What happens to middle powers located in contested zones—those that function not as stabilizers, but as strategic pivots struggling to survive amid great power competition?
Very well written piece and a pretty compelling argument. The thing is, now that you have apparently discovered your inner neorealist it's time to revisit the concept of middle powers. I never liked the term because it implied that middle powers are states that choose a certain foreign policy strategy because of their position in the system, and that's just not the case (your inclusion of Iran as a middle power makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE than the old 'middle powers are just so nice!' definition). If we define middle powers by their share of the distribution of power, then lots of illiberal states have the same position in the system as Australia.
To my mind, you can salvage the term with the original meaning as long as you find a name that separates states like Australia and Canada from states like Saudi Arabia or Myanmar...but that distinction will have as much to do with the internal makeup of that country as with their external environment. They are weaker liberal states that actively support the status quo and seek to strengthen the institutions of the international order because those institutions/that order furthers their interests.
Another thing to consider is that the so-called middle power diplomacy is a unique feature of the liberal international order...that specific institutional architecture gives these smaller countries a way to pursue their interests that was not possible in earlier eras, and gives them an alternative to marrying their oldest daughter to the prince of some threatening great power.
Or maybe some history buff can explain that the closest analogy to middle power diplomacy during the middle ages was actually pursuing closer relations with the Church in order to increase standing and security amongst stronger powers? That feels like it's a dissertation topic waiting to be written...you're welcome!!)
Great comment. Agree wholeheartedly. IMO it makes no sense using the term. It is not only a feature of a very distinct and now foregone historical era, it was also developed within the frames of a Western-oriented discipline that discounted alternative experiences. It just doesn’t work, and we need new ways of thinking about states and the entire discipline!
Very well written piece and a pretty compelling argument. The thing is, now that you have apparently discovered your inner neorealist it's time to revisit the concept of middle powers. I never liked the term because it implied that middle powers are states that choose a certain foreign policy strategy because of their position in the system, and that's just not the case (your inclusion of Iran as a middle power makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE than the old 'middle powers are just so nice!' definition). If we define middle powers by their share of the distribution of power, then lots of illiberal states have the same position in the system as Australia.
To my mind, you can salvage the term with the original meaning as long as you find a name that separates states like Australia and Canada from states like Saudi Arabia or Myanmar...but that distinction will have as much to do with the internal makeup of that country as with their external environment. They are weaker liberal states that actively support the status quo and seek to strengthen the institutions of the international order because those institutions/that order furthers their interests.
Another thing to consider is that the so-called middle power diplomacy is a unique feature of the liberal international order...that specific institutional architecture gives these smaller countries a way to pursue their interests that was not possible in earlier eras, and gives them an alternative to marrying their oldest daughter to the prince of some threatening great power.
Or maybe some history buff can explain that the closest analogy to middle power diplomacy during the middle ages was actually pursuing closer relations with the Church in order to increase standing and security amongst stronger powers? That feels like it's a dissertation topic waiting to be written...you're welcome!!)
Great comment. Agree wholeheartedly. IMO it makes no sense using the term. It is not only a feature of a very distinct and now foregone historical era, it was also developed within the frames of a Western-oriented discipline that discounted alternative experiences. It just doesn’t work, and we need new ways of thinking about states and the entire discipline!