By Fatma Tawfik

Abstract:

The middle powers have been recognized as significant entities in international relations research since World War II, even though they existed way before; as middle powers seek to preserve the order in the international system and maintain the status quo, their foreign policy often includes interdependence, economic cooperation, and peacekeeping, however in the last few years great powers like China and Russia have been challenging the international order, and this raises the question of whether there is going to be an international shift soon. Therefore, this paper seeks  to answer whether middle powers can play an important role in preserving the international order.

Key Words:

International order, Middle power, Canada, United States, China, South Africa, and Australia.

Introduction

With the tension continue to persist between the United States of America and China since 2007, when the US expressed its  concerns over China's growing military spending,[1] The events like the unceasing  Russia-Ukraine crisis since 2022, and the escalating situation in Gaza, are altogether seen as an indicator of  the change of the international order from unipolarity, led by the United States, to multipolarity.[2] 

Middle powers have been recognized since World War II, especially after their role during the Cold War. However, they have existed since way before; countries that are classified as middle powers are countries that don't own the neither the same political, military, and economic power, nor the international influence as the superpowers but  have more influence and power than the small powers.[3] 

Countries like Canada and Australia have been identified as the typical form of middle power, but in recent years, scholars have started to classify other countries such as Turkey and South Africa as middle power as well. This started a debate among scholars about whether this classification is justified.

The only way to classify a country as a middle power is by studying its behavior in the international system, as well as the country's aspiration to power.  

As middle powers have always been working to stabilize the existing order in international society and preserve the status quo, they are now facing a dilemma of whether they will be able to do so or not. The system is changing due to the international challenges between the great powers.

Approach

 To analyse the role of middle powers on the preservation of international order, the paper will demonstrate it through the usage of the descriptive  and the systematic analysis approach.

The descriptive approach refers to the description of the phenomenon characteristics that is being studied, “descriptive studies may be characterised as simply the attempt to determine, describe or identify what is, while analytical research attempts to establish why it is that way or how it came to be”.

The systematic analysis approach, by David Austen, is the one where the approach contains input, output, and feedback. In this study, the input is the middle power foreign policies towards a stable international order. The output is the impact of those foreign policies in establishing a stable and peaceful international order, and the feedback is whether middle powers have the ability to preserve international order in case a great power challenges it.

International Hierarchy?

The word hierarchy is usually used to describe the institutional structure of the state; however, with the  world being anarchic according to many international relation theories,[4] countries are always living under the statement of uncertainty under the thought of “What if?” Consequently, countries work to achieve the ultimate goal of survival through the accumulation of power; this leads to an arms race between countries.[5]

The definition of international society is that “a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions,”[6] Therefore, this society consists of various actors that include state actors and non-state actors . State actors and non-state actors includes international and regional organizations, multinational cooperation, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals, to manage the  behavior of these actors within the international society an international order has to be established.[7]

Furthermore, International order is defined as “the body of rules, norms, and institutions that govern relations among the key players in the international environment. An order is a stable, structured pattern of relationships among states that involves some combination of parts, including emergent norms, rulemaking institutions, and international political organizations or regimes, among others.”[8]

The establishment of existing international order has been through different phases, the Westphalia peace treaty of 1648 not only marks the creation of sovereign states as we know them but also the establishment of the first phase of modern international order;[9] this system continued through World War I and the creation of League of Nations to uphold international peace, in this phase the word order in an international meaning was used by the first time by the United States president at the time, the first phase was defined as a multipolar system with regional conflicts and political and economic pressure.[10]

Later, this system fell due to World War II, and when this war ended in 1945, the Allies won the war. The United Nations was established in the same year to create a system protecting collective peace. The second phase started and continued through the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union; in this phase, the international order was defined with bipolarism and ideological polarisation.[11]  

The second phase of modern international order collapsed with the dissolution of Soviet Union , and a new order was set based on a unipolar system with the United States as its upholder. This phase contains international cooperation and interdependence, balance of interest, and diversity of political systems.[12]  

Admittedly, international society as we know it is not the product of equality between states. However, it is based on a hierarchy with the great power set in on the top of the pyramid, middle powers as a balancing factor of the international community, and small states at the bottom of this pyramid being influenced by their alignments with the great power. Even Though these terms have no standing in international law, they are still recognized by international relations scholars and the international community.

