!-- Google tag (gtag.js) -->

Why Are Small States So Effective at Mediating Conflicts?

While small countries often lack the geopolitical advantages of larger states, they are blessed with certain features like stability and a small population that allow them to act as neutral mediators.

May 4, 2022
Why Are Small States So Effective at Mediating Conflicts?
IMAGE SOURCE: CFR

When Tom Uzhunallil, an Indian Catholic priest, landed in Muscat on September 12, 2017, after spending 18 months in ISIS captivity in Yemen, one of the first things he did was thank Oman’s then-Sultan Qaboos bin Said for securing his release, an event widely reported by international media. Tucked neatly into a corner of the Arabian Peninsula, Oman is a country that rarely gets the media spotlight but whenever the Gulf country’s name is mentioned in the news it is mostly to highlight its role in securing the release of prisoners of war or bringing conflicting parties to the negotiating table.

In fact, Oman was once again in the news last week for facilitating the release of 14 people, including seven Indians, who were being held captive in Houthi-controlled Yemen since at least 2017. Oman has also emerged as a key mediator in the ongoing disputes between the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia.  

While mediating conflicts and negotiating as a third party to resolve disputes has been traditionally been ascribed to big powers like the United States (US), Russia, France, and China, the role of a comparatively smaller country like Oman in this regard has challenged this assumption. In fact, other small states like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have also played major roles in settling conflicts.

In this respect, it is important to ask the question—what makes small states so effective in mediating disputes?

But before answering the question, it is important to define a small state. While there is no international definition, there are two common criteria for identifying a small state—size and stability. Size pertains to the physical area of the country and the population—less than 10 million—while stability refers to a country’s ability to prevent political and economic turmoil.

According to Simon Mason, a researcher at the Center for Security Studies in Zurich, “small states have unique comparative advantages in the field of mediation, as they are generally more nimble than larger mediation entities.” He adds that small states benefit from the fact that they are perceived by larger states as not being threatening. This is exactly why the US considers Oman a key partner, especially in helping restart talks on reviving the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers. It is also why the US sought Qatar’s help in mediating the dispute with the Taliban.

When it comes to stability, small states are typically less prone to political upheaval and economic distress. Such countries usually have a single political entity rather than different provincial/federal administrations that are generally seen in large countries. This means small states are able to project a more unified policy. For example, both Oman and Qatar are monarchies and have a population of less than 10 million, which enables their respective rulers to effectively implement security and economic policies. Both Muscat and Doha have for decades been beacons of stability in a largely unstable region. This stability is one of the biggest reasons why larger countries prefer countries like Oman and Qatar to mediate conflicts.

Another reason why small states make for good mediators is because of their perceived neutrality. Large states typically tend to ally themselves with rival sides in a conflict. A good example of this would be the US aligning with Israel while the Soviet Union supported Israel’s Arab rivals during the 1967 and 1973 wars.

In contrast, rivals Riyadh and Tehran both see Oman as a neutral ground for negotiating their ongoing conflict. In fact, the United Nations (UN) even praised Oman for its role in brokering a two-month truce reached between Yemen’s conflicting parties. Similarly, Norway’s neutrality was the reason why Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) chose Oslo as the venue for conflict resolution talks in 1993 and 1995.


According to the founder of modern Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, small countries are not bestowed with many geopolitical advantages; therefore, they should “seek a maximum number of friends while maintaining the freedom to be itself as a sovereign and independent nation.” This means that small states should seek to maintain ties with as many countries as possible; as a result, small states usually follow a moderate foreign policy. For instance, Oman maintains good ties with both Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is also the only Gulf Cooperation Country (GCC) not to participate in the bombing of Yemen and in 2018 became the first Gulf country to host an Israeli leader. Similarly, the UAE brokered negotiations between India and Pakistan in March 2021, which saw Islamabad and New Delhi agreeing to respect the 2003 ceasefire agreement, due to strong bilateral ties with both countries.

These efforts to mediate fractious conflicts allow small states to accrue invaluable strategic advantages. Mark Leonard, a senior researcher at the European Council on Foreign Relations, posits that by trying to broker peace negotiations small states seek “greater visibility than their size warrants.” For instance, Qatar’s role in facilitating the US-Taliban talks, which culminated in 2020 with the US agreeing to remove all troops from Afghanistan, was an attempt by the Gulf monarchy at gaining a strategic advantage in Afghanistan, especially by controlling the security of Kabul’s international airport.

All in all, while small countries often lack the geopolitical advantages of larger states, they are blessed with certain inimitable features that allow rivals to put their trust in them, thereby empowering countries like Oman and Qatar to punch above their weight. That being said, while these features may allow small states to facilitate talks between rivals and mediate disputes, they are best combined with the decision-making powers of large countries, which have the power and influence to undertake binding and decisive measures that smaller states are unable to.

Author

Andrew Pereira

Senior Editor