Global Asia – Middle Powers and Resilient Multilateralism

IN RECENT TIMES, the institutionalist framework, with its prime focus on great power politics, has been a subject of intense scrutiny and debate. As highlighted by US Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during his address to National Defense University graduates on June 8, 2023, the world has three great powers: the United States, China and Russia.​1 Although Russia’s position may be contentious given its economic, social and quality-of-life indices, it undeniably projects asymmetrical influence in the global political arena, primarily due to its Soviet past and formidable military.

The theoretical anchoring of this great-power perspective undeniably resides in realism, a viewpoint that sees international relations as a hierarchical structure. Even in a world where, on paper, all states are sovereign equals, realists stress the disparities in state capacities to pursue and realize their objectives. In this schema, nations wielding the prowess to shape foreign governments’ policies and set overarching international norms earn the epithet “great.” Gen. Milley’s definition seems to equate great power with potential threat, underscoring the lackluster state of security co-operation prevalent in great power dynamics.

For great powers, the lens through which global politics is interpreted is primarily marked by status quo maintenance, rivalry discernment and asymmetric threat identification. They perceive conflicts not merely as challenges but as strategic avenues to recalibrate existing power dynamics. This perspective manifests itself in the myriad hybrid confrontations and proxy wars that have marked the last three decades.

The inadequacies of great-power politics in addressing security concerns were laid bare in February 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine, creating the gravest European military confrontation since the Second World War. The sheer scale of operations warranted a swift, cohesive response from global peace and security custodians. Yet the United Nations Security Council, a body established for precisely such exigencies, has been paralyzed, largely due to Russia’s permanent veto.

Does this signify the disintegration of the global security apparatus? The answer is multifaceted. The Ukraine conflict highlights the inherent inefficacy of the security apparatus but it also suggests that this may have been an intentional design rather than an unforeseen flaw.

In my recent book, Widening the Scope,​2 I probe the apparent deterioration of institutionalism and global governance. I juxtapose the modus operandi of great power politics, in terms of “contested multilateralism,” against the diplomacy of middle powers, which operates on the concept of “resilient multilateralism.” In this essay, I try to leverage this analytical framework to illuminate the nuances of global and regional security, arguing for the heightened significance of middle powers in underpinning global co-operation and stability.

LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN GLOBAL INSTITUTIONS 

In international relations theory, institutionalism is undergoing a profound crisis, marked by its inability to effectively address the mounting global security agenda. This failure emerges from both inefficiencies within institutions and their recurrent indecisiveness. Within these entities, bureaucratic entanglements often result in protracted procedures and decision-making delays. Concurrently, the myriad interests of member states frequently lead to negotiation stalemates, thereby impeding the institution’s ability to react promptly to unfolding situations.​3

Exacerbating this crisis is the chronic indecisiveness inherent in the consensus-based decision-making frameworks employed by many international organizations. Although this approach emphasizes sovereign equality, it paradoxically also creates extended debates, particularly on divisive matters, often culminating in a lack of resolution. A case in point is the UN Security Council, which has faced substantial criticism for its inaction, especially when confronting severe conflicts and humanitarian issues — largely due to the veto privileges wielded by its five permanent members including Russia, the US and China.

Compounding these challenges is the perceived incapacity of such institutions to enforce their decisions. This becomes glaringly evident in matters involving war and high-stakes political decisions, where overarching national interests often eclipse institutional directives. This leads not only to questions about institutionalism’s viability but also highlights how major powers, under the guise of the “greater good,” can occasionally manipulate or gaslight even their allies, prioritizing self-interest over collective security.

While international organizations are intended to foster collaboration and dialogue, their very design can inadvertently become a battleground. Rather than facilitate co-operation, this can end up accentuating dissenting viewpoints and the intricate dance of power dynamics. Given the urgency of the current security landscape, there’s an imperative to revisit and revitalize these platforms, ensuring they prioritize global security over narrow self-interest.

