KEVIN MALONEY: Thanks, Ambassador. It is such an interesting framing you provided around this principle of respect, which was forged from your own very personal experience growing up in a small island community that was itself within a small island state and how that has shaped your work today at the highest levels of geopolitics.
This principle of mutual respect is actually central to Carnegie Council’s work as well. We are constantly looking to engage with actors who want to work on difficult and highly political topics but are committed to doing so in a manner that first and foremost prioritizes mutual respect and good-faith engagement. The goal of that is to be able to come to these political issues in a much less partisan manner than people might normally be used to tackling them from. It is interesting to hear how this concept of respect informs your own work and how you put it into practice on a daily basis.
ALI MOHAMED: Indeed, indeed. I am trying to apply respect as a principle in a more professional way in the professional world.
As a nation-state you seek respect from others as you extend respect, and therefore, depending on how you actually frame the issue, respect becomes central in defining a country’s national interest and how you go about promoting it. As an individual, I find it sometimes easier to relate when people speak of respect and demand respect.
KEVIN MALONEY: I think you hit the nail on the head there. This dynamic between the personal and the professional is incredibly interesting but is also a difficult one, especially within foreign policy at this moment.
I oftentimes think that foreign policy “analysts,” or the talking heads on cable news or other forums seem to forget a simple truth, which is that geopolitics is not some chess match played between monolithic states and other powerful actors. It is also a culmination of actions taken by individuals, and each individual has their own value system. Action is informed by our value formation as individuals, and then it expresses itself in our professional lives, but I think especially right now in this more zero-sum political world that we are in people seem to either discount the personal values dynamic or ignore it entirely. At Carnegie Council we see these things as quite interrelated, and we view the moral consideration of one’s own value system as a critical component in shaping political and professional roles, so it is interesting to hear you talk through this dynamic in your own work.
ALI MOHAMED: Indeed, indeed.
KEVIN MALONEY: Ambassador, you already touched on your role at the United Nations. Being an ambassador at the United Nations is certainly quite unique as there are only so many positions at any one time. I want to dig a little deeper and examine the multiple responsibilities and tradeoffs that you have to deal with as a representative of a single sovereign state but also as someone who is a member of a massive multilateral community on a day-to-day basis.
ALI MOHAMED: When you are ambassador to the United Nations from a small state and when the interests that you wish to promote at the United Nations are closely aligned with the wider global public good you wish to promote, then you would consider yourself extremely fortunate.
That might be slightly different if you were posted to a bilateral posting, but here at the United Nations the Maldives’ interests have always been promoting respect for international law and promoting the principle of multilateralism, addressing global issues through a multilateral framework, and forging consensus where every country is able to live with the decisions that are taken at a multilateral setting. These are the key principles that the Maldives has been promoting, and these are the key interests as well for the Maldives.
There is a very close alignment between the interests and principles that the Maldives promotes at the United Nations:
As a very, very small state, our existence depends upon international law. International law gives us the space to exercise our sovereignty and independence. We would in no way be able to arm ourselves or expand our military power to be able to defend ourselves if there was a determined predatory invasion of our country, so we rely almost exclusively on international law for our defense, and multilateral involvement gives us the space to promote that principle in practice. It is in a way in our own self-interest to promote multilateralism and promote international law.
Sometimes you are privileged to be in that position, but at the same time it is quite challenging depending on the environment in which you operate and depending on the policies and attitudes of the leading countries in the system toward international law and toward multilateralism. It is sometimes difficult to forge consensus, but at the end of the day you feel accomplished when you have consensus and when you know that even the largest countries are prepared to accept and go along with the consensus, sometimes grudgingly but nevertheless basically accepting it.
KEVIN MALONEY: That is interesting. I want to explore this dynamic of small states within the United Nations and the larger multilateral system at this moment.
You recently made public remarks outlining potential areas of reform for the system, reforms that in your opinion would allow the United Nations and other institutions to be more responsive to the needs of small states but also to help with this partisan gridlock within geopolitics right now, and you highlighted three specific areas—sovereign equality, economic stability, and preventative diplomacy. I wonder if you might be able to expand on each of those three areas, specifically why such reforms are vital for small states, especially in this tense geopolitical moment.
ALI MOHAMED: Indeed. As I said in my previous response, small states owe their independence to international law and multilateralism. It is therefore very important for these states to actively participate—not just be in the room where it happens but be able to contribute in shaping the decisions of multilateral organizations and multilateral forums and be able to take part in shaping the outcomes. That can happen only if they have access to those forums, whether it is the UN Security Council, whether it is the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), Human Rights Council, or the multilateral development banks and financial institutions. They need to be given access to these organizations, where they can contribute to the decisions that shape outcomes.
Sovereign equality: We have been making that reference quite often because sovereign equality is the founding principle of the UN Charter. The Maldives may be the smallest country and the other country may be the largest country, and still at the General Assembly “one country, one vote” is the overarching founding principle of the United Nations. That is something we have to keep in mind always, that the founders of the United Nations believed that every Member State has the ability to produce ideas for global public good and are able to contribute in shaping outcomes for the benefit of everyone.
