Similar claims have been made ever since city-states emerged in northern Italy during the Renaissance, and especially since World War I as global power became more diffuse. Under the shadow of superpowers, middle powers are balancers restoring equilibrium, kingmakers tipping the scales to one superpower’s benefit and Machiavellians playing one side against the other to their advantage.
But is this the era of middle powers? In some ways, yes; in other ways, no.
Middle powers emerged during the rise of nation-states. Great powers have exploited middle powers as pawns, security cordons or vassals for revenue, troops, ports and resources.
In peace negotiations after the two world wars, middle powers were recognised as integral to a more stable world order as borders were redrawn to promote self-determination. The result was a patchwork quilt of nation-states in Eastern and Central Europe as well as Africa and Asia. These borders continue to be fought over today, as the war sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrates.
Quantitative measures rank middle powers, but the boundaries defining membership are as arbitrary as they are vague. Aside from the view that they are positioned somewhere below the United States, China, Europe and Russia but above developing countries, there is little more that universally defines them and provides grounds for widespread agreement other than their being what superpowers and poor countries are not.
India could lead a middle-power response to China in the Asia-Pacific
India could lead a middle-power response to China in the Asia-Pacific
Often, they are in opposing camps of the North-South or East-West divides. Some are highly developed, such as Denmark, but others have the world’s largest poor populations, such as India and Nigeria.
While it might seem like an academic artifice to lump countries as diverse as Japan, India, Canada, Brazil, Egypt and Mexico into the same category and imply that deep-seated bonds unite them, there are trends among them that complicate and compromise great powers’ foreign policies. Beijing, Washington, Brussels and Moscow have a harder time ignoring their voices.
With new-found wealth and lucrative markets, middle powers are anxious to assert their independence and muscle, as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi did in a recent visit to the United Arab Emirates, his seventh since 2015. He signed investment pledges and opened a Hindu temple, using the visit to strengthen support at home before national elections that are likely to win him a third consecutive term.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi attends the inauguration of the BAPS Hindu Mandir in Abu Dhabi, the first traditional Hindu place of worship in the city, on February 14. Photo: EPA-EFE
As one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, India is a key market and a source of highly coveted software developers, as demonstrated by Microsoft’s commitment to educate 100,000 developers about artificial intelligence technologies. Russia, China and Europe have intensified relations and provided armaments to the world’s largest importer of military equipment.
Farther away, Australia is showing how middle powers are bolstering their clout, encouraged by their superpower allies. In February, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced plans to spend more than US$7 billion to build its largest navy since World War II. However, Canberra has distanced itself from tensions in the South China Sea to avoid direct conflict with China.
South Africa filed a brief before the International Court of Justice asserting that Israel’s bombing of the Gaza strip is an act of genocide. Supporting the petition is the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, made up of 57 nations, which shows how middle powers are working together in forums they create.
South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor and South African Ambassador to the Netherlands Vusimuzi Madonsela speak on the day the International Court of Justice rule on emergency measures against Israel following accusations by South Africa that the Israeli military operation in Gaza is a state-led genocide, in The Hague, Netherlands, on January 26. Photo: Reuters
Within recent negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Guatemalan diplomat Marco Molina has been credited with progress towards an overhaul in the dispute-settlement process that has beleaguered the organisation. In another area, India abandoned its opposition to a moratorium blocking the WTO from regulating e-commerce. The host of the talks, the United Arab Emirates, pressured India to do so.
Yet the failures of the WTO talks show that while middle powers have the plurality, the veto powers of superpowers still primarily define what multilateral organisations can do. Nothing demonstrates that more than the veto in late February by the US, which ended a proposal before the United Nations Security Council to demand a ceasefire to Israel’s war in Gaza.
Trade reforms swept under the carpet as WTO meeting achieves little
Trade reforms swept under the carpet as WTO meeting achieves little
The past two decades have seen more frequent examples of middle powers taking independent actions, mitigating superpowers’ objections, wielding clout in global markets for their precious metals and energy resources, pursuing nuclear weapons capacities, aggressively putting forward their demands and pressing Beijing, Washington and Brussels for greater access to technological know-how, armaments and domestic markets.
All this argues that middle powers are shaping a new era in international relations. But, as long as great powers can ignore them by taking unilateral actions or overrun them through vetoes, the core of power politics remains little changed.
James David Spellman, a graduate of Oxford University, is principal of Strategic Communications LLC, a consulting firm based in Washington, DC