In contemporary international relations, the once-accepted conviction of multilateral institutions as unwavering pillars requires a critical reassessment. This is especially pronounced in our transition from a unipolar world to an increasingly multipolar one. With the erstwhile predominant power, the US, no longer steering global discourse, multilateral institutions are compelled to operate without the assured patronage of one overarching hegemon. Consequently, the stability and legitimacy of these entities now oscillate based on the conditional endorsements of several major actors.

This evolving power dynamic is perilous, as international institutions might gravitate toward prioritizing broad-based acceptability, potentially at the cost of operational efficacy. The resulting scenario might be institutions maintaining legitimacy merely through the begrudging consensus of great powers. In contrast, an institution executing its mandate proficiently, but in ways discordant with the interests of these powers, risks the specter of contested multilateralism. This presents a trade-off between broad acceptability and functional efficiency that seems inevitable.

Echoing the insights of Morse and Keohane, multilateralism is far from a monolithic, concordant pursuit.​4 It comprises competitive coalitions, fluid alliances and a gamut of formal and informal mechanisms. The framework of contested multilateralism elucidates myriad challenges to rejuvenating international institutions. A salient concern is redundancy and inefficacy in the international apparatus. In this view, when an existing institution’s protocols appear non-conducive or prejudicial to major powers, those powers are predisposed to eschew reforms. Instead, great powers may pursue alternative structures they deem more favorable to their interests. This propensity can inadvertently exacerbate systemic redundancy and weaken the potency of international institutions.

In this milieu, the primacy of the security agenda is persistently sidelined, with great powers being more engrossed in strategic rivalries and disruptive maneuvers rather than fostering collaborative architectures. This underscores the imperative for a recalibration of priorities, ensuring global security concerns aren’t perpetually overshadowed by power politics.

ELUSIVE CONSENSUS  

The current academic discourse underscores the formidable challenges in initiating new international organizations. At the heart of this impediment lies a disparate landscape of international actors, whose collective consensus is pivotal for providing credibility for any new institution. Consequently, the orthodox methodologies to reform international bodies — either through grassroots initiatives or profound changes to existing frameworks — appear increasingly untenable.

Even when championed by clusters of middle powers, external intervention invariably confronts resistance from the great powers. The intricate choreography of international relations often manifests as contrasting aspirations between middle and great powers. While the former might endeavor to recalibrate international norms or reshape the global order, the latter tend to gravitate toward preserving their positions, thereby avoiding change. Moreover, a tactical alignment among great powers — motivated by a mutual objective to sustain their hegemony — often culminates in opposition to middle powers, preferring succession over systemic overhaul.

These seemingly contradictory dynamics don’t inherently signify institutional frailties, nor do they solely precipitate the UN’s recurrent quandaries. Rather, they have acted as a bedrock for enduring international co-operation, supplanting the ephemeral idealism epitomized by the League of Nations.​5 The UN’s perseverance, spanning nearly eight decades and weathering many crises, is a testament to the robustness of its paradoxical construct.

In light of this, there is an inescapable realization: The security agenda, which remains perpetually overshadowed, cannot be effectively addressed solely through conventional reform, given the improbability of achieving a unified stance among great powers. Hence, the narrative necessitates a shift — incorporating middle power diplomacy as a crucial component to both complement and augment the existing environment. Only by doing so can the global community aspire to adequately address security imperatives in an era dominated by great power politics.

THE RISE OF MIDDLE POWERS IN SECURITY CO-OPERATION

In a world fraught with escalating global challenges — from climate change to pandemics, from stark economic disparities to cyber vulnerabilities — it’s increasingly evident that these transnational issues warrant a concerted, cross-border response. While dialogues frequently gravitate toward the predominant influence of great powers, a nuanced appreciation of the middle powers is necessary.

Middle powers, often overshadowed in great-power dialogues, are pivotal actors in global governance. Their role transcends mere support or opposition to the status quo, they enrich the international relations discourse with fresh, multifaceted perspectives. Central to their strategy is the concept of “middle power diplomacy,” characterized by forging alliances, championing normative principles and mediating amid great powers.