Operationalizing that, yes, the General Assembly is the extreme example of one country, one vote, but that needs to be translated into actual implementation of decisions and to other international organizations such as multilateral development banks and Bretton Woods institutions, where the voting is on a different platform. They have a formula for votes, but even within that formula the small states should be given the chance to participate and contribute.
Similarly, economic institutions, whether regional or global—here at the United Nations we have ECOSOC; at the regional level we have regional institutions including general development banks, where small states still lack the capacity to participate because of structural impediments. They also lack the political power to contribute in negotiations and be able to shape decisions. We believe that the international system will benefit from the ideas that small states present in overcoming our shared challenges.
KEVIN MALONEY: Thank you for providing a practical vision of the United Nations that is more fit for purpose for small and large states alike. With that, this is a good moment to pivot to some of the larger geopolitical trends that are happening right now, particularly what many are calling “a moment of crisis” for multilateralism.
First, I want to get your thoughts in terms of the trend lines that you are seeing geopolitically right now. A secondary question I would like to dig into comes directly off the back of the recent meeting of Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy at the Oval Office.
While we do not need to dive into the specifics of that particular meeting, which I think have been covered by the media ad nauseam, I do want to get your thoughts on how the media chose to cover the fallout from the actual meeting. Specifically I think there has been this narrative perpetuating the idea that one bad meeting involving larger states will have these massive trickle-down effects on the rest of the world, including smaller states, almost implying that small states are simply geopolitical observers.
I think this narrative is problematic from an ethical perspective but also from a practical security perspective if your end goal is actually peace in good faith. I want to get your thoughts first on how you see the state of multilateralism and global security right now, and then maybe we can pivot into this question around the top-down or bottom-up narratives that are being perpetuated post-meeting in the Oval Office.
ALI MOHAMED: Multilateralism exists in a very, very narrow zone actually. It has only been in existence since 1945 in that very narrow zone with the assumption—which has held true for 80 years now—that the leading countries in the system will uphold the basic principles that guide multilateralism. Even when some of these countries break those principles, they do make the announcement, whether they accept the announcement or not, that the decisions they take are temporary in nature and in no way are they going to set up a new normal.
You may hear country Xinvading country Y, and country Y may be very small, but that invasion, although in operational terms is a deliberate military exercise, it would be framed as a temporary measure that will come to a logical conclusion in no time. That is how those episodes, whether in the 1980s, 1990s, or even the 1970s, have been framed by the leading countries.
KEVIN MALONEY: “The norm was violated in the short term, but we are ‘committed’ to structural and system integrity in the long term.”
ALI MOHAMED: They would say that they do not intend to break the law. In that way everyone accepts that international law and international norms are respected by even the most powerful countries in the world and therefore every country will follow it.
But when you observe instances where international law is disregarded and no one finds anything wrong with that, then there is a danger. The norm is disregarded without being replaced by something better. That is what the smaller and weaker states in the system fear the most. They owe their independence and sovereignty to the perseverance of international law, and when that law is pushed aside quite explicitly then the smaller states find that danger is on its way.
We hope that is not the case. We hope that the leading countries in the system will once again uphold international legal norms, norms of respect for sovereignty, norms of respect for territorial integrity, and norms of independence of every country. These are the sacrosanct principles that the system has held onto for the past 80 years.
We, the small states, whether we are practitioners or academics, do believe the international system is led by the larger states. They set the trend most of the time. Sometimes small states also step in and set the trend, but most of the time it is the larger powers that set the trend, so the narrative for the media will come from the larger states. There will be few instances where small states will be able to dictate the narrative.
It is not the narrative that matters; what matters is the outcome. If the outcome is one that requires the small states to make compromises that in effect violates their own legal systems, then there will be questions about the viability of the entire system. That is why you can draw parallels to what is going on right now to what has happened in the past where crises have preceded this kind of violation of international law, violation of the norms of acceptable behavior by every country, especially the leading countries in the system.
KEVIN MALONEY: I think it is very interesting to hear about how you think about tradeoffs as a sovereign state within a larger political system. What is really required to promote your own interests while still wanting to maintain the system and improve the system? These things happen in parallel, but sometimes and oftentimes they can be in tension.
I think this tradeoffs framework and the questions related to it are big questions for us right now at the Council. Although the international system is far from perfect, we would argue that many of the norms established over the last few decades are at least in part informed by moral considerations. Yes, there is a lot of self-interest baked into it, but there are also moral principles and core universal values baked into these norms as well, and if values are shifting and the alignment between values and interests is shattering at a geopolitical level, what comes next? What fills the void? Is it just an amoral form of international politics? Is it a more anarchic system? Is it a more violent system? For us I think from an institutional perspective this is certainly a challenging moment, to say the least.
