Resilience in an uncertain world: Lessons from the book ‘Resilient Statehood’
22 Sep 2026
Sanctions, conflict and trade disruptions are reshaping the global economy and exposing vulnerabilities in the existing operation model for governments and businesses. Consider the food on your local supermarket shelves. The production of staple commodities like wheat have been disrupted by the Ukraine-Russia conflict, while interruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has restricted fertilizer and energy flow increasing the cost of producing and transporting food worldwide. Food is just one example of how geopolitical tensions are forcing decision-makers to rethink assumptions and focus on resilience.
Building resilience is challenging for smaller countries, mainly because of limited manufacturing capacity, lower populations, and comparatively smaller armed forces. Throughout history, more often than not smaller states have succumbed to conquest and colonization. Some have nevertheless defied the trend.
To understand why, Resilient Statehood analyses how states have historically maintained sovereignty and territorial integrity. In doing so, the book offers three key lessons for building resilience in an increasingly uncertain world. The first concerns adaptability. For example, when Japan was faced with external military threats, the government took an isolationist approach while sending delegations to study innovations and institutions around the world. The ideas that were encountered were adapted and integrated during a rapid modernization effort. Confronted by a superior navy, they responded by collaborating with leading ship builders, investing in domestic capacity, and then becoming leading manufacturers of naval technologies. These lessons remain relevant today. The rapid pace of technological innovation requires governments and individuals to respond and adapt quickly, and identify strategic niches where they can lead.
History provides a second lesson: while geography does not make resilience, it can be used strategically to enhance it. Some “buffer” countries, such as Nepal and Bhutan, used their location between two competing powers to their advantage. Nepal sought to develop relations with both major powers, India and China, surrounding it, while Bhutan used strategic concessions to retain its sovereignty. Thailand maintained strategic political neutrality between rival powers and was not conquered or colonized. Not only did Thailand use diplomacy with two major competing powers, Britain and France, seeking influence over it, it also developed relations with other actors, such as Russia, as a further counter balance. Even when militarily outmatched, Thailand’s diplomacy saved its sovereignty. As the world experiences military, economic and political power shifts, the ability to turn vulnerabilities into advantages demands foresight and calculated diplomacy.
A third lesson is internal: the foundation of national resilience is strong social cohesion. This is reflected in shared identity, common values, and a willingness to act for the collective. When Italy attempted to conquer and colonize Ethiopia, it drew on its civilizational history as well as Orthodox identity and values to rally the population to defend the country. It would be the only African nation to militarily defeat a European army. A diversified economy and strong international relations are important, but without a strong foundation, countries remain vulnerable to external shocks.
These three lessons show us that resilience is not an accident. Adaptability, strategic diplomacy, and social cohesion all require long-term commitment. Resilient states are built. There are ingredients, but no recipe. Thailand’s ‘bamboo diplomacy’ exemplifies flexibility and pragmatism. The Thai leaders made strategic concessions while hedging political alliances. Japan rapidly transformed during a time of strategic isolation, bringing in ideas, innovations and reforms on its own terms. Ethiopia integrated national unity with foreign expertise to strengthen domestic capacity transfers while protecting its territorial integrity.
As great power rivalry has returned to the fore today, governments are forced to focus on resilience. History provides key lessons for navigating the challenges of sovereignty and independence. How should small and middle powers like Singapore and Qatar respond? Their strategies should invest in institutional adaptability and encourage a culture of innovation and agility. Additionally, these states should embrace deepening social cohesion through shared identity, common values, and collective responsibility while pursuing diplomatic relationships that expand strategic options instead of avoiding them. During times of conflict and uncertainty, balancing internal strength, institutional adaptability, and diplomatic agility are not only desirable but essential.
— Dr. Logan Cochrane is the Dean of Hamad Bin Khalifa University’s College of Public Policy and Professor in Public Policy.
