There continue to be questions raised regarding the purpose of the grouping in public commentary, often marked by a listing of the joint statements on subjects as diverse as climate change, financing for development, the October 2015 terrorist attack in Turkey, the North Korean nuclear test, International Women's Day, Ebola, and the Malaysian Air MH17 tragedy. What is MIKTA's purpose?
The Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) website for MIKTA, has a section that seeks to describe grouping's rationale under the heading "Why MIKTA?". The section provides several points: (1) similarity in fundamental values, such as democracy, human rights, free trade, and open economies; (2) similarity in relative economic and strategic weight; and (3) a capacity to pursue interests not available to smaller players. The first two are a stretch. Many commentators note (in more academic terms) fudged similarity does not comprise a valid purpose.
The last portends to a more valid but challenging purpose - MIKTA's purpose is to extend diplomatic reach. The DFAT page notes "...we have an opportunity to build consensus across very different constituencies". MIKTA allows each of these states to reach a larger diplomatic network. But is it enough??? How many other groupings had a similar purpose and for how long were they effective?