While great powers, also known as superpowers, are the ones with global political, economic, and military superiority; this includes the countries that have the right to veto the United Nations Security Council; however, Middle powers are countries that don't have the capabilities of the great powers in terms of economic and military power, these countries include Canada, Australia, South Africa, Turkey, and Brazil, and small powers also known as client states, those states include Kuwait and Libya.[13]

An international order will remain intact as long as the major powers within it uphold its system and preserve its characteristics; however, if at any point, these major powers lose their ability to uphold this system, it will result in the system falling apart and breaking through of chaos until new powers emerge and form a new system.[14]     

Middle Powers push towards empowering international order.

There is no doubt that the United States is still the predominant power in the international arena; however, the US continuance failure to contain the Russian-Ukrainian crisis and its inability to comprehend the ongoing tension with China is all evidence that the international political order is changing from unipolarity to a multipolar international system.

After the end of World War I, an international hierarchy started to form within the League of Nations, where the term “Middle Powers” was first used by countries as a self-made title to elucidate their position within the hierarchy of international society.  

Others claim that the term was actually formed way back in the 15th century by Milan mayor Giovanni Botero; however, the definition he provided was more of the description of the country’s power and strength but not its influence or foreign policy. Nevertheless, the term gained international recognition after World War II, especially during the Cold War.[15]

Middle powers are defined as "states that are neither great nor small in terms of international power, capacity, and influence and demonstrate a propensity to promote cohesion and stability in the world system."[16] It's also defined as a "state that holds a position in the international power spectrum that is in the "middle"—below that of a superpower, which wields vastly superior influence over all other states, or of a great power, but with sufficient ability to shape international events."[17]

Middle powers can be recognized through their foreign policy agenda; their diplomacy can also be identified easily; it mainly contains policies regarding peacekeeping, mediation, interdependence, international cooperation, compromising position in its relations with other countries, and upholding the role of international organizations, this behavior is driven mainly by a western moral compass.  

Their diplomacy can be described as "good international citizens" or the "do-gooder"; this is based on the expectation that countries that classify as a middle power will act in a certain way that benefits peacekeeping and maintaining the status quo.

In a historical sense, middle powers have to have a core economic existence in the international system along with strong democratic liberal values. However, the emergence of new middle powers does not have these same qualities.[18]

Nevertheless, in an international Hierarchy based on anarchy and uncertainty, where superpowers usually tend to challenge order in international society and small powers tend to be unable to even challenge that order, middle powers tend to work on the preservation of that order at a status quo.

Even though middle powers seek to maintain the international order as it is, those countries face a dilemma when the international order changes, whether it happens due to the change of the superpowers or due to the change in the interaction between those great powers, this can be seen in the last few years with the growing race between the United States and China and the Russian-Ukrainian crisis in 2022.  

Canada as a middle power:

Canada's role as a middle power in the international spectrum has been noticeable since the pre-establishment period of the United Nations, where Canada was pushing for policies, laws, and ways to include middle and small countries. Regardless of its close proximity with the United States, Canada has always had somehow a distinguish foreign policy from the United States. However, when it comes to the country's efforts in peacemaking and conflict resolution, its efforts were solidly affiliated with its neighbor.[19]

Canadian foreign policy characteristics revolve mostly around strengthening the international economic interdependence through the Commonwealth, International Monetary Funds, World Bank, World Trade Organization, and G20, its anti-oppressive regimes policies, establishing international alliances through the United Nations, promoting human rights in an international spectrum, and funding international initiatives.[20]

One of the most remarkable Canadian foreign policy historical events is its stance during the Suez Canal war against Egypt in 1956. The Suez Crisis was considered a turning point in the international spectrum, with the world officially recognizing the unipolarity of the world under the United States, and marked Canada's first peacekeeping mission and its independence from Britain's foreign policy agenda.[21]   

Over the years, Canada has contributed to over 125 thousand personnel in international peacekeeping missions since 1954. It has been involved in peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan, the Balkan region, Cambodia, Cyprus, East Timor, Haiti, Rwanda, Syria, and Somalia during the Gulf War, the Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, and Eritrea.[22] 

Australia as a middle power:

Even though Australia has a high economic and military power that could make it a part of a great power, it is not due to its location that it is isolated from the rest of the world, leading to restraining its influence regionally and internationally.

