By Vera Rodriguez,
Global politics and its dissemination tend to focus on big powers. The United States, China, and Russia share a large population and territory. The European Union’s presence in the international community follows this idea: together, they have more economic and diplomatic strength. However, what about smaller states? Do they hold any chance of creating an impact in the international arena? Given a global arena where multilateralism seems to be deteriorating, middle states are the perfect advocates of unity in the systemic rivalry between superpowers.
The current international landscape is uncertain. With Donald Trump’s second presidency, foreign affairs seem to face confrontation. Under the “America First” narrative, Washington is an unreliable ally to many of its traditional friends, from European Union member states to Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan. Moreover, the sudden cancellation of USAID, a significant development fund worldwide, affects everything from HIV medicine to democracy —building programs in Africa, Latin America, and Europe. Under Trump’s presidency, multilateralism, the idea of connecting countries economically and diplomatically to prevent conflict, is at risk of atrophying. This trend is embedded in a broader geopolitical picture where the attention is shifting from the West to the East, and big powers are increasingly assertive. Russia’s active war in Ukraine and China’s looming military presence question security on both European and Asian soil.
Big powers dominate this situation, yet medium-sized states could be the key to reviving multilateralism. They are countries in the “middle” of the international power spectrum below that of a superpower. While the latter wields vastly superior influence over all other states, a middle power wields sufficient ability to shape global events. The conventional approach to defining these actors is based on a state’s military capabilities, economic strength, and geostrategic position. A second approach evaluates the state’s leadership capacity, impact, and legitimacy on the global stage. Countries considered in this category include Switzerland, Australia, South Korea, Canada, the Netherlands, and Norway. They usually support liberal and democratic ideas. However, the trend is shifting, and there are “emerging” middle powers such as South Africa, Turkey and Indonesia.
Middle powers matter because of the way they conduct foreign policy. They rely more on diplomacy and favor multilateral foreign policy and coalitions. Smaller states might align with superpowers due to economic reasons. Still, those in the middle have the freedom to craft a policy that represents their interests and can fill in the void created by superpowers. They often serve as advocates, mediators, and coalition builders. These actors might be essential in forming a new multilateralism to help solve global challenges through peacekeeping missions, conflict prevention, and agenda-setting.
In this regard, middle powers tend to be influential players in peacekeeping activities within the UN and regional context. This is possible because larger powers do not wish to be involved in disputes outside their concerns. For instance, the Swiss Armed Forces participate in peace support operations worldwide across Europe, Africa, and Asia. Other states such as Canada, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands provided significant financial support to create the High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO).
In conflict prevention, middle powers have established a reputation for decades in facilitating conflict resolution, mediation, and similar peace-seeking activities (e.g., Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Switzerland). These countries often host institutes and organisations dedicated to peacemaking: Oslo to the Peace Research Institute (PRIO); Stockholm to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), etc.
Finally, regarding agenda-setting, these states are active promoters of multilateralism. They participate in regional organisations and are frequently at the forefront of initiatives to bolster international fora like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the United Nations (UN). Most of these powers believe these platforms are crucial for handling international issues, such as Human Rights, environmental degradation, economic instability, and security threats.
As seen throughout this article, smaller states have a significant global presence dependent on coalitions and multilateralism. These tools the countries possess are at stake due to an increasing bipolar order and a shift of attention from the West to the East. First, the US-China confrontation and increased aggressiveness make it difficult to establish consistent diplomatic ties without angering any party. Therefore, coalition-building must be aware of this balancing act. Second, most of the established middle powers are liberal democracies. As the world shifts its attention outside of the West -and most consolidated middle-state powers- it might be crucial to start engaging in cross-regional diplomatic activities beyond the traditional Western coalitions and include emerging powers such as South Africa, Indonesia, or Brazil.
References
- Middle Powers and Regional Powers. Oxford Bibliographies Online. Available here
- President Trump’s America First Priorities. The White House. Available here
- What USAID does, and why Trump and Musk want to get rid of it. AP. Available here
- A Balancing Act. The Role of Middle Powers in Contemporary Diplomacy. Strategic Monitor 2018-2019. Available here
