Middle power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Leaders of the G-20 countries and others present at the 2008 G-20 Washington summit. Most members of the G-20 are middle powers while some are great powers.

In international relations, a middle power is a sovereign state that is not a superpower or a great power, but still has large or moderate influence and international recognition. The concept of the "middle power" dates back to the origins of the European State System. In the late 16th century, Italian political thinker Giovanni Botero divided the world into three types of states – grandissime (empires), mezano (middle powers) and piccioli (small powers). According to Botero, a mezano or middle power "has sufficient strength and authority to stand on its own without the need of help from others."[1]

History and definition[edit]

No agreed standard method defines which states are middle powers. Some researchers use Gross National Product (GNP) statistics to draw lists of middle powers around the world. Economically, middle powers are generally those that are not considered too "big" or too "small," however that is defined. However, economics is not always the defining factor. Under the original sense of the term, a middle power was one that had some degree of influence globally, but did not dominate in any one area. However, this usage is not universal, and some define middle power to include nations that can be regarded as regional powers.

According to academics at the University of Leicester and University of Nottingham;

"middle power status is usually identified in one of two ways. The traditional and most common way is to aggregate critical physical and material criteria to rank states according to their relative capabilities. Because countries' capabilities differ, they are categorized as superpowers (or great powers), middle powers or small powers. More recently, it is possible to discern a second method for identifying middle power status by focusing on behavioural attributes. This posits that middle powers can be distinguished from superpowers and smaller powers because of their foreign policy behaviour – middle powers carve out a niche for themselves by pursuing a narrow range and particular types of foreign policy interest. In this way middle powers are countries that use their relative diplomatic skills in the service of international peace and stability. Both measures are contested and controversial, though the traditional quantitative method has proved more problematic than the behavioural method."[citation needed]

According to Eduard Jordaan of the University of Stellenbosch;

"All middle powers display foreign policy behaviour that stabilises and legitimises the global order, typically through multilateral and cooperative initiatives. However, emerging and traditional middle powers can be distinguished in terms of their mutually-influencing constitutive and behavioural differences. Constitutively, traditional middle powers are wealthy, stable, egalitarian, social democratic and not regionally influential. Behaviourally, they exhibit a weak and ambivalent regional orientation, constructing identities distinct from powerful states in their regions and offer appeasing concessions to pressures for global reform. Emerging middle powers by contrast are semi-peripheral, materially inegalitarian and recently democratised states that demonstrate much regional influence and self-association. Behaviourally, they opt for reformist and not radical global change, exhibit a strong regional orientation favouring regional integration but seek also to construct identities distinct from those of the weak states in their region."[2]

Another definition, by the Middle Power Initiative: "Middle power countries are politically and economically significant, internationally respected countries that have renounced the nuclear arms race, a standing that give them significant international credibility."[3] Under this definition however, nuclear-armed states like India and Pakistan, and every state participant of the NATO nuclear weapons sharing, would not be middle powers.

Middle power diplomacy[edit]

According to Laura Neak of the International Studies Association:

"Although there is some conceptual ambiguity surrounding the term middle power, middle powers are identified most often by their international behavior–called 'middle power diplomacy'—the tendency to pursue multilateral solutions to international problems, the tendency to embrace compromise positions in international disputes, and the tendency to embrace notions of ‘good international citizenship’ to guide ... diplomacy. Middle powers are states who commit their relative affluence, managerial skills, and international prestige to the preservation of the international order and peace. Middle powers help to maintain the international order through coalition-building, by serving as mediators and "go-betweens," and through international conflict management and resolution activities, such as UN peacekeeping. Middle powers perform these internationalist activities because of an idealistic imperative they associate with being a middle power. The imperative is that the middle powers have a moral responsibility and collective ability to protect the international order from those who would threaten it, including, at times, the great or principal powers. This imperative was particularly profound during the most intense periods of the Cold War."[4]

