Middle power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Middle power is a term used in the field of international relations to describe states that are not superpowers or great powers, but still have large or moderate influence and international recognition. There is no single specific definition of which countries are middle powers.

Contents 1 Definition 2 Middle Power Diplomacy 3 History of the term 4 Current Middle powers 5 See also 6 References 7 External links

[edit] Definition

There is no standard agreed method to decide 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 considered the defining factor. Under the original sense of the term, a middle power was one that had some degree of influence globally, but not dominance over 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."^[1]

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]

Middle power as an equivalent of the idea of Semi-periphery.

The notion of middle power can also be understood as equivalent to the idea of semi-peripherical countries. From the world-system's perspective, as posited by neo-marxist Immanuel Wallerstein, "World-systems analysis argues that capitalism, as a historical social system, has always integrated a variety of labor forms within a functioning division of labor (world-economy. Countries are part of the world-economy. Far from being separate societies or worlds, the world-economy manifests a tripartite division of labor with core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral zones" World-systems theory Although both notions -middle power and semi-peripheral zones may refer to the same type of countries, the idea of middle powers disregard power and domination as part of the country distinct status. Colombia would be seen at as a semi-peripherical country.

[edit] Middle Power Diplomacy

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."^[3]

According to Tomoe Otsuki of the University of British Columbia; "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."^[4]

Characteristics of middle power diplomacy include :^[5]

• Commitment to multilateralism through global institutions and allying with other middle powers.
• High degree of civil society penetration in the country's foreign policy.
• A country that reflects and forms its national identity through a 'novel foreign policy': Peacekeeping, Human Security, the ICC, and the Kyoto Protocol

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".^[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 particurly 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.

[edit] History of the term

The concept of the ‘middle power’ dates back to the origins of the European state system. In the 15th century, the Mayor of Milan, 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”.^[7]

The term 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.

[edit] Current Middle powers

The following is a list of countries that have been called middle powers by academics or other experts.

Some academics believe that China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom are Great Powers not middle powers, due to their position on the UN Security Council, military expenditure and their nuclear stockpile.^[9] Others also include Germany, and Japan due to their economic strengths and global influence.^[10] The overlap between the list of middle powers and Great Powers shows that there is no unanimous agreement among authorities.

•  Algeria^[11][12][13]
•  Argentina^{[14][15][16][17][18]}
•  Australia^{[14][19][20][21]}
•  Austria^[14][22]
•  Belgium^{[14][23][24][25][26]}
•  Brazil^{[14][27][21][28][29]}
•  Canada^{[14][30][31][32][33][34]}
•  Chile^[35][36][37]
•  China^[38][39]
•  Colombia^[40][41]
•  Czech Republic^[14][15]
•  Denmark^{[14][30][42][15]}
•  Egypt^[43][44]
•  Finland^[14][15]
•  France^[45]
•  Germany^{[46][47][48][49]}
•  Hungary^{[14][15][50][51]}
•  India^{[14][52][53][54]}
•  Indonesia^{[14][55][21][56]}
•  Iran^{[14][57][58][59]}
•  Italy^[14][60][15]
•  Japan^{[61][62][63][64]}
•  Malaysia^{[65][66][67][68]}
•  Mexico^{[14][69][70][21][71][72]}
•  Morocco^[14][73][15]
•  Netherlands^{[14][74][30][75][15]}
•  New Zealand^{[15][76][77][78]}
•  Nigeria^{[14][79][80][81]}
•  Norway^{[14][15][21][82]}
•  Pakistan^{[14][83][84][85]}
•  Poland^{[14][86][87][15]}
•  Romania^[14][21]
•  Russia^[88]
•  Saudi Arabia^[14][89]
•  Singapore^[90][91]
•  South Africa^{[14][92][93][94][21]}
•  South Korea^{[14][95][96][97]}
•  Spain^{[14][98][99][100][101]}
•  Sweden^{[14][102][103][21][15]}
•  Switzerland^[14][104]
•  Turkey^{[14][105][106][107]}
•  United Kingdom^[45]
•  Venezuela^[14][108]

[edit] See also

v • d • e Power in international relations Types of power Power (sociology) · Soft power · Hard power · Political power (Machtpolitik • Realpolitik) Types of power status Middle power · Regional power · Great power (Potential great powers) · Superpower (Potential superpowers · Energy superpower) · Hyperpower Geopolitics African Century · American Century · Asian Century · British Century · Chinese Century · European Century · Indian Century · Pacific Century Theory and history Historical powers · Polarity in international relations · Power projection · Power transition theory · Second superpower · Superpower collapse · Superpower disengagement Organizations and groups G8+5 · BRI(M)C · Next Eleven · SCO · NATO · ANZUS

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• post.queensu.ca The Middle Power.
• books.google.com Weak States in the International System. By Michael I. Handel.
• www.cpsa-acsp.ca Middle Power Leadership on Human Security. By Ronald M. Behringer, Department of Political Science, University of Florida
• Middle Power. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved on 2006-04-06.
• Middle Powers Initiative
• Government of Canada
• University of British Columbia
• South African Foreign Policy and Middle Power Leadership
• Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order
• Middle Power Internationalism (Book info)
• From Middle to Model Power: Recharging Canada's Role in the World (PDF)
• Canada in Transition Facing the Shift from Global Middle Power to Senior Regional Power (PDF)
• Emerging Powers: Governance in a Changing Global Order, a Queen’s Centre for International Relations annual report

v • d • e Power in international relations Types of power Power (sociology) · Soft power · Hard power · Political power (Machtpolitik • Realpolitik) Types of power status Middle power · Regional power · Great power (Potential great powers) · Superpower (Potential superpowers · Energy superpower) · Hyperpower Geopolitics African Century · American Century · Asian Century · British Century · Chinese Century · European Century · Indian Century · Pacific Century Theory and history Historical powers · Polarity in international relations · Power projection · Power transition theory · Second superpower · Superpower collapse · Superpower disengagement Organizations and groups G8+5 · BRI(M)C · Next Eleven · SCO · NATO · ANZUS