Introduction
The accelerated economic, cultural, political, and technological integration has been a major threat to countries’ economic progress and regional stability worldwide. As a result, there has been a need for continuous assessment of the security environment through strategic national security plans. However, the national security planning between small and larger states in most countries differs in their approach to security, strengthening of institutions, and assessment of the resources.
Approach to Security
The differences between the small and large states influence the former’s security policy decisions to engage in favorable policy strategies. Small states are known for establishing alliances as responses to threats. According to Vaicekauskaitė (2017), in the theory of alliance small states align with weaker allies or threatening powers to overcome any threatening powers. For example, the NATO alliance, a 29-member states alliance, is highly institutionalized to defend its member states from any threats (Vaicekauskaitė 2017). Alliances create collaborative efforts among states with common ideologies and interests. The alliances advance the small states’ international status and protect them from potential adversaries.
Small states pursue policy neutrality in their national security planning, unlike larger states which take sides with greater powers. The former states adopt strategic independence to secure their survival, enhance sovereignty, and promote independence (Baldersheim and Keating 2017). Neutrality is one of the most conceivable options for small states which border hostile countries. Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland are examples of small states which employ the policy of non-neutrality (Vaicekauskaitė 2017). Policy neutrality gives small states more opportunities to be actively involved in the promotion of international security policy.
The Case of Austria during the Cold War is a representation of policy neutrality strategy by small states in the promotion of security. The state remained neutral to the United States and the Soviet Union and was well-suited for addressing the new challenges after the war (Gärtner2018). However, larger states in the US aligned themselves with the powers that seemed to win. Austria’s neutrality strategy made the state become a host to several international organizations including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Gärtner 2018). Neutrality has a framework for regional cooperation and enhanced military interoperability that contributes significantly to national security planning.
Strengthening of Institutions
Small states employ strategic hedging as part of their national security planning. The strategy involves the choice of policies that are mutually reactive to the party states in question. Compared to larger states, the small states suffer from diseconomies of scale both in production and distribution. Small states have small populations compared to larger states and because of this, they experience negotiation challenges during security planning with greater powers. Limited negotiation capacity results in small states adopting strategic hedging to improve their security capabilities. The Southeastern Asian countries employ the strategic hedging strategy to maintain ties with both China and the United States (Vaicekauskaitė 2017). Contrary, the larger states are economically and politically stable for survival and sustainability.
The small and larger states face security challenges of different magnitude and thus need different capabilities to address them. The two states employ different mechanisms to engage with different security stakeholders for risk mitigation. For instance, the small states adopt the shelter strategy to reduce their socio-economic and political vulnerability (Vaicekauskaitė 2017). While larger states consider relative gain considerations when merging with international organizations, small states’ strategy of choosing their partners for the alliance shelter relationship is dynamic. The Baltic States are known for relying on the alliance security strategy as part of their national security planning for survival (Vaicekauskaitė 2017). The small states are exposed to security challenges and therefore need to choose a strategy that increases their survival in the dynamic environment.
Assessment of the Resources
Material power sources are significant factors in categorizing a state as either small or large. The issue of resources is critical to effective national security planning for all states. The theory of security exchange explains the alliance behavior between small states and large states. According to the theory, the transfer of security resources from one state to another is a bargain between the two security-seeking entities (Blankenship 2018). States are classified as small due to their limited capabilities including military powers and inadequate resources. Therefore, small states collaborate with larger states to enhance their capabilities and promote security.
In terms of transferring valuable resources from larger states to smaller states, the former states evaluate their counterpart’s ability to contribute to their security plan. This criterion is known as the Perceived Strategic Value (PSV) in the great powers’ eyes (Blankenship 2018). Therefore, large states transfer larger security exchanges to small states with higher PSV. On the other hand, small states assess the military capability of the potential alliance partner based on the sophisticated methodologies to combat their threats.
Conclusion
Factors such as the approach to security, strengthening of institutions, and resource assessment in national security planning are fundamental in distinguishing a small state from a larger one. Small states seek to strengthen their territorial boundaries through alliances formed under the pursuance of policy neutrality or strategic hedging. Conversely, larger states’ alliance formation supports one of the powers. Small states assess their partners’ resource capability based on the military power sources while the large states base their resource assessment on perceived strategic value. Though both small and large states engage in national security planning to create a stable security environment, they employ different schemes to strengthen their territorial boundaries.
References
Baldersheim, H., and M. Keating. 2017. 2. Do Small States Need ‘Alliance Shelter’? Scotland and the Nordic Nations. Security in a Small Nation, edited by Andrew W. Neal, 49-76. Open Book Publishers.
Blankenship, Brian Dylan. 2018. Promises under pressure: Reassurance and burden-sharing in asymmetric alliances. Columbia University.
Gärtner, Heinz. 2018. Austria: Engaged Neutrality. In the European Neutrals and NATO, pp. 129-149. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Vaicekauskaitė, ŽivilėMarija. 2017. Security Strategies of Small States in a Changing World. Journal on Baltic Security 3 (2): 7-15.