The term “middle power” has been consistently used in international relations and foreign policy analysis. However, scholars argue that it remains a “deceptively ambiguous” term (Chapnick, 1999, pp. 73-74). Australia and Canada among other nations constantly project themselves as middle powers in the world, and the leaders of these countries always express
the significance of their role as middle powers in global affairs. Nevertheless, this paper observes that the term “middle power” is relative because states classified as middle powers in one approach could be small powers in another, and are dependent on their relative capacity to contribute to a given situation.
This paper adopts a comparative analysis of Australia and Canada’s foreign policy ambitions, and examines whether either or both countries befit a middle power status on the world stage.
Employing Cooper, Higgott and Nossal’s “behavioural” approach, the paper contends that Australia and Canada are middle powers in a multipolar world; taking into account the relative decline of US hegemony and relative rise of
China and others such as the BRICS. The paper demonstrates that Australia and Canada’s middle power diplomacies sometimes adopt a coalition-building with other “like-minded” countries as a key feature that distinguishes them from other middle powers.
The study is divided into three sections. The first section will establish the meaning and characteristics of a middle power. The second section seeks to investigate the agencies and structures that enable or limit a middle power’s foreign policy ambitions. The final section will conduct a comparative analysis of the middle power status of Australia and Canada.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. What is a middle power?
3. Agencies/Structures that influence the foreign policy behaviour of middle power states – Australia and Canada
4. Comparative analysis of Australia and Canada as Middle Powers
4.1 Australia
4.2 Canada
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper investigates the conceptual ambiguity of "middle power" status in international relations and performs a comparative analysis of Australia and Canada. It seeks to determine whether both nations, in a multipolar world characterized by shifting global hegemony, consistently demonstrate the behavioral traits associated with middle power diplomacy.
- Theoretical definitions of "middle power" (positional vs. behavioral approaches).
- The impact of international system structures on foreign policy behavior.
- Comparative case study of Australian foreign policy, particularly regarding nuclear regimes and regional security.
- Comparative case study of Canadian foreign policy, focusing on multilateralism and mediation roles.
Excerpt from the Book
What is a middle power?
The term “middle power” remains an ambiguous and contested term among foreign policy and international relations scholars, and there are various interpretations of middle power (Chapnick, 1999, p. 73). Adam Chapnick posits that a middle power is a state which is neither small nor great. Chapnick argues that the word “middle” means “equidistance from extremes,” therefore, to find the middle, it is imperative to identify the extremes (Chapnick, 1999, p. 73).
In his subsequent article Adam Chapnick argues that states such as Russia, France, Britain and China do not have the same power status as the USA since the end of the cold war therefore, states such as Canada and Australia can only be located in the small tier (Chapnick, 2000, pp. 200-204).
Chapnick (2000) maintains that Russia, France, Britain and China are the states that can claim to be middle powers because these states are now between the small states and the USA in terms of capacity and international status (p. 202). Instead, Adam Chapnick describes “self-identified” middle powers such as Australia and Canada as “small powers with specific functions” (Chapnick, 2000, p. 195). Chapnick (2000) observes that the term “middle power” which has been a “positional” term to define states in an international hierarchy of power has become descriptive, purporting a specific state role in the international community (p. 195). According to Chapnick, Australia and Canada are more accurately labelled as functional powers: “states that are capable of exercising influence in the international community based on their relative capabilities, interests, and involvement in specific issues at specific times”
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides the framework for the study, highlighting the ambiguity of the term "middle power" and proposing a comparative analysis of Australia and Canada.
What is a middle power?: Explores the theoretical debate between positional and behavioral definitions, identifying the challenges in categorizing states accurately.
Agencies/Structures that influence the foreign policy behaviour of middle power states – Australia and Canada: Analyzes how exogenous factors, such as the international system and great power involvement, shape the foreign policy of middle powers.
Comparative analysis of Australia and Canada as Middle Powers: Contrasts the foreign policies of both countries, focusing on their specific diplomatic histories, coalition-building, and roles in international institutions.
Australia: Discusses Australia's role in nuclear non-proliferation, its strategic approach to the South China Sea, and historical shifts in its perception of middle power status.
Canada: Evaluates Canada's long-standing commitment to multilateral institutions, such as the UN and NATO, and its historical role as an international mediator.
Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, affirming that Australia and Canada exemplify middle power behavior through their pursuit of multilateral solutions and diplomatic compromise.
Keywords
Middle power, foreign policy, international relations, Australia, Canada, behavioral approach, multilateralism, diplomacy, international system, coalition-building, good international citizenship, global security, mediation, Chapnick, functional powers
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the validity of the "middle power" status for Australia and Canada within the contemporary international system, focusing on how these nations conduct their foreign policy.
What are the central thematic fields explored?
The study covers middle power theory, the impact of international power structures, and the comparative diplomatic histories of Australia and Canada.
What is the primary research question or goal?
The goal is to analyze whether Australia and Canada effectively function as middle powers by assessing their foreign policy ambitions and behaviors on the world stage.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The study employs a comparative analysis using the "behavioral approach," which prioritizes diplomatic actions and tendencies over static power rankings.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers theoretical definitions, the constraints imposed by the global order, and specific case studies detailing how Australia and Canada act as mediators and coalition builders.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The work is defined by terms such as middle power, behavioral approach, multilateralism, and international diplomacy.
How does the author interpret the Australian Liberal/National Coalition's stance?
The paper notes that the coalition, particularly under John Howard, attempted to distance itself from the "middle power" label, viewing it as an unnecessary limitation on Australia's potential global influence.
Why is Canada's role in the 1956 Suez Crisis significant?
The crisis serves as a prime example of Canada exercising successful "middle power diplomacy" by acting as an effective mediator to resolve conflict between opposing superpowers.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Divine S. K. Agbeti (Autor:in), 2014, Australia and Canada. Middle powers in a multipolar world or something more?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/307189
