Abstract
What are the main features of middle power diplomacy of the twenty-first century, which are distinguishable from great power diplomacy and the traditional middle power diplomacy? A driving force of middle power diplomacy is closely related to middle powers’ changing perception of their roles and status in order to distance themselves from traditional diplomacy. Middle powers tend to seek middle power diplomacy commensurate with an elevated status. MIKTA diplomacy is an attempt to redefine their roles creatively to engage in status-enhancing diplomacy. Reflecting the changing dynamics of world politics, MIKTA countries ambitiously launched MIKTA to create a new platform spurring cooperation among them. MIKTA has successfully developed informal and innovative forum innovative forum in its ability to reform global governance. Despite modest achievements, however, MIKTA faces some challenges down the road. It is repeatedly pointed out that heterogeneity among MIKTA countries would be a serious obstacle in consolidating MIKTA. MIKTA countries are likely to face difficulty in coherently maintaining common positions on core issues. Furthermore, recent domestic political changes in Turkey are likely to erode the internal unity of MIKTA, although the Turkish government claims that its diplomatic posture towards MIKTA has not fundamentally changed (Dal and Kurşun, Int J 71:608–629, 2016).
The earlier version of this paper was delivered at IPSA 2018, Brisbane in Australia on July 21–25, 2018.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For a concise discussion of the rise of China from a perspective of middle powers, see Gilley and O’Neil (2014).
- 2.
In this regard, middle power diplomacy is process-oriented, distinguished from the diplomacy of great powers that project their own interests and ideologies. Middle power diplomacy does not dictate the end-state of the reform of global governance. Middle power diplomacy is an “open process” (Cox, 1989).
- 3.
On the effect of great power rivalry on middle powers, see Cooper (2013).
- 4.
- 5.
Jordaan makes a distinction between traditional and emerging middle powers. Jordaan (2003).
- 6.
For various discussions of what constitutes middle power diplomacy, Cox (1989).
- 7.
Cooper and Mo argue that middle powers played a leadership role in the evolutionary process of the G20. Cooper and Mo (2013).
- 8.
For Korea’s approach to MIKTA, see Snyder (2013).
- 9.
For evolution of the G20, see Beeson and Bell (2009).
- 10.
For Korea’s approach to MIKTA, see Snyder (2013).
- 11.
- 12.
For a critical assessment of neoliberalism, see Ostry et al. (2016).
- 13.
For ideological and institutional foundations of the postwar world order, Ruggie (1982).
- 14.
For the robustness of the liberal international order, see Ikenberry (2011).
References
Alexandroff, A. S., & Cooper, A. F. (2010). Rising states, rising institutions: Challenges for global governance. Brookings Institution.
Ban, C., & Blyth, M. (2013). The BRICS and the Washington consensus: An introduction. Review of International Political Economy, 20(2), 241–255.
Beeson, Mark and Stephen Bell. 2009. “The G-20 and International Economic Governance: Hegemony, Collectivism, or Both?” Global Governance 15: 67-86.
Beeson, M., & Higgott, R. (2014). The changing architecture of politics in the Asia-Pacific: Australia’s middle power moment? International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 14, 215–237.
Beeson, M., & Lee, W. (2015). The middle power moment: A new basis for cooperation between Indonesia and Australia. In C. B. Roberts, A. D. Habir, & L. C. Sebastian (Eds.), Indonesia’s ascent: Power, leadership, and the regional order (pp. 224–243). Palgrave Macmillan.
Bremmer, I. (2013). Every nation for itself: Winners and losers in a G-zero world. Portfolio Penguin.
Colakoglu, S. (2016). The role of MIKTA in global governance: Assessments & shortcomings. Korea Observer, 47(2), 267–290.
Cooper, A. F. (1997). Niche diplomacy: Middle powers after the cold war. Palgrave Macmillan.
Cooper, A. F. (2013). Squeezed or revitalized? Middle powers, the G20 and the global governance. Third World Quarterly, 34(6), 963–984.
Cooper, A. F. (2015). MIKTA and the global projection of middle powers: Toward a summit of their own? Global Summitry, 1(1), 95–114.
Cooper, A., & Mo, J. (2013). Middle power leadership and the evolution of the G20. Global Summitry Journal, 1(1), 1–12.
Cooper, A. F., Higgot, R. A., & Nossal, K. R. (1993). Relocating middle powers: Australia and Canada in a changing world order. UBC Press.
Cox, R. W. (1989). Middlepowermanship, Japan, and future world order. International Journal, 44, 823–861.
Dal, E. P., & Kurşun, A. M. (2016). Assessing Turkey’s middle power foreign policy in MIKTA: Goals, means, and impact. International Journal, 71(4), 608–629.
