Small states, when bound together, have power we underestimate.
This was our main takeaway from the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations’ Bernard Brodie Distinguished Lecture, which was presented by President Armen Sarkissian. Sarkissian served as the 4th president of Armenia from 2018 to 2022, and was the Prime Minister of Armenia from 1996 to 1997. During our interview with him, Dr. Sarkissian provided insight from his experiences and his book, Small States Club where he identifies nine small, smart states in his new book, and discusses why Armenia was not a small and successful state. Sarkissian emphasized that Armenia’s model is as a global nation, with a thriving diaspora, whose richest resource is its human resource.
President Sarkissian reaffirmed that even though Armenia had all the right ingredients to become a small, smart state, it did not capitalize on them. A leader who understands their state’s advantages and limitations, and strategically builds on those advantages, can significantly strengthen a small smart state. While many history curricula or mainstream media focus on the growing influence of larger states, Sarkissian asserted the importance of a small state – especially when it is a global nation.
Chaitanya Kishore:
I first asked President Sarkissian about the importance of strong political leadership for the growth of small states. President Sarkissian responded that it’s not the popularity of a leader that determines their effectiveness, but rather the forward-looking vision they have for their country. While I agree with President Sarkissian’s point about leaders thinking ahead as opposed to implementing short term measures for popularity, I do question President Sarkissian’s lack of concern for the acceptance of a leader by the citizen body. Specifically, taking the example given by President Sarkissian of Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, Lee maintained authoritarian policies, such as media restrictions, journalist arrests, and denying trials for his critics. President Sarkissian argued that despite his authoritarian policies, Lee’s forward-looking vision for Singapore is why it is successful today. But, I argue that a leader’s vision for a country is not the only important characteristic of strong political leadership, just as economic development is not the only measure of a country’s success. Thus, I believe a more holistic approach should be taken to judge a country’s political leadership, which should include a leader’s ability to win free, fair, and regular elections and protect all people’s civil liberties and freedoms.
President Sarkissian’s argument also made me think about how I judge political leadership in my home country of the United States. As a person that has lived in the United States for my entire life, I have been taught that the ability to win elections is what makes a political leader competent and strong. A political leader’s accomplishments are judged by the citizens themselves and the citizens can choose to continue a particular leader’s mandate by voting for them. When I voted in the most recent presidential election, I definitely thought about which candidate had the best policies and I was able to cast my vote for the candidate that I believed would provide strong political leadership. So my personal experiences as well lead me to disagree with President Sarkissian’s argument about political leadership since I think strong political leadership is both the ability to be popular with the people and having a strong forward-thinking plan for the country that the general public also supports.
I also asked President Sarkissian which country he believes is developing into what he calls a “small smart state.” President Sarkissian did not point out a specific country, but instead emphasized the importance of a small state’s ability to survive by maintaining good diplomatic relations with its neighbors. I agree with President Sarkissians’ view on this matter, as small states are particularly skilled at balancing alliances, since they are more vulnerable to attacks and economic threats from larger countries surrounding it. This skill of small smart states also underscores the valuable perspective they contribute to mediating disputes between larger states, given their survival depends on maintaining strong relations with all countries. A contemporary example is Qatar’s role in mediating a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel in Gaza and the country serving as a guarantor of Donald Trump’s 20-point plan for a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. In negotiations, Qatar balanced relations with Hamas and Israel, as well as outside pressures from the United States, other Arab states, and a myriad of other interests. I believe that President Sarkissian’s insights illustrate a new future in which small states are equally included in global diplomacy.
Lucine Ekizian:
Every nation has a “source” to be a small, smart state, President Sarkissian said. Being aware of that source, while also being able to strategically stimulate it, is necessary for small states. Small states must take advantage of the characteristics they have to situate themselves as a “smart state,” or else its power could diminish. In the case of Armenia, a strong diaspora is cultivated by its pride for its homeland, and whether one can be successful abroad and able to disseminate knowledge back to their homeland. The success of Armenia’s human resource depends on the strength of the “brain gain” argument.
