Small states’ survival, global power balance
Survival of any state is contingent upon a multiplicity of factors, chief among them its ability to maintain or restore its sovereignty in the face of foreign interference.
SMALL states like Zimbabwe have always received the short end of the stick when it comes to maintaining their political and economic autonomy. Rational and idealist theories in the study of international politics have begrudgingly shared a consensus upon the realisation that states — big or small — will forever seek to survive as autonomous entities.
All through history, power has been at the centre of all interaction in the international system, at least according to realist ontology.
In the contemporary environment, however, small countries do not necessarily have to be cowed by the military might of great power states.
It is not a pre-deterministic world that earlier students of international politics suggested it to be.
In the new world, great powers are more likely to suffer larger losses when engaged in pseudo conflicts with independent sovereign small states.
This is because the tools of modern warfare are no longer the same.
Since the Cold War, most battles are now being fought in arenas that are lost on many. With the exception of a few military conflicts — like the Russia-Ukraine war, the Israel-Palestine clash and the civil wars around Africa — several other players in the international arena are engaged in heated disputes of diplomatic
Zimbabwe, as the crowned champion in the fight against neo-colonialism in Africa, has a much larger role to play
manoeuvring and non-militaristic coercion.
In the case of Zimbabwe, the conflict is not necessarily about Zimbabwe, but it stretches beyond its borders.
It is about the possibility of a successful truly independent African nation whose resources are governed by local citizens.
Such a state cannot be allowed to exist by detractors as this would set a dangerous precedent and potentially upset the global power balance.
They fear this because more and more African and Third World states would inevitably seek to attain such autonomy for the benefit of their respective peoples.
The goal is to maintain a world order in which rich countries retain their comforts and luxuries on the back of poor small states.
Therefore, Zimbabwe, as the crowned champion in the fight against neo-colonialism in Africa, has a much larger role to play.
Now that it has become clear — through the August 2023 elections — that Zimbabweans are not easily lured by the poisoned carrot of neo-colonial rhetoric, the country can now continue to take strides towards realising the dream of an upper middle-income economy by 2030.
However, more has to be done to educate the masses and foster patriotism, as it has become clear that the Western world will continue to fund and sponsor rogue elements within Africa under the guise of liberalism and democracy.
They will continue to demonise leaders of states that choose not to subscribe to the neo-colonial design meant to aggrandise or keep the power balance homeostatic.
The Western style democracy and liberalist model has its flaws in Third World countries and has proven to be problematic.
Citizens are polarised, much to the pleasure of Western detractors, who can use the disunity to deter growth and keep less discerning individuals disillusioned about the cause.
The role of sanctions and restrictive measures is to induce suffering in a bid to inspire revolutions and chaos.
Small state survival has always been a difficult proposition, particularly for those that are endowed with bountiful natural resources.
Self-interested entities will forever only see what they can benefit from small states.