Unlike Canada's good international citizen persona, Australia acts in a heroic diplomacy manner. This is evident in Australia's foreign policy, which tries to contain the increasing Chinese power by building coalitions through a multilateral system.[23]   

In 2017, Australia set its third foreign policy white paper, where it identified its foreign policy agenda for the upcoming years, which includes climate changes, international peace and security, sustainable development, human rights, rights of people with disabilities, space security, sustainable development, food, energy and water sustainability, and protocols against international health risks.[24]

The paper also supports the United States' homogeneity of international leadership as it is the only method to uphold international stable order, encouraging a growing partnership with NATO, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Africa, Japan, Canada, and New Zealand, as well as supporting cooperation opportunities with MIKTA, while working directly with its partners to restrain the growing Russian international security risks, advocating for a two-state solution, Palestine, and Israel.[25] 

In addition, Australia works to increase its work and influence in the United Nations and UN Security Council, It has served as a non-permament member of UNSC for five times and is announced to be elected as a non-permanent member in 2029 again.[26]

Australian peacekeeping missions started in 1947, just two years after the establishment of the United Nations; the country participated in peacekeeping missions in Indonesia, Korea, the Middle East, Lebanon, Kashmir, the Republic of the Congo, West New Guinea, Yemen, Cyprus, India and Pakistan, Syria and Israel, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Iran and Iraq, etc…[27]

South Africa as a middle power:

After the end of the apartheid state in South Africa and the establishment of the first democratic government with the 1994 election, South Africa’s foreign policy turned to a multilateral relation to establish itself in the international society system.

The country’s foreign policy as a middle power was embedded in Mandela’s foreign policy manifesto of 1993, where the pillars of South Africa’s international citizen persona were established on human rights, promotion of democracy, justice, encouraging peaceful conflict resolutions, and interdependent economic development.[28]

South Africa’s role in the United Nations Security Council since 2007 reflected its foreign policy as a middle power; South Africa used to encourage some criticism of the Western values and dominance, especially in handling conflicts in Africa, still, later on, it adopted topics from the humanitarian aspects from the west.[29] 

Also, South Africa has employed a lot of its personnel in peacekeeping missions internationally, and it is among the top 20 contributors in peacekeeping personnel and top 10 contributors with women personnel; the country participated in missions in Sudan, Burundi, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Liberia, Nepal and the Republic of the Congo.[30] 

However, South Africa as a middle power has been up for debate; even though its foreign policy is based on its embracing multilateral organizations and its contribution to peacekeeping missions, this comes from the country not following the traditional sense of a middle power, with  well established liberal democratic values. However, it fits in the sense of an emerging middle power that works on establishing itself in the international society.

Can Middle Powers Preserve the World Order?

Primarily, international order changes when a great power or an emerging great power is dissatisfied with the existing international order, which encourages it to challenge this order, or when the interaction between two great powers changes, whether this change is towards convergence or conflict of interests.

Middle powers can preserve a stable and peaceful international order as long as a great power does not challenge this system.

Evidently, middle powers were unable to prevent the falling of the multipolar system of the first phase of international order, prevent World War I or World War II, or prevent the falling of the second phase of international order; all of that was determined by great powers seeking to have more influence on the international society.

Conclusion

In the end, Middle powers are essential for any international society as a way to preserve the world order for as long as they can through the promotion of international institutions and laws and peacekeeping. However, middle powers cannot prevent the transformation of the international order, this role is solely in the hands of great powers that aspire to challenge the existing international order. 

[1] Council on foreign policy, “U.S.-China Relations”, Available at: https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-china-relations

[2] Madeline Fitzgerald and Elliott Davis Jr., “Russia Invades Ukraine: A Timeline of the Crisis”,U.S News, February 2024, Available at: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/a-timeline-of-the-russia-ukraine-conflict

[3] Laura Neack, “The New Foreign Policy Complex Interactions, Competing Interests”,

Lanham : Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Third Edition, Washington, 2013, pg.161-164

[4] Alexander D. Barder, “International Hierarchy”, International Studies Association and Oxford University, December 2015, Available at: https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-95

[5] Ropert Jackson, Georg Sorenesen, “Introduction to International Relations Theories and Approaches”, Oxford University Press, Fifth Edition, pg.41.

[6] Revel Content Player, “Prominent Actors in International Relations”, Accsseed at: 1 March 2024, Available at: https://revelpreview.pearson.com/epubs/pearson_mcdonald-ir-1e/OPS/xhtml/fileP700101634400000000000000000008F.xhtml

[7] Katarzyna Kaczmarska, “International Society”, International Studies Assossiation and Oxford University Press November 2016, Available at: https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-98

[8]  Mazarr, Michael J., Miranda Priebe, Andrew Radin, and Astrid Stuth Cevallos, “Understanding the Current International Order”, RAND Corporation, 2016.