According to international relations scholar Annette Baker Fox, relationships between middle powers and great powers reveal more intricate behaviors and bargaining schemes than has often been assumed.[5] According to Soeya Yoshihide, "Middle Power does not just mean a state’s size or military or economic power. Rather, 'middle power diplomacy' is defined by the issue area where a state invests its resources and knowledge. Middle Power States avoid a direct confrontation with great powers, but they see themselves as 'moral actors' and seek their own role in particular issue areas, such as human rights, environment, and arms regulations. Middle powers are the driving force in the process of transnational institutional-building." (Soeya Yoshihide)[6]

Characteristics of middle power diplomacy include:[6]

The Middle Powers Initiative (MPI), a program of the Global Security Institute, highlights the importance of middle powers diplomacy. Through MPI, eight international non-governmental organizations are able to work primarily with middle power governments to encourage and educate the nuclear weapons states to take immediate practical steps that reduce nuclear dangers, and commence negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons. Middle power countries are particularly influential in issues related to arms control, being that they are politically and economically significant, internationally respected countries that have renounced the nuclear arms race, a standing that gives them significant political credibility.

Self-defined by nation states[edit]

The term first entered Canadian political discourse after the Second World War. Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent, for example called Canada "a power of the middle rank" and helped to lay out the classical definition of Canadian middle power diplomacy. When he was advocating for Canada's election to the United Nations Security Council, he said that while "...the special nature of [Canada's] relationship to the United Kingdom and the United States complicates our responsibilities," Canada was not a "satellite" of either but would "continue to make our decisions objectively, in the light of our obligations to our own people and their interest in the welfare of the international community."[8] Canadian leaders believed Canada was a middle power because it was a junior partner in larger alliances (e.g. NATO, NORAD), was actively involved in resolving disputes outside its own region (e.g. Suez Crisis), was not a former colonial power and therefore neutral in anti-colonial struggles, worked actively in the United Nations to represent the interests of smaller nations and to prevent the dominance of the superpowers (often being elected to the United Nations Security Council for such reasons), and because it was involved in humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts around the world.

In March 2008, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd defined his country's foreign policy as one of "middle power diplomacy", along the lines of similar criteria. Australia would "influence international decision-makers" on issues such as "global economic, security and environmental challenges".[9]

Overlaps between great powers and middle powers[edit]

The overlaps between the lists of middle powers and great powers show that there is no unanimous agreement among authorities.[10]

Nations such as China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States are generally considered to be great powers due to their economic, military and strategic importance, their status as recognised nuclear powers and their permanent seats on the UN Security Council. Some academics also believe that Germany and Japan are great powers, but due to their large advanced economies and global influence as opposed to military and strategic capabilities.[11] In his 2012 publication, "Strategic Vision: America & the Crisis of Global Power", acclaimed political scientist, geo-strategist, and former United States National Security Advisor, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski appraised the current standing of the great powers, which he refers to as being China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.[12]

Yet sources have at times referred to France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Germany as middle powers too:

List of middle powers[edit]

As with the great powers, there is no unanimous agreement among authorities as to which countries are considered middle powers. Lists are often the subject of much debate and tend to place comparatively large countries (e.g. Italy) alongside relatively smaller nation states (e.g. Austria).[23] Clearly not all middle powers are of equal status; some are considered regional powers, while others are members of the G20 (Australia, Brazil etc...) and even the G7/G8 ( Italy and Canada). Some middle powers also play important roles in the United Nations and other international organisations such as the WTO.

The following is a list of countries that have been, at some point in time, considered middle powers by academics or other experts:

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Rudd K (2006) Making Australia a force for good, Labor eHerald
  2. ^ a b Jordaan E (2003) The concept of a middle power in international relations, informaworld
  3. ^ a b Middle Powers Initiative (2004) Building Bridges: What Middle Power Countries Should Do To Strengthen the NPT, GSI
  4. ^ Bishai LS (2000) From Recognition to Intervention: The Shift from Traditional to Liberal International Law
  5. ^ Fox, Annette Baker, The Politics of Attraction: Four Middle Powers and the United States (Columbia University Press, 1977).
  6. ^ a b Yoshihide, Soeya. "Middle Power Diplomacy". Retrieved 2006. [dead link]
  7. ^ Patrick James; Mark J. Kasoff (2008). Canadian studies in the new millennium. University of Toronto Press. p. 265. ISBN 978-0-8020-9468-1. 
  8. ^ H.H. Herstien, L.J. Hughes, R.C. Kirbyson. Challenge & Survival: The History of Canada (Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall, 1970). p 411
  9. ^ Shanahan D (2008) Time to go global, urges Rudd, The Australian
  10. ^ Mehmet Ozkan. "A NEW APPROACH TO GLOBAL SECURITY: PIVOTAL MIDDLE POWERS AND GLOBAL POLITICS" Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs XI.1 (2006): 77–95
  11. ^ "Encarta - The Great Powers". Archived from the original on 2009-11-01. 
  12. ^ Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski (2012). Strategic Vision: America & the Crisis of Global Power. pp. 43–45. 
  13. ^ a b P. Shearman, M. Sussex, European Security After 9/11(Ashgate, 2004) - According to Shearman and Sussex, both the UK and France were great powers now reduced to middle power status.
  14. ^ Otte M, Greve J (2000) A Rising Middle Power?: German Foreign Policy in Transformation, 1989-1999, St. Martin's Press
  15. ^ Sperling, James (2001). "Neither Hegemony nor Dominance: Reconsidering German Power in Post Cold-War Europe". British Journal of Political Science 31 (2). doi:10.1017/S0007123401000151. 
  16. ^ Charalampos Efstathopoulosa, 'Reinterpreting India's Rise through the Middle Power Prism', Asian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 19, Issue 1 (2011), p. 75: 'India's role in the contemporary world order can be optimally asserted by the middle power concept. The concept allows for distinguishing both strengths and weakness of India's globalist agency, shifting the analytical focus beyond material-statistical calculations to theorise behavioural, normative and ideational parameters.'
  17. ^ Robert W. Bradnock, India's Foreign Policy since 1971 (The Royal Institute for International Affairs, London: Pinter Publishers, 1990), quoted in Leonard Stone, 'India and the Central Eurasian Space', Journal of Third World Studies, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2007, p. 183: 'The U.S. is a superpower whereas India is a middle power. A superpower could accommodate another superpower because the alternative would be equally devastating to both. But the relationship between a superpower and a middle power is of a different kind. The former does not need to accommodate the latter while the latter cannot allow itself to be a satellite of the former."
  18. ^ Jan Cartwright, 'India's Regional and International Support for Democracy: Rhetoric or Reality?', Asian Survey, Vol. 49, No. 3 (May/June 2009), p. 424: 'India’s democratic rhetoric has also helped it further establish its claim as being a rising “middle power.” (A "middle power" is a term that is used in the field of international relations to describe a state that is not a superpower but still wields substantial influence globally. In addition to India, other "middle powers" include, for example, Australia and Canada.)'
  19. ^ a b c d Tobias Harris, 'Japan Accepts its "Middle-Power" Fate'. Far Eastern Economic Review Vol. 171, No. 6 (2008), p. 45: 'Japan is settling into a position as a middle power in Asia, sitting uneasily between the U.S., its security ally, and China, its most important economic partner. In this it finds itself in a situation similar to Australia, India, South Korea and the members of Asean.'
  20. ^ Robert W. Cox, 'Middlepowermanship, Japan, and Future World Order, International Journal, Vol. 44, No. 4 (1989), pp. 823-862.
