Smaller is better. As the world globalizes and technology shrinks bureaucracy, the bar of entry to effective statehood is rapidly being lowered. Yesterday it was strength in numbers. Today it’s efficiency alone.
In the past, one of the objections to independence for small areas was a lack of qualified people to run a new government. Today, as scores of new states have proven, this is no longer the case. The management needed to succesfully run a country, and thus meet the principle of effectiveness (which is one of the indicators of statehood under international law) has diminished by an order of magnitude, to the point where small, independent states are not only viable but often the best solution for otherwise hard-to-solve situations. This is good news for democracy, as government comes closer to the people it governs, and as national governments are getting cut out in favor of smaller national governments.
How small is too small? There are no hard and fast rules, but it often seems that smaller is actually better. After all, Liechtenstein and Monaco are doing pretty well. And by some measures, Luxembourg is the richest country in the world.
A small size is also no argument against independence. If Montenegro, a geographically small country of some 600,000 people, can achieve independence, why too shouldn’t others?
Most of the core functions needed to run an independent state in today's world are not scale issues, in that the core job for the head of a microstate is not that different from that of a city mayor. For those functions which are indeed scale issues, small states elsewhere have already had great success with outsourcing to other countries, international organizations (like UNDP) and even private firms. The latter is a trend which we will see more of in the future, as larger nations, too, see the benefits of letting the private sector carry part of the load of running a country. As a case in point, Chile’s private pension system is accredited with the country’s explosive growth during the nineties when it substantially raised the savings rate.
In Europe, one new country with a claim to statehood is the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica (PMR). It has a population of 555,000 people and covers a territory of 4,163 square kilometers. Population-wise, that makes it almost double the size of Iceland (296,000) and Belize (283,000), and even larger than Luxembourg (468,000). Scores of countries have population sizes below PMR, which itself is fifty times the size of UN members Nauru and Tuvalu. In terms of territory, PMR is six times larger than Singapore (693 sq.km.) or Bahrain (665 sq.km.), and close to twice the size of Luxembourg (2,586 sq.km.) - with several UN members even smaller still.
For new states, viability is today easily solved, so that leaves only the political will of others to welcome these newcomers to the international community of nations. And here, caution should be the order of the day so as to not open a Pandora’s box leading to fears of fragmentation of other states. On a case by case basis, each proposed micro-state must be evaluated to identify criteria which are sufficiently unique and self-justified in regional political history. It would also do well to consider whether the alternative - not recognizing statehood - is worse, or even a realistic long term solution.
Sometimes, this means that international players must choose the lesser of two evils, but as international law is evolving, practice is modernized and democracy will take the front seat in most of these cases. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov said that “The resolution on Kosovo will create a precedent in international law that will later be applied to other frozen conflicts.” He’s right.
In 9 cases out of 10, these smaller, leaner and more efficient states are mostly good for their citizens, their neighbors and the world. The day of "Honey, I Shrunk The Country" is not too far away. There will be issues, as there always are when countries transition. But after smoothing them out, the coming micro-states are to be welcomed into the international community as a 21st century expression of what gave birth to them: The will of their people to democratically choose its own future. They are cases, indeed, of when smaller is better.
The author serves as vice chair, International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty, and contact group coordinator for the Euro-Atlantic Joint Forum.