[9] Baylis, John, Smithson, Steve and Owens, Patricia, (eds.) “The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations.” Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK 2016 , pp. 37-51

[10] José Filipe Pinto, “New World Order: 2022 as a Turning Point”, Global Journal of Human-Social Science 23(3):31-41, July 2023.

[11] ??????? ???? ????? "???????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???????"? ??????? ??????????????????? ?????? ??????? ???? ? ? ??-??.

[12] Ibid

[13] David Elliott, “Middle powers: what are they and why do they matter?”, World Economic Fourm, January 2024, Accessed at: 1 March 2024, Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/middle-powers-multilateralism-international-relations/

[14] Stephen A. Kocs, “International Order: A Political History”, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, USA, Pg. 1-4 

[15] Dong-min Shin, “A Critical Review of the Concept of Middle Power”, E-International Relations, December 2015, viewed in: 2 March 2024, Available at:https://www.e-ir.info/2015/12/04/a-critical-review-of-the-concept-of-middle-power/#google_vignette

[16] Eduard JORDAAN, “The Concept of a Middle Power in International Relations: Distinguishing between Emerging and Traditional Middle Powers”, Politikon: South African Journal of Political Studies, 2003, pg

[17] Eduard JORDAAN, Ibid

[18] Ibid

[19] Andrew McIntosh, John W. Holmes, & Niko Block, “Middle Power”,The Canadian Encyclopedia February 2006, viewed in: 2 March 2024, Available at: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/middle-power

[20] Canada Guide, “Canadian Foreign Policy”, Canada Guide, Accsseed at: 3 March 2024, Available at: https://thecanadaguide.com/basics/foreign-policy/#:~:text=The guiding values of Canadian,pursue its foreign policy goals.

[21] Britannica Editor team, “Suez Crisis Middle East [1956]”, Britannica, Accsseed at: 3 March 2024, Available at: https://www.britannica.com/event/Suez-Crisis   

[22] Governmnet of Canada, “Peace support operations (1954-present)”, Governmnet of Canada, Accsseed at: 3 March 2024, Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/defence/caf/militaryhistory/wars-operations/peace-support.html

[23] Richard Maude, “The Transformation of Australian Foreign Policy”, Asia Society, Accsseed at: 3 March 2024, Available at: https://asiasociety.org/australia/transformation-australian-foreign-policy  

[24] Department of Foriegn Affairs and Trade, “ 2017 Foriegn Policy White Paper: Overview”, Austarlian Government,  Accsseed at: 4 March 2024, Available at: https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/minisite/static/4ca0813c-585e-4fe1-86eb-de665e65001a/fpwhitepaper/foreign-policy-white-paper/overview.html

[25] Department of Foriegn Affairs and Trade, “ 2017 Foriegn Policy White Paper: Our Global Partnerships”, Austarlian Government,  Accsseed at: 4 March 2024, Available at: https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/minisite/static/4ca0813c-585e-4fe1-86eb-de665e65001a/fpwhitepaper/foreign-policy-white-paper/chapter-six-global-cooperation/our-global-partnerships.html

[26] Department of Foriegn Affairs and Trade, “ 2017 Foriegn Policy White Paper: The United Nations”, Austarlian Government,  Accsseed at: 4 March 2024, Available at: https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/minisite/static/4ca0813c-585e-4fe1-86eb-de665e65001a/fpwhitepaper/foreign-policy-white-paper/chapter-six-global-cooperation/united-nations.html

[27] Australian Governmnet, “Where Australia has served in peacekeeping”, Australian Governmnet: Department of Veteran Affairs, Accsseed at: 4 March 2024, Available at: https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/wars-and-missions/peacekeeping/where   

[28] Sithembile Nombali Mbete, “The ‘Middle Power’ Debate Revisited: South Africa In The United Nations Security Council”, 2007-2008 And 2011-2012”, University of Pretoria, April 2018, pg.63-64

[29] Ibid

[30] United Nations Peacekeeping, “United Nations thanks South Africa for its contribution to peacekeeping”, United Nations Peacekeeping, Accessed at: 5 March 2024, Available at: https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/united-nations-thanks-south-africa-its-contribution-to-peacekeeping