  21. ^ Soeya Yoshihide, 'Diplomacy for Japan as a Middle Power, Japan Echo, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2008), pp. 36-41.
  22. ^ Neumann, Iver B. (2008). "Russia as a great power, 1815–2007". Journal of International Relations and Development 11: 128–151 [p. 128]. doi:10.1057/jird.2008.7. "As long as Russia's rationality of government deviates from present-day hegemonic neo-liberal models by favouring direct state rule rather than indirect governance, the West will not recognize Russia as a fully fledged great power." 
  23. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Solomon S (1997) South African Foreign Policy and Middle Power Leadership, ISS
  24. ^ a b Wurst J (2006) Middle Powers Initiative Briefing Paper, GSI
  25. ^ Cooper AF (1997) Niche Diplomacy - Middle Powers after the Cold War, palgrave
  26. ^ a b c Bernard Wood, 'Towards North-South Middle Power Coalitions', in Middle Power Internationalism: The North-South Dimension, edited by Cranford Pratt (Montreal, McGill-Queen's University Press, 1990).
  27. ^ a b c d Buzan, Barry (2004). The United States and the Great Powers. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press. p. 71. ISBN 0-7456-3375-7. 
  28. ^ Hazleton WA (2005) Middle Power Bandwagoning? Australia's Security Relationship with the United States, allacademic
  29. ^ a b Yasmi Adriansyah, 'Questioning Indonesia's place in the world', Asia Times (20 September 2011): 'Countries often categorized as middle power (MP) include Australia, Canada and Japan. The reasons for this categorization are the nations' advanced political-economic stature as well as their significant contribution to international cooperation and development. India and Brazil have recently become considered middle powers because of their rise in the global arena—particularly with the emerging notion of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China).'
  30. ^ a b c Inoguchi K (2002) The UN Disarmament Conference in Kyote
  31. ^ Caplan G (2006) From Rwanda to Darfur: Lessons learned?, SudanTribune
  32. ^ a b c Heine J (2006) On the Manner of Practising the New Diplomacy, ISN
  33. ^ a b Gladys Lechini, Middle Powers: IBSA and the New South-South Cooperation. NACLA Report on the Americas, Vol. 40, No. 5 (2007): 28-33: 'Today, a new, more selective South-South cooperation has appeared, bringing some hope to the people of our regions. The trilateral alliance known as the India, Brazil, and South Africa Dialogue Forum, or IBSA, exemplifies the trend … The three member countries face the same problems and have similar interests. All three consider themselves "middle powers" and leaders of their respective regions, yet they have also been subject to pressures from the North.'
  34. ^ Daniel Flemes, Emerging Middle Powers' Soft Balancing Strategy: State and Perspective of the IBSA Dialogue Forum. Hamburg: GIGA, 2007.
  35. ^ a b c d Behringer RM (2005) Middle Power Leadership on the Human Security Agenda, SAGE
  36. ^ Crosby AD (1997) A Middle-Power Military in Alliance: Canada and NORAD, JSTOR
  37. ^ Petersen K (2003) Quest to Reify Canada as a Middle Power, Dissident Voice
  38. ^ a b c d Pratt C (1990) Middle Power Internationalism, MQUP
  39. ^ a b c d Andrew F. Cooper, Agata Antkiewicz and Timothy M. Shaw, 'Lessons from/for BRICSAM about South-North Relations at the Start of the 21st Century: Economic Size Trumps All Else?', International Studies Review, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Winter, 2007), pp. 675, 687.
  40. ^ a b Ploughshares Monitor (1997) Scrapping the Bomb: The role of middle power countries
  41. ^ Thanos Veremēs (1997)The Military in greek Politics "Black Rose Books"
  42. ^ Higgott RA, Cooper AF (1990) Middle Power Leadership and Coalition Building
  43. ^ a b Jonathan H. Ping, Middle Power Statecraft: Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Asia Pacific (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2005).
  44. ^ Anoushiravan Ehteshami and Raymond Hinnesbusch, Syria and Iran: Middle Power in a Penetrated Regional System (London: Routledge, 1997).
  45. ^ Nayef H. Samhat, 'Middle Powers and American Foreign Policy: Lessons for Irano-U.S. Relations, Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1 (2000), pp. 11-26.
