The Diplomacies of New Small States: The Case of Slovenia with Some Comparison from the Baltics by Milan s> Jazbec (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 587 anti-authoritarianism for the authors to remark, perhaps presciently, that 'Ukrainians are ready for something better, or at least different, than their elites generally offered' (p. I29). Within the war-torn states, the prevalent discourses stress order and effectiveness rather than democracy or participation , but the authors stress the possibilities of enlightened leadership and the apparent lack of virulent nationalism, even in Moldova. Despite their reservations about the implications of their findings, the authors are not afraid to make challenging claims. The discussion of the 'late developers' repeatedly rebuts claims that South East Europe is somehow culturally doomed to democratic deficit, while conceding present deficiencies. Concurring that Czechia and Poland are the most developed democratizers, doubters are shown that what appears to be anti-political sentiment there is in fact a form of republicanism that emphasizes public virtue and aims for authentic democracy, not authoritarianism. Generally, such statements are well argued, though on occasion the authors' obvious enthusiasm for democratic ideals leads to effusive or incautious statements. The assertion that the prospects for democratization are better in Belarus than Russia (p. 9I) clearly, and not for the only time, underestimates institutional constraints, while describing Russia as the 'Rossky Horror Picture Show' (p. 93) is a dreadful and perhaps offensive pun. Nevertheless, these are relatively minor quibbles, and overall this volume succeeds in both presenting a rich mosaic of discourses which provide great depth to the study of postCommunist countries, as well as convincingly arguing for nationally-sensitive 'authentic' democracy -no single model, but nothing suigeneriseither. Department ofPolitics LUKE MARCH UniversityofEdinburgh Jazbec, Milan. TheDiplomacies ofNewSmallStates.TheCaseofSlovenia withSome Comparisonfrom theBaltics.Ashgate,Aldershot,and Burlington,VT, 2001. X+ 237 pp. Notes. Figures.Tables. /42.oo. THISvolume can be read in one of two ways. Forthose that are interestedin the foreign policy of post-Communist states, this volume leaves many questions unanswered. The author fails to consider how the diplomatic behaviour of small, post-Communist statesdiffersfrom either largerstatesor more establisheddemocracies.However forthose that areinterestedin public administration and organizational theory as they relate to foreign policy organization, this volume provides one of the few studies of how small, postCommunist states structuretheir diplomatic apparatus.While Jazbec spends considerabletime explaining the generalissuesinvolved in diplomatichuman resource management, recruitment and organization, he devotes relatively little attention to the actual development of diplomatic organizations in his four-countrycase study(e.g., Slovenia, Estonia, Latviaand Lithuania).While this work will be of interest to those who are concerned with basic issues of diplomatic public administration, I doubt that those that are interested in 588 SEER, 8i, 3, 2003 internationalrelationsand diplomacy more broadlywill gain much from this volume. AsJazbec notes, the definition of a 'smallstate' in the internationalsystem is subject to different interpretations. Most theorists define a small state in termsof the independent variablewhetherit is size, GDP or the perception of the state itself. However, these variables are only important if small states exhibit a foreignpolicy orientationand behaviour substantiallydifferentthan bigger states.Indeed,Jazbec arguesthathe is 'not interestedin the behaviour of these countriesregardingtheirforeignpolicies, but in the genesis of one of the basic state-formingstructures'(p. 41, emphasis in the original). However by describing the differencesin how these four states establish their diplomatic structures, the author is explaining their organizational behavior. The key question is whether there is a difference in this organizational behaviour between large and small states, and ultimately how does this translate into the crafting of foreign policy. Mlost of the case study is devoted to Slovenia which is an interesting country example given how active Slovenia has been in diplomatic circles. As the author points out, Slovenia was in the late i ggos elected from the East European Group as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. An interesting question not considered by the author is why Slovenia was able to gain this important position over larger states such as Romania or Poland. Once again in order to appreciate the uniqueness of small states foreign policy, it is instructive to compare these policies and institutions to large states. The volume devotes a great deal of attention to the human resource element of diplomatic institutions. It is here that some of the best comparative data are presented...