Power Without Legitimacy: What Colombia’s Example Reveals About Great Powers

The recent episode between Colombia and the United States, where Colombia invoked treaties to request respect for human rights and the use of commercial, non-military aircraft, highlights the precarious position of smaller nations in the face of great power politics. Realism, one of the most influential theories in international relations, offers a sobering insight: great powers are the rule-makers, while smaller states, like Colombia, are often the rule-takers. Is this dynamic inevitable?

Colombia’s case was not an isolated instance but a global demonstration of the U.S.'s willingness to enforce its interests. The situation epitomises the realist argument: smaller nations frequently face a dilemma between "principled resistance" (e.g., Colombia’s initial stance demanding the dignified return of migrants) and "pragmatic survival" (e.g., capitulating to avoid tariffs of over 50%). This echoes Max Weber’s ethical distinction between the "ethics of conviction" and the "ethics of responsibility." The ethics of conviction prioritises moral principles, such as defending sovereignty and human rights. In Colombia’s case, this would mean standing firm against U.S. coercion despite economic risks. Conversely, the ethics of responsibility emphasises pragmatism, judging actions by their outcomes—such as avoiding devastating tariffs by yielding to U.S. pressure. For smaller states, this dilemma is a recurring one: assert principles and risk retaliation, or comply and risk long-term dependence.

But is this compliance sustainable? As Hobbes and Carl Schmitt noted, fear is a driving force, yet succumbing to momentary fear risks long-term entrapment in dependency. Dominance is not the same as power. History is full of examples where dominance without legitimacy proved unsustainable—such as the French in Indochina, the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, and the British Empire over India, whose colonial grip ultimately collapsed due to a lack of structural strength and legitimacy. Similarly, the U.S.’s coercive approach under Trump reflects not confidence but overcompensation—a frail assertion of dominance rather than a demonstration of true power.

When the crisis arose, many suggested pivoting to China as an alternative. While the "sell to China" mindset may seem like an attractive immediate solution, it merely substitutes one form of dominance for another in the long run. Colombia’s rich resources and strategic position offer it an opportunity to redefine its role globally—but only if it transcends binary alignments.

Smaller states are not doomed to passive compliance. Examples like Singapore, Costa Rica, and Switzerland demonstrate how nations can "punch above their weight" by leveraging niche capabilities, institutions, and collective arrangements. Singapore has capitalized on its comparative advantages in global financial services, maritime security, and aviation to influence global governance. Its involvement in alliances such as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Global Governance Group (3G) exemplifies how smaller states can shape international rules through institutional engagement. 

Institutions have long been critical tools for amplifying the voices of smaller states. Yet, they are not immune to manipulation. The Trump administration’s actions—imposing tariffs under security clauses, undermining the WTO, and withdrawing from the Paris Agreement—illustrate how great powers can exploit or ignore institutional frameworks when convenient. This highlights a fundamental problem: smaller states rely on rules and institutions, but these structures are only as strong as the commitment of their most powerful members.

What is left then is the strength of collective agreements: ASEAN serves as a compelling example of the power of collective strength. Its cohesion has forced great powers like the U.S. and China to adapt their regional strategies, demonstrating how unity among smaller states can generate leverage and strategic influence. Latin America holds a unique opportunity to leverage its collective strength. Countries like Bolivia, Argentina, and Chile, with their vast lithium reserves, can prioritize long-term strategies in sustainability, green energy, and logistics to escape dependence. Regional alliances, like a potential Latin American bloc focused on sustainability, could significantly enhance bargaining power and autonomy. 

Does Colombia’s example inspire resistance or further appeasement? The answer depends on whether smaller nations choose to act collectively and strategically or continue to react individually and defensively. Principled resistance and pragmatic survival are not mutually exclusive. Smaller states must combine long-term vision with short-term pragmatism to maintain agency and autonomy.

Colombia’s experience is a stark reminder of smaller states’ challenges in navigating great power politics. But it is also a call to action. And it is time to remember that dominance without legitimacy is fragile. While intimidating, the U.S.’s actions under Trump reveal the cracks in great power dominance. Smaller states must not let momentary fear dictate their future. Instead, they must leverage their collective strength and unique capabilities to secure a more equitable place in the global order.

The challenge is immense, but so too is the opportunity.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/US Embassy Bogota

Licence: public domain.

No image changes made.