Summary The concept of a middle power in international relations by Jordaan PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Summary The concept of a middle power in international relations by Jordaan PDF

Description

Theconceptofamiddlepowerin internationalrelations:distinguishing betweenemergingandtraditional middlepowers EduardJordaan Jordaan  defines  middle  powers  as  being  “states  that  are  neither  great  nor small in terms of international power, capacity and influence, and demonstrate a propensity to promote cohesionand stability in the world system”. Jordaan differentiates between  traditional middle  powers (Australia, Canada, Norway…) and emerging middle powers (Argentina, Malaysia,  South Africa…). Jordaan comments on different approaches to the concept of middle power. Accordingto Higgott, Nossal and Cooper, middle powers are recognized as such by their way  of  acting,  not  by  their  resources or  position in the system. According to them, middle powers generally advocate  for  compromise and multilateral solutions to conflict. Higgott, Nossal  and Cooper are liberals. Realists (such as Holbraad) focus on  state capacity to define whether a state is a middle power or not, whereas neoGramscians (such as  Cox or Neufeld) mainly  take  into  account  the  position of  middle powers  in the global politicaleconomyandelitecomplicityintheneoliberalprojecttorecognizemiddlepowers.  According  to Jordaan, middle  powers have  a  foreign  policy  that  goes  beyond  selfinterest and geography. Nonetheless,  it can also be argued that middle powers have generally acertaininterestin  the permanence of the status quo and that they do not want to change  the  inequality  of  the  world system. For Jordaan they are always pro status quo a nd in favour of liberal democracies.  He also comments that they have a more active role in global issues than  nonmiddle powers with similar features. Middle powers are both stabilizers and legitimizers of the system. They  benefit  from the inherent inequality of the neoliberal  order  and they  contribute to it  by giving  to the system an  ideological justification. Through their  participation in institutions,  they try  to keep the relations of  power stable although, in a quite contradictory way, they  have  strong humanitarian values in their  state–societal complexes. In fact, middle powers usually give generous donations to poor countries. Moreover,itisalsocommonthattheyseeinternationallawasawayofsecuringtheirinterests.  Jordaan  believes  that  the  will  of  emerging  middle  powers  to  change  the  system should not be exaggerated. Emerging middle powers such as Brazil and Nigeria do not benefitfrom the hegemonic order when they have to relate with core countries, but they take advantage of this order whenthey relate weaker  states in their  region  of influence. Therefore, emerging middle powers want reformin

the international economic system, but not a complete change that could  jeopardize its position of superiorityinrelationtoperipheralcountries.  Jordaan also explains that traditional middle powers focused their foreign policy on security matters during the Cold War.  After it ended,  they have been progressively more concerned about economic  issues. After  this  the  author  differentiates between emerging and traditional middle powers. Whereas traditional middle powers are consolidated democracies, in emerging middle powers  democracy is more recent  and  weaker.  Traditional  middle powers are also more equal societies and have the highest quality of living in the world. On the other hand, emerging middlepowers fallin the medium human  development category (with the exception  of  Nigeria  and  Argentina).  Another  difference is that whether traditional middle powers  do not have much  power at  a regional  level, emerging middle powers do. Moreover, traditional middle powers appear rather ambivalent aboutregional integration and cooperation, whereas  emerging  middle  powers  are  keen  participants and often initiators  of regionalintegrationandcooperation.  Jordaan differentiates between those traditional middle powers  which  are  more  social democratic (Norway, Sweden...) and those which are more liberal  democratic  (Australia,  Canada...)  when it comes to the amount  of  foreign aid they give. While the first group are those donating more moneyon  the world, the second group is not so generous. The fact that they give this money inthe conceptof foreign aid  has  to  be  seen  as  a way  of appearing as a good international citizen, but alsoas anintentof appeasing the  demands  for a change in the international economic structure. Emerging middlepowers do not  have as much economic resources and they try to act by following a differentpath.Thispath often involves attempting heroic international interventions. In fact, during the initial appearance of  states as middle powers, the role performed by national leaders seemsdisproportionatelyimportant compared with what happens when countries are already established as middle powers.Anexample of this is Nelson Mandela, who tried to mediate in the Northern Irelandconflictor in thePalestinian conflict among others. Moreover, emerging middle powers seem to have created a  postCold  War nicheinpropagatingtheincreasedinclusionintheworldeconomyforthedevelopingcountries.  Both traditional and emerging middle powers are usually seen as honest brokers inconflict, but the perception that  they  are  neutral  does  not  come from the same reasons. The author concludesby saying that more investigation on the role of middle powers is needed, especially in the case of Brazil and  Nigeria.

...