What’s particularly noteworthy about middle powers is their distinct security prerogative. For them, security concerns veer away from hegemony and rivalry. Instead, they pivot toward a more humanistic and ethical imperative: safeguarding their citizens, averting tragedies and ensuring safety and wellbeing. This orientation infuses the discourse with a moral dimension, adding gravitas to the urgency of collective action and co-operation.

While resource constraints or geopolitical positioning might deter middle powers from orchestrating sweeping reforms in global institutions, they nevertheless can help shape discussions, redefine norms and influence decision-making. Their engagement serves as a testament to the potential of broadening the international relations horizon, moving beyond great power myopia. While direct confrontations with entrenched systems might not be their modus operandi, they deftly utilize their distinctive positioning to steer international bodies, offering a more inclusive, ethical and holistic lens to the challenges of our times.

In global politics, the concept of middle powers remains a point of contention and ambiguity. We may conceive of middle powers as “states endowed with the intent and capacity — be it through tangible resources, diplomatic clout, or innovative strategies — to collaborate proactively with counterparts in enhancing and fortifying frameworks for the stewardship of global commons.”​6

The contemporary tapestry of multilateral co-operation is witnessing significant changes, influenced by evolving power dynamics and intensified regional integration. This is typified by the gradual dilution of great-power hegemony, concurrently with their regional collaborations and the assertive stance of middle powers in regional governance. This divergence finds expression in the unique capacities and aspirations of middle powers, which when compared to the entrenched ideologies of great powers, reveals a distinct perspective on global engagement. Conventionally, middle powers display an affinity toward equilibrium and stability, ensuring any disturbances in the international arena are settled systematically.​7

LOOKING FOR EQUAL BALANCE 

Conflict between middle powers and their “greater” counterparts often emanates from the former’s steadfast commitment to uphold universally accepted codes of conduct, undeterred by the size or stature of the nation in question.​8 Though this primarily aims to tether a dominant power to established norms — ranging from human rights to peaceful conflict resolution — they rarely undermine the pillars of the international order. The most assertive actions by middle powers rarely transcend reformist undertones, steering clear of radicalism. An underlying sentiment among middle powers is the desire for a multipolar global order that equitably disperses influence, permitting a broader spectrum of states to shape international dialogues and policies.​9

In global politics, middle powers have increasingly found their strength in collective numbers and regional proximity. In the past decade, events have underscored this perspective with nearly every international conflict seeing the involvement of at least one regional actor striving to mediate tensions. The ongoing Ukrainian crisis stands as a testament to this dynamic. Supported tenaciously by various small- and mid-tier European nations, Ukraine has notably defied Russia. This collective regional backing has enabled Ukraine’s metamorphosis from a beleaguered state on the brink of collapse to an asymmetric middle power, now influencing geopolitical discussions and decisions.

Ukraine introduced yet another dimension to geopolitics, amplifying global security apprehensions and thereby prompting a recalibration of middle power diplomacy, pivoting it from predominant economic concerns to heightened security considerations. This confrontation has illuminated the indispensable role of collaborative diplomatic intervention to preserve peace and stability amid mounting global hostilities.

Such unfolding scenarios underscore the dynamic evolution of middle power diplomacy. Thus, merely grasping the theoretical framework of middle power engagement is an incomplete endeavor. As we navigate the future, a nuanced comprehension of middle power diplomacy becomes paramount.

MIDDLE-POWER DIPLOMACY IN A MULTIPOLAR WORLD

In a shifting global landscape, where power dynamics veer toward multipolarity and select dominant states emerge as primary influencers, there’s a conceivable risk that middle powers might be relegated to the periphery of global influence. Another perspective is that in a world with more dispersed power dynamics, middle powers could find themselves at the epicenter of geopolitical significance, contingent on their ability to navigate both a centralized and fragmented institutional terrain.​10

Middle-power diplomacy encapsulates a range of strategic global and regional undertakings, pursued by middle powers without the overt patronage of great powers.​11 Historically, these strategic pursuits have often laid the groundwork for innovative frameworks in global governance and conflict resolution.