  46. ^ Ahouie M (2004) Iran Analysis Quarterly, MIT
  47. ^ Foreign Affairs Committee (2006) Iran
  48. ^ "Operation Alba may be considered one of the most important instances in which Italy has acted as a regional power, taking the lead in executing a technically and politically coherent and determined strategy." See Federiga Bindi, Italy and the European Union (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2011), p. 171.
  49. ^ "Italy plays a prominent role in European and global military, cultural and diplomatic affairs. The country's European political, social and economic influence make it a major regional power." See Italy: Justice System and National Police Handbook, Vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: International Business Publications, 2009), p. 9.
  50. ^ www.lrb.co.uk
  51. ^ www.acronym.org.uk
  52. ^ a b Mace G, Belanger L (1999) The Americas in Transition: The Contours of Regionalism (p 153)
  53. ^ Kim R. Nossal and Richard Stubbs, 'Mahathir's Malaysia: An Emerging Middle Power?' in Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers After the Cold War, edited by Andrew F. Cooper (London: Macmillan, 1997).
  54. ^ Louis Belanger and Gordon Mace, 'Middle Powers and Regionalism in the Americas: The Cases of Argentina and Mexico', in Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers After the Cold War, edited by Andrew F. Cooper (London: Macmillan, 1997).
  55. ^ a b Pierre G. Goad, 'Middle Powers to the Rescue?', Far Eastern Economic Review, Vol. 163, No. 24 (2000), p. 69.
  56. ^ Pellicer O (2006) Mexico – a Reluctant Middle Power?, FES
  57. ^ Barry Buzan (2004). The United States and the great powers: world politics in the twenty-first century. Polity. pp. 71, 99. ISBN 978-0-7456-3374-9. Retrieved 27 December 2011. 
  58. ^ a b c d Jonathan H. Ping Middle Power Statecraft (p 104)
  59. ^ a b Spero, Joshua (2004). Bridging the European Divide. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 206. ISBN 9780742535534. ISBN 0-7425-3553-3. 
  60. ^ Kirton J (2006) Harper’s Foreign Policy Success?
  61. ^ a b according to Yves Lacoste, Géopolitique, Larousse, 2009,p. 134, both Spain and Portugal exert a real influence in Africa and in the Americas.
  62. ^ findarticles.com
  63. ^ yaleglobal.yale.edu
  64. ^ Loo BF (2005) Transforming Singapore's Military Security Landscape: Problems and Prospects, allacademic
  65. ^ Tan ATH (1999) Singapore's Defence: Capabilities, Trends, and Implications, questia
  66. ^ Peter Vale, 'South Africa: Understanding the Upstairs and the Downstairs', in Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers After the Cold War, edited by Andrew F. Cooper (London: Macmillan, 1997).
  67. ^ Janis Van Der Westhuizen, 'South Africa's Emergence as a Middle Power', Third World Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 3 (1998), pp. 435-455.
  68. ^ Pfister R (2006) The Apartheid Republuc and African States, H-Net
  69. ^ Eduard Jordaan, 'Barking at the Big Dogs: South Africa's Foreign Policy Towards the Middle East', Round Table, Vol. 97, No. 397 (2008), pp. 547-549.
  70. ^ Armstrong DF (1997) South Korea's foreign policy in the post-Cold War era: A middle power perspective
  71. ^ Gilbert Rozman, 'South Korea and Sino-Japanese Rivalry: A Middle Power's Options Within the East Asia Core Triangle', Pacific Review, Vol. 20, No. 2 (2007), pp. 197-220.
  72. ^ Woosang Kim, 'Korea as a Middle Power in Northeast Asian Security, in The United States and Northeast Asia: Debates, Issues, and New Order, edited by G. John Ikenbgerry and Chung-in Moon (Lantham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008).
  73. ^ Sheridan, Greg (27 November 2008). "The plucky country and the lucky country draw closer". The Australian. 
  74. ^ Rudengren J, Gisle P, Brann K (1995) Middle Power Clout: Sweden And The Development Banks
  75. ^ Meltem Myftyler and Myberra Yyksel, 'Turkey: A Middle Power in the New Order', in Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers After the Cold War, edited by Andrew F. Cooper (London: Macmillan, 1997).

External links[edit]

Further reading[edit]