COVID-19 and Post-Pandemic Lessons

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of social, political, and economic models many assumed were solid. The emergency laid bare the gaps in prevention, speed, and adaptability among countries and international bodies when it came to prioritizing and managing a crisis. It also demonstrated that, much like individuals, nations are equally vulnerable regardless of their GDP or global alliances.

Hillary Briffa, a national security expert at King's College London, reflects in a recent article on how "small states" tested their ingenuity and creativity to navigate the pandemic, even as larger states cornered markets for personal protective equipment and vaccines, and multilateral bodies generated mechanisms at their own deliberate pace.

While nations are expected to rely on international bodies for support and guidance, none of those bodies was prepared for the scale of response the crisis demanded. It was precisely the actions taken by "small states" (defined here as those with populations under 10 million) that proved decisive in containing the crisis.

Regular briefings and bulletins, regional coalitions, "minilateral" agreements with peer countries, the redirection of businesses toward essential activities, and even the development of domestic biologics (Cuba being a notable example) were among the approaches adopted by countries like New Zealand, Finland, several Caribbean islands, and nations across Africa and other regions. Rather than waiting for the United States, China, or most of the European Union to satisfy their own needs first, these states moved on their own terms.

Meanwhile, multilateral bodies operated at a slower pace, constrained by the complexity and scope of global negotiations. The dynamic resembles a clockwork mechanism: smaller gears spin faster, while the larger ones take longer to turn.

The core finding is this: small states can respond faster to emergencies and develop their own local and regional prevention strategies, which ultimately produces greater resilience. They can monitor global responses and wait for mandates from larger powers, but they understand that in terms of supply chains and access to global support, they are at the back of the queue. Prioritizing early action, drawing on their own resources or those of peer small states, consistently delivers better short-term outcomes.

A regional league of small states can also negotiate on more equitable terms. Aware of their financial and human resource constraints, these states tend to structure agreements that are fairer and more balanced than deals struck directly with large private suppliers or powerful intermediary countries. This dynamic also shapes the financial burden of managing a pandemic, and over time, it can meaningfully reduce external dependency.

The lessons learned point to multiple opportunities for multilateral institutions to draw from the small-state playbook and close the gaps that would become critical vulnerabilities in any future crisis of this scale. Conversely, the pandemic demonstrates that small states can design functional mechanisms to operate locally without waiting for approval from large multilateral frameworks.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did small states respond more effectively to COVID-19 than larger ones?

Small states (populations under 10 million) were able to move faster precisely because they lacked guaranteed access to large-power supply chains. Rather than waiting for global vaccine and PPE allocations, they formed regional coalitions, struck minilateral deals with peer countries, and redirected domestic industry toward essential goods, producing faster and more locally calibrated responses.

What can multilateral organizations learn from small states after COVID-19?

Multilateral bodies operated slowly due to the scale and complexity of global negotiations. The pandemic revealed specific gaps in speed and flexibility that small states filled through local ingenuity. Multilateral institutions can build faster, more decentralized response mechanisms and create dedicated frameworks for coordinating with small-state coalitions before the next crisis.

How did small states manage supply chain disadvantages during the pandemic?

By forming regional leagues and peer-to-peer agreements, small states negotiated procurement on more equitable terms, avoiding dependence on large private suppliers or powerful intermediary nations. This approach reduced financial strain and, over time, builds long-term resilience by decreasing foreign dependency.