Both theoretically and in realpolitik applications, the multilateralism of middle powers is inherently perceived as a “concerted international engagement.” This paradigm is rooted in the understanding that the gravitas of middle powers is amplified when they collaborate with other international actors, and their most pronounced collaborative ventures typically unfurl within multilateral arenas.

Emerging from this geopolitical tapestry is a prevailing contention that underscores the indispensable role of middle powers in championing equilibrium in an era fraught with uncertainties. By cementing international collaboration and fortifying global security, middle powers, through their adeptness in coalition-building, mediating among more formidable powers, and heralding universally accepted norms and values, inevitably become linchpins in the architecture of international relations.​12

In scrutinizing the policy paradigms presented, there emerges a compelling prospect to synthesize disparate insights and craft an innovative strategy christened “resilient multilateralism.”​13 This doctrine accentuates the systemic linkages that undergird global initiatives, reflecting contemporary interdisciplinary efforts to navigate the multifaceted and intertwined nature of the current epoch.

In the context of middle-power behavior, resilient multilateralism mandates rethinking existing paradigms. Instead of an insular focus on singular actors or the hegemony of great powers, the lens pivots to spotlight the platforms and interactions that structure international dynamics. Recognizing the inherent limitations of the post-Cold War era’s globalization, resilient multilateralism draws upon scholastic and policy legacies to extract four cornerstone principles gleaned from historical precedents.

This tactic is the logical evolution of a more fluid policy environment. Although bilateral engagements with great powers might constrict the terms of interaction, championing consensus potentially changes the foundations on which all nations converse. Herein lies the pivotal role of middle powers: their ubiquity empowers them to sculpt and influence global norms.

Such a strategy beckons an embrace of intricacy, championing a globally dynamic that harnesses the inherent nimbleness and numerical supremacy of middle powers. This mandates a strategic pivot away from monolithic global systems.

TURKEY AS A MIDDLE POWER

Turkey exemplifies the contemporary dynamics of middle-power politics, skillfully navigating global power politics without firmly aligning with any of the major poles. Its strategic maneuvering is profoundly shaped by the internal perceptions of the Turkish leadership and their aspirations on the global stage. Although Turkey ardently champions the reform of international structures to better accommodate emergent powers, and publicly endorses liberal internationalism, free trade, and governance principles, there exists a palpable disjunction between these stated ambitions and their practical application.

Indeed, Turkey’s projected global role is ambitious, underscored by its emphasis on issues such as global security, migration, and peace initiatives. Yet, juxtaposed with the more assertive politics of nations such as Russia and China, Turkey exhibits a more tempered assertiveness. This strategy suggests a distinctive emphasis on social mobility and innovation, rather than outright competition with established powers.

While Russia and China aggressively vie for dominance within their respective spheres, Turkey’s approach appears more multifaceted. Such an orientation possibly emerges from the predominant mindset of Turkish elites who see Turkey not merely as a traditional middle power, but as a burgeoning regional heavyweight. This aspiration is manifest in Turkey’s sustained efforts to integrate with the European Union, spotlighting a predilection for social ascendance over pure competition. 

Turkey’s middle power strategy is marked by social adaptability and innovation, fueled by the high aspirations of its decision-makers. This is in contrast to the direct power assertions of nations such as Russia and China and enriches the fabric of resilient multilateralism and the emerging global order.

Furthermore, Turkey’s active engagement in arenas such as Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh, and its support for Ukraine, have not only highlighted its evolving military capabilities, especially in drone warfare, but also positioned it as a pivotal player in global geopolitics. Some analysts even herald Turkey as a “drone superpower,” a designation that might unsettle established power hierarchies. Concurrently, Turkey capitalizes on its geographical advantages to forge collaborative ties with nations in the Global South, seamlessly juxtaposing its roles as a military power and mediator. A case in point is the Istanbul-led peace dialogues between Ukraine and Russia, followed by the significant “grain deal.” Such endeavors underscore that modern middle powers are progressively adopting a niche-centric approach — excelling in specific domains to cement their indispensability on the global stage.