Downie, C. (2018). MIKTA and the G20. Australian Institute of International Affairs. http://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/mikta-and-the-g20/
Eichengreen, B. (2016). The age of hyper-uncertainty. Project Syndicate.
Evenett, S. J., & Fritz, J. (2016). Global trade plateaus: The 19th report of the global trade alert. CEPR Press.
Gilley, B., & O’Neil, A. (2014). China’s rise through the prism of middle powers. In B. Gilley & A. O’Neil (Eds.), Middle powers and the rise of China. Georgetown University Press.
Higgott, R. A., & Cooper, A. F. (1990). Middle power leadership and coalition building: Australia, the Cairns group, and the Uruguay round of trade negotiations. International Organization, 44(4), 589–632.
Ikenberry, J. G. (2011). The future of the liberal international order: Internationalism after America. Foreign Affairs, 90(3), 56.
Jordaan, E. (2003). The concept of a middle power in international relations: Distinguishing between emerging and traditional middle powers. Politikon: South African Journal of Political Studies, 30, 165–181.
Karim. (2018). Middle power, status-seeking and role conceptions: The cases of Indonesia and South Korea. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 72(4), 343–363.
Kim, S. (2014). The international politics of Arachne: A challenge of network theory of international politics. Hanul.
Kim, S., Lee, S., & Bae, Y. (Eds.). (2013). Middle powers’ public diplomacy. Sahoepyoungron. (in Korean).
Kim, S.-M., Haug, S., & Rimmer, S. H. (2018). Minilateralism revisited: MIKTA as slender diplomacy in a multiplex world. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 24(4), 475–489.
Kupchan, C. (2012). No one’s world: The west, the rising rest, and the coming global turn. Oxford University Press.
Lake, D. A. (1993). Leadership, hegemony, and the international economy: Naked emperor or tattered monarch with potential? International Studies Quarterly, 37(4), 459–489.
Lee, Seungjoo. 2016. “Coalition Building and Middle Power Diplomacy: The Case of MIKTA.” The Journal of International and Area Studies 25(2): 91-116 (in Korean).
Manicom, J., & Reeves, J. (2014). Locating middle powers in international relations theory and power transitions. In B. Gilley & A. O’Neil (Eds.), Middle powers and the rise of China. Georgetown University Press.
Martin, P. (2005). A global answer to global problems: The case for a new Leader’s forum. Foreign Affairs, 84(3), 3–6.
MIKTA as a Force for Good. (2014). Huffington post.
Mo, J. (Ed.). (2014). MIKTA, middle powers, and new dynamics of global governance: The G20’s evolving agenda. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mo, J. (2016). South Korea’s middle power diplomacy: A case of growing compatibility between regional and global roles. International Journal, 71(4), 587–607.
Ostry, J. D., Loungani, P., & Furceri, D. (2016). Neoliberalism: Oversold? Finance and Development.
Patrick, S. M. (2015). Multilateralism à la carte: The New World of global governance. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/blog/multilateralism-la-carte-new-world-global-governance
Patrick, S. (2018). MIKTA in the middle: A little-known multilateral group turns five. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/blog/mikta-middle-little-known-multilateral-group-turns-five
Ravenhill, J. (1998). Cycles of middle power activism: Constraint and choice in Australian and Canadian foreign policies. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 52(3), 309–327.
Robertson, J. (2018). South Korea’s quandary: What to do about MIKTA? The interpreter. Lowy Institute. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/south-korea-quandary-what-do-about-mikta
Rothkopf, D. (2011). G-Zero: Gee, another idea with zero to support it. Foreign Policy.
Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International regimes, transactions, and change: Embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order. International Organization, 36(2), 379–415.
Schiavon, J. A., & Domínguez, D. (2016). Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA): Middle, regional, and constructive powers providing global governance. Asia & Pacific Policy Studies, 3(3), 495–504.
Snyder, S. (2013). Korean middle power diplomacy: The establishment of MIKTA. Council on Foreign Relations.
Snyder, S. (2018). South Korea at the crossroads: Autonomy and Alliance in an era of rival powers. Columbia University Press.
Stephen, M. (2013). The concept and role of middle powers during global rebalancing. Seton Hall Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, 14(2), 37–53.
Tiberghien, Y. (2013). Leadership in global institution building: Minerva’s rule. Palgrave McMillan.
Tyler, Melissa Conley. 2014. “Mixing with the MIKTAS.” Australian Outlook. Australian Institute of International Affairs. April 24.
Welsh, Jennifer M. 2004. “Canada in the 21st century: beyond dominion and middle power.” The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs 93(376): 583-593.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lee, S. (2022). Power Shift, Power Diffusion, and Middle Power Diplomacy: MIKTA and Changes in Global Governance. In: Lee, S., Kim, S. (eds) Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy. The Political Economy of the Asia Pacific. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76012-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76012-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-76011-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-76012-0
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)