Countries with modest geographic stretch often are tempted by large-scale roles — the small country syndrome, whereby investing in rogue policy comes to compensate for what has been denied by limited territory.
Sooner or later, these countries cave into temptation found in playing dangerous strings affecting neighboring states, believing that doing so buys them more security or larger cut in regional politics.
Normally, countries are always engaged in enhancing and polishing the roles they play in larger arenas, but it is conditioned that engagement is made with transparency and through over-the-table legitimate interactions. Taking backdoors and mobilizing unwritten policy to reform the general status quo is an approach fraught with danger and is genuinely frowned upon.
‘Small’ here is by no means used for derogatory purposes. It merely reflects facts dictated by geography. I myself happen to be a national from a country, Lebanon, which is small and fragile at the same time.
Over time, massive role-playing which once was decided based on population densities, army size, location changed.
Any country which can secure strategic influence or what is known as ‘soft power,’ a heard media platform and hefty income from rich resources can easily book itself a starring role in regional politics.
The method to Qatar’s madness raised many questions. Is it Doha’s right to exploit strategic influence to punish Egyptians for determining their fate? Is it right that Doha gets to choose what warring party in Libya retains the upper-hand over the other? Or for it to give an advantage to one Palestinian party?Ghassan Charbel