When asked about Armenia’s role as a small state, President Sarkissian affirmed that to be a smart, successful state, the state must know its identity and take pride in its history. He added that Armenia’s largest resource is its human resource. As an Armenian living in the diaspora, I can agree that the 15 million Armenians living worldwide contribute to our largest resource. The age-old argument of brain drain versus brain gain is brought into the spotlight here – whether the Armenian diaspora will receive education and experience abroad and stay abroad, or whether they will disseminate the knowledge back to their homeland. I believe Armenia’s strongest resource falls into brain gain; when the Armenian diaspora takes pride in its nation, while seeing advancements in different sectors, the state will thrive.
By calling onto the diaspora worldwide, Armenia could be closer to reaching the status of a small, smart state. President Sarkissian asserted that Armenia is a small state and a global nation. He also stated that the case of a small, smart state may be unrelated to the democratic or autocratic characteristics of the state. Although there could be connections to government types, because the “oil of Armenia,” or its human resource, is the diaspora, I believe Armenia’s success can be stimulated through engaging its global community.
Ivana Prokopenko:
When asked how small states like Armenia can shape global affairs, President Sarkissian pointed not to geography or resources but to people. For too long, President Sarkissian argues that Armenia has treated its diaspora as a passive donor. But to him a different model is possible, one which is focused on “using all of these famous, rich, strong, smart people in the diaspora.” As an international development studies major, I found President Sarkissian’s framing especially compelling as it challenges the traditional metrics of state power that dominate development discourse. His idea that “people are the new oil” reframes how we think about national wealth and resilience. From this perspective, human capital and networks become forms of energy in themselves, resources that can sustain a state beyond what physical resources allow. This form of development directly demonstrates that small states can create their own authority and harness that power to become key players in international discourse and the market economy
But diaspora alone cannot guarantee a small state’s survival. In a follow-up question about how small states navigate the “dichotomy between survival and being friendly” with their neighboring country, President Sarkissian articulated a strategy focused on understanding the extent to which small states like Armenia should exert pressure or ‘be smart.’ This duality of resisting when necessary, reconciling when possible, underscores the paradox of small state diplomacy. President Sarkissian brings up the example of Nagorno-Karabakh to illustrate how Armenia’s first victory was not about brute strength but about being “ahead of (its) time,” through “better equipment, better technology, better organization.” Every state must navigate this balance, but small states are simply more vulnerable, making the paradox more acute.
As a UCLA student, this emphasis on adaptability resonates deeply in my own role in the evolving geopolitical nature of society and international relations. In an age of rapid technological and cultural changes, I believe small states must rely less on scale and more on strategy. President Sarkissian’s framing makes diplomacy feel less like a contest of power and more like an exercise in timing and innovation. It invites reflection on how “being small” might actually enable creativity and flexibility, which can help small states outcompete even large powers.
Throughout our conversation with President Sarkissian, he reaffirmed the importance of not overlooking or underestimating the integral part small states will play in addressing global challenges. Small states are often treated as peripheral actors and overlooked in international politics, yet their structural vulnerability frequently forces them to be more innovative, adaptive, and diplomatic than their larger counterparts. While larger states, relying on their size, can slip into complacency or a sense of entitlement, assuming power alone guarantees success. As ongoing global crises demonstrate, size does not necessarily translate into effective leadership. Diplomacy, as President Sarkissian emphasized, is ultimately about finding common ground and advancing mutually beneficial agendas, not imposing outcomes through sheer power.
Armenia’s development trajectory illustrates both the potential and limits of small-state development, highlighting how progress can be interpreted differently depending on analytical perspectives. According to UNDP data, Armenia’s Human Development Index (HDI) reached 0.811 in 2023, ranking 69th globally, a marked improvement from 0.663 in 1990. During President Sarkissian’s tenure, HDI rose from approximately 0.755 in 2017 to 0.786, reflecting gains in life expectancy, education, and income. From an economic perspective, these indicators point to meaningful progress for a small, geopolitically constrained state.
At the same time, development in small states is not linear and can be interpreted differently depending on perspective. While Armenia’s Gini index declined from 35.1 in 2001 to 27.2 today, signaling reduced income inequality, the country continues to face serious challenges, including the influx of over 100,000 refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh, structural trade deficits, energy dependence, and uneven reform efforts. These realities highlight how advancement can coexist with vulnerability.
Taken together, Armenia’s experience reinforces President Sarkissian’s broader argument: small states cannot afford complacency. Their survival depends on creativity, coalition-building, and principled diplomacy. In an international system where traditional power has often failed to deliver solutions, the adaptability of small states offers valuable lessons for global governance and cooperation