KAZAKHSTAN AS A MIDDLE POWER

Kazakhstan’s strategic positioning is bolstered by its geographical proximity, and aims to elevate its stature as the “linchpin of Eurasia.” This ambition is manifested in its multifaceted roles, including its pivotal function as a mediator in regional disputes.

Kazakhstan has artfully crafted a multi-vector foreign policy to steer its international engagements. Yet the turbulence of recent global events has exerted strains on this policy framework, ushering in new intricacies for the country.

A salient illustration of Kazakhstan’s multi-vector potential is its mediation during the Astana peace discussions, which convened stakeholders such as Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syrian opposition factions. While this initiative underscored Kazakhstan’s commitment to regional peace, the intricate nature of the talks left certain issues pending.

The absence of a pronounced middle power within Central Asia amplifies the susceptibility of the region to the sway of major powers, especially considering its proximity to Russia and China. This geopolitical vacuum underscores a missing counterweight to the larger powers, potentially exacerbating regional vulnerabilities. A standout facet of Kazakhstan’s strategic potential lies in its transit capabilities. For a landlocked nation to emerge as a vital nexus in burgeoning global cargo routes is a noteworthy achievement.

Kazakhstan now stands at a crossroads, necessitating a recalibration of its foreign policy. Historically, the nation gravitated toward enhancing collaboration with Western entities, championing socio-political and economic changes within Central Asia, and maintaining enduring connections with Russia and China. In light of shifting global paradigms, there’s a need to transition from a predominantly responsive posture to a more assertive role, positioning Astana at the forefront of middle-power diplomacy within the broader region. 

Successfully operationalizing this demands astute management of Kazakhstan’s ties with major powers, carefully offsetting the inherent risks. The country should be poised to foster a conducive environment for competition among the influential powers, an essential component for effective multi-vector diplomacy.

Central Asia’s geopolitical tapestry, while intricate, offers Kazakhstan a golden opportunity to ascend. It has the potential to transcend from a regional player to a pivotal middle-power influencer, thereby bolstering regional stability and fostering growth.

CONCLUSIONS

In dissecting the strategic postures of great and middle powers within the multilateral arena, it’s necessary to underscore the divergence of their approaches. Great powers tend to be anchored in “contested multilateralism.”​14 This posits that dominant states exploit their pre-eminent status to sculpt outcomes aligned with their preferences, even if it necessitates circumventing or recalibrating established institutions. Such a framework essentially fosters a global architecture under the stewardship of a select cohort of formidable states, often at the expense of genuine collaborative dynamics.

Conversely, middle powers ardently advocate for “resilient multilateralism.” This perspective is rooted in principles of adaptability, concord and diplomacy. It discerns the mutable contours of the global order and is committed to fostering solutions that are fluid, inclusive and attuned to the complexities of modern geopolitics. Within the ambit of resilient multilateralism, states potentially overshadowed by great powers find an avenue to forge coalitions, modulate global paradigms and ensure their stakes resonate within the international dialogue.

Contested multilateralism, by its intrinsic nature, cultivates an environment riddled with competing interests, thereby ushering in an epoch characterized by relentless quests for ascendancy. In juxtaposition, resilient multilateralism, the banner under which middle powers rally, venerates discourse, conciliation and collaborative endeavor. This framework not only accentuates the granularity of international diplomacy but also buttresses the resilience of the global architecture, crafting a domain conducive to mutual progress and stability.

In summation, while contested multilateralism orbits around the recalibration or reengineering of international co-operation to pander to an elite echelon of states, resilient multilateralism is oriented toward harnessing collective prowess and adaptability in an intricate multipolar landscape. Though these paradigms may seem dichotomous, they can potentially operate in a symbiotic tandem. The rigidity introduced by contested multilateralism can be alleviated by the malleability intrinsic in resilient multilateralism, fostering a more harmonized international interplay. Recognizing the symbiotic potential of these multilateral paradigms, when adroitly harmonized, can underpin robust global governance frameworks and engender a balanced, integrated global environment.