Miras Zhiyenbayev
An Indonesian military honour guard marks the 60th anniversary of the Asian-African Conference in Bandung. Photo: X Screengrab / Indonesian Government
In traditional international relations theory, the term “middle power” has been defined by quantifiable metrics – a state that ranks somewhere in the middle of the global hierarchy in terms of size, military strength or economic heft.
This vertical, power-based definition implicitly casts middle powers as second-tier countries: stronger than small states but materially weaker than the great powers at the top of the pyramid.
However, a purely power-based label fails to capture the true dynamics of today’s world, where many so-called middle powers punch well above their weight diplomatically and great powers often find their will constrained.
It also obscures the agency and creativity these states now exhibit on the global stage. Therefore, it’s much more practical to define “middle power” horizontally rather than vertically – focusing on a state’s geopolitical position and behavior rather than its size alone.
What would a horizontal definition of middle powers look like? Essentially, it reframes “middle” not as a middling level of power, but as a position between great powers on the global chessboard.
No comments:
Post a Comment