The Qatar lesson: How small states wield outsized power in a connected world - opinion

When people talk about the world’s centers of power, most immediately think of the United States, China, Russia, or the European Union.

It may seem that only the great powers are capable of influencing international developments, shaping the global agenda, and affecting nations and states. But the reality of the 21st century shows that size is not always what matters. Sometimes, it is precisely small states that manage to wield influence far beyond their population size, geographic area, or military strength.

While the great powers clearly have greater influence in political reality, the principle of sovereign equality gives small states a diplomatic power that should not be dismissed. In a world where every vote can sometimes make a difference, even a small country can have major influence.

In the age of globalization, new tools of influence have entered the arena. In the past, a country’s power was measured by the number of tanks, aircraft, and soldiers at its disposal. Today, influence can also be exerted through capital, technology, media, social networks, and the ability to shape public consciousness. Soft power has become a strategic asset whose importance is no less significant than military power.

But not all influence is used for positive purposes. Alongside small states that promote cooperation, development, and innovation, some countries use their economic and diplomatic power to promote extremist Islamist ideologies, influence public opinion, and shape political narratives.

Qatar is perhaps the most prominent example of this phenomenon. It is a small country in terms of territory and population, but it possesses enormous wealth from its gas and oil resources. Over the years, Qatar has managed to build an international standing that far exceeds its size. It hosts international conferences, maintains ties with leaders around the world and at times serves as a mediator in regional conflicts.

At the same time, criticism of its role in promoting extremist Islamist movements has grown. For many years, Qatar provided political, media and financial support to groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which became one of the central sources of inspiration for radical Islam.

For years, Hamas leaders operated from Doha, Qatar’s capital, enjoying freedom of movement and diplomatic legitimacy. At the same time, billions of dollars were transferred to the Gaza Strip under the label of civilian and humanitarian aid.

These funds allowed Hamas to divert resources toward building a murderous terrorist infrastructure, digging hundreds of kilometers of tunnels, purchasing weapons, and making preparations that ultimately led to the traumatic events of Oct. 7.

Qatar's influence is not limited to the Middle East. According to various reports in the United States, vast sums have been funneled over the years to leading universities, research institutes, and academic centers. Some of this money was used for legitimate philanthropic activity, and some was intended to influence academic discourse, the appointment of researchers, and the shaping of anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives against Israel.

After the Oct. 7 attack, as leading campuses in the United States became arenas of harsh anti-Israel demonstrations, questions resurfaced about the influence of foreign money on the academic climate and the development of hostile attitudes toward Israel.

Qatar has also invested enormous resources in the international media arena. Through media organizations, public campaigns, and cross-border communication platforms, it has managed to influence global public discourse and the way conflicts in the Middle East are perceived.

This is a clear example of how influence today can be exercised not only through military force, but also through shaping consciousness.

By contrast, the power of small states can also be used for positive purposes. An example can be found among the island nations of the Pacific Ocean, including Nauru, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands and Fiji. Although these countries are small in terms of population and territory, they have understood that through coordination and cooperation, they can increase their influence in the international arena.

In international forums, especially the United Nations General Assembly, Pacific states often coordinate positions and organize joint votes. Each holds only one vote, but when several countries act together, they create significant diplomatic power.

Over the years, these states have stood out for their consistent support of Israel and their opposition to one-sided and unbalanced resolutions against it. They have proven that small states can act out of loyalty to principles of fairness, partnership, and long-standing friendship. Nauru was among the first countries after the United States to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel.

From my experience as honorary consul of Nauru and in the diplomatic arena, I have learned that behind the scenes of international relations, conversations take place and decisions are made that do not make headlines.

Sometimes, a personal relationship of trust and cooperation built over many years can have more influence than speeches delivered in the halls of the United Nations.

The central lesson of the 21st century is clear: power is no longer measured only by the size of a country’s territory, the number of its soldiers, or the strength of its economy. It is also measured by the ability to influence ideas, institutions, media, and the consciousness of millions of people.

The quiet diplomacy of small states can be a constructive force for peace and prosperity, but it can also be a tool for promoting dangerous ideologies. Small states, too, can be important players in shaping the global agenda, for better or worse.