Your Way. Guyenterprise Advertising Agency.
7. Jones D.M., Jenne N. 2022. Hedging and Grand Strategy in Southeast Asian Foreign Policy.
8. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. 22(2). P. 205-235. DOI: 10.1093/irap/lcab003
9. Jordaan E. 2003. The Concept of a Middle Power in International Relations: Distinguishing between Emerging and Traditional Middle Powers. Politikon. (30)1. P. 165-181. DOI: 10.1080/0258934032000147282
10. Kaul N. 2022. Beyond India and China: Bhutan as a Small State in International Relations. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. 22(2). P. 297-337. DOI: 10.1093/irap/lcab010
11. Krasnyak O. 2020. Foreign Ministry’S Spokesperson in Public Diplomacy: a Case of Russia. Russian Journal of Communication. 12(2). P. 155-170. DOI: 10.1080/19409419.2020.1780630
12. Laydjiev I. 2013. Searching for Influence and Persuasion in Network-Oriented Public Diplomacy: What Role for «Small States»? Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy. 2(1). P. 40-48.
13. Lee D., Smith N.J. 2010. Small State Discourses in the International Political Economy. Third World Quarterly. 31(7). P. 1091-1105. DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2010.518750
14. Long T. 2017. Small States, Great Power? Gaining Influence Through Intrinsic, Derivative, and Collective Power. International Studies Review. 19(2). P. 185-205. DOI: 10.1093/isr/viw040
15. Long T. 2022. A Small State's Guide to Influence in World Politics. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
16. Menon S. 2020. The Rule of Law, the International Legal Order, and the Foreign Policy of Small States. Asian Journal of International Law. 10(1). P. 50-67. DOI: 10.1017/ S2044251319000262
17. Park A. 2009. Selling a Small State to the World: Lithuania's Struggle in Building Its National Image. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. 5(1). P. 67-84. DOI: 10.1057/pb.2008.25
18. Pedi R., Wivel A. 2020. Small State Diplomacy after the Corona Crisis. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy. 15(4). P. 611-623.
19. Rana K. 2006. Singapore's Diplomacy: Vulnerability into Strength. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy. No1. P. 81-106.
20. Robertson J. 2017. Middle-power Definitions: Confusion Reigns Supreme. Australian Journal of International Affairs. 71(4). P. 355-370.
21. Da Kosta S.J., Borzova A.L. 2020. Sodeystviye Brazilii razvitiyu Vostochnogo Timora [Brazil's Contribution to the Development of East Timor]. Aziya i Afrika Segodnya. No9. P. 42-45. DOI: 10.31857/S032150750010859-6 (In Russian)
22. Khazanov A.M. 2001. Problema Vostochnogo Timora [The Problem of East Timor]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya. No1. P. 8491. (In Russian)
23. Khazanov A.M. 2012. Vostochnyy Timor: dolgiy put' k nezavisimosti [East Timor: A Long Road to Independence]. Istoriya i sovremennost'. 2(16). P. 113-129. (In Russian)
24. Lebedeva M.M. 2020. Kontseptual'nyye perevoploshcheniya publichnoy diplomatii [Conceptual Reincarnations of Public Diplomacy]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 13(5). P. 293-306. DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2020-5-74-293-306 (In Russian)
25. Smirnov V.A. 2015. Problemy vybora vneshnepoliticheskoy nishi malymi gosudarstvami (na primere stran Baltii) [Problems of Choosing a Foreign Policy Niche by Small States (on the Example of the Baltic States)]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 6(45). P. 135-145. DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2015-6-45-135-145 (In Russian)
26. Urlyapov V.F. 2011. Timor-Leshti: stanovleniye vneshnepoliticheskogo kursa [TimorLeste: The Making of a Foreign Policy]. Yugo-Vostochnaya Aziya: aktual'nyye problemy razvitiya. No. 16. P. 147-177. (In Russian)
27. Urlyapov V.F. 2015. Istoriya Timora-Leshti v XX veke [History of Timor-Leste in the 20th Century]. Moscow: IV RAN, 256 p. (In Russian)
28. Vumbi T.O. 2016. Dvadtsatiletiye Sodruzhestva portugaloyazychnykh stran: itogi i perspektivy [Twentieth Anniversary of the Commonwealth of Portuguese-Speaking Countries: Outcomes and Perspectives]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya. 16(2). P. 246-254. (In Russian)
Review
For citations:
Krasnyak O.A., Shaternikov P.S. The Diplomacy of Small States: Exploring Opportunities and Limitations in the Case of Timor-Leste. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2023;16(3):138-152. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2023-3-90-138-152
Views:
1026
Email this article 