Content area
Full Text
During the bipolar Cold War era, middle powers were considered important sources of stability in international politics. Lacking the global interests and ideological crusades of the superpowers, middle powers were associated with attempts to bridge or mediate between the two antagonistic global powers. In the post-Cold War phase, middle powers have been seen as strong supporters of multilateralism and compromise in the face of the unilateral excesses of Washington, or as mediators between the contending demands of North and South. Today the situation is more ambiguous, with some former middle powers having been promoted to great power rank, while other traditional middle powers find their roles being squeezed by a global shift of power and wealth favoring large developing countries. A process of global rebalancing has begun, signifying a shift of the economic center of gravity away from the Atlantic and towards Asia, leading to a changing international hierarchy of which 'rising powers' are the major beneficiaries. The process of global rebalancing is reconstituting the middle power category and changing its membership.
Yet despite the widespread use of the concept of "middle powers" in world affairs, there is little consensus over what exactly a middle power is. Compounding the problem of an elusive definition, it is also unclear exactly which countries qualify as middle powers in contemporary world politics. This raises conceptual, empirical, and substantive questions about middle powers during global rebalancing. This article therefore develops a definition of middle powers as states that have both middling power capabilities and who adopt the behavioral traits of "middlepowermanship." Based on such a definition, we turn to the empirical question of who might qualify as a middle power in the contemporary phase of multipolarization. Using a variety of empirical indicators, I argue that it is by no means self-evident which states qualify as a middle power in the contemporary international distribution of power. Former middle powers such as India and Brazil are challenging international hierarchies, while squeezed middle powers such as Canada and Australia are hanging on to their middle power statuses. Moreover, as international politics becomes more issue- specific as a result of increased functional differentiation, the countries that appear to be middle powers become more situationally specific. In the face of global rebalancing and increased...