ALI MOHAMED: I think it is the same for us too. The moment we are in has features that are quite unprecedented in recent times. Even in the 1960s when you had wars in Southeast Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East, various parts of the world, I was not born then but I don’t think people questioned the very attributes that made the international system because even the warring parties of that time at least publicly acknowledged the legitimacy of the international system, the international order in which they lived. They criticized it, but nevertheless they accepted the legitimacy of it.
Here we have a moment in time where those basic questions are being asked about whether this system is viable and questions are being asked about the viability of its future. That puts this current moment quite apart from many other previous chaotic instances we have had in the international system.
KEVIN MALONEY: I want to switch back from a higher-level geopolitical perspective to again focus on smaller states. I am particularly interested in the pathways that you think are available for small states to work together to pursue their collective interests. What has traditionally been effective for small states, and in your opinion does there need to be a reimagination in terms of approach to meet this geopolitical moment?
ALI MOHAMED: That is an excellent question. Small states since the 1940s have taken either an alliance-driven foreign policy or a nonaligned-driven foreign policy, especially those small states that came out of the colonial experience. Most of these small states followed a nonaligned path, meaning with no formal military alliances and a foreign policy anchored on a belief and a doctrine that they would pursue an independent foreign policy not dictated by any military alliances or partner itself with any military alliances. There were other small states that were far more traditional and older that have been part of a military alliance.
These two divergent views need to be reexamined in light of developments in the last ten years or so. I am sure there are countries in various parts of the world, especially in Europe—at least they keep on publishing materials—that ask this question, whether alliance-theory-driven foreign policy or nonaligned foreign policy is the most viable option for small states.
In the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) community, there are 39 Member States of the United Nations that are part of this alliance. An overwhelming majority of states in the SIDS community pursue a nonaligned foreign policy both formal and informal.
It might perhaps be worthwhile to ask the question of whether this is still a viable policy to pursue, or if not, what other options are available? The other options would definitely include a need to exert a greater level of unity among themselves and forge closer partnerships with regional arrangements if not regional organizations that can provide security guarantees that can help them defend themselves better.
There is only so much a small state can do. There is only so much a partnership can do in the face of a determined military invasion from a larger predatory country. That is why advocacy of international law, promoting the principles of international law, and ensuring that those who violate international law have to pay a heavy, heavy price for any reputational damage, is deterrence that can over time protect the small states. That is the deterrence that can stop larger countries from invading and annexing small states.
KEVIN MALONEY: You raise some critical points regarding the future of peace and security in this current environment. Karishma Vaswani at Bloomberg recently had an excellent article entitled, “How to Survive When Superpowers Are Behaving Badly,” in which she touches on some of the same themes that you raised.
I think the degradation of international law, not only in the legal sense but as a norm that guides the actions of states, is quite concerning over the past few years. I think for a large state such as the United States, where the threat of losing sovereignty is not a day-to-day risk that hangs over its public’s head, there can be a devaluing that happens of international law and the norms attached to it or dismissed as some guideline for others around the world but not for us, so this is a truly concerning trend for general peace and security right now within the international system.
ALI MOHAMED: I definitely agree.
KEVIN MALONEY: Before we end the interview, I do want to try to conclude on a positive note. Therefore, I want to return to this principle of respect. We started off the conversation hearing about your own value system and its formation with respect being central to who you are and the work you do. We then touched on potential pathways for small states to work together to advance their own interests.
To close in I would say the spirit of true multilateralism, I wonder if you could provide a message or some guidance for individuals from perhaps medium-sized or larger countries who might want to engage with smaller states but want to do so in a respectful and equitable way.
ALI MOHAMED: When you have mutual respect, whether it is between countries or between individuals, that helps to produce outcomes that are mutually beneficial. Whether a country is small or large, they will be able to produce ideas that can help countries again whether you are in a larger or smaller space.
For example, the Maldives came to the United Nations in 1987 with the idea that climate change is an existential threat. We were the first and for some time the only country that spoke about climate change at the United Nations. We embarked on a journey that helped to form institutions like the Alliance of Small Island States, again a Maldivian idea, that we helped shape, form, and operationalize. These are ideas that help produce solutions that benefit the entire international system and all of humanity.
My message to any aspiring individual who wishes to enter public service is respect. There are many, many other moral values that you need to internalize, but for me respect has been one such principle that helped me understand the world as it is and helped formulate advice to my government in shaping its policy. It has helped me, and my advice to any aspiring entrant to public service is to shape your own moral principles and make sure that those principles stay with you over time.
KEVIN MALONEY: I am pretty happy that we ended with that question because I think we stumbled upon at least one answer to this values and interests equation, which is that mutual respect can produce mutually beneficial outcomes within geopolitics. So, there. We’ve done it. We’ve solved the problem.
Thank you so much, Ambassador, for joining us on the latest episode of Values & Interests. We very much appreciate it.
ALI MOHAMED: Thank you, Kevin, for having me, and thank you very much for hosting this wonderful conversation. I enjoyed it.
