scholarly journals Emerging middle powers and the liberal international order

2021 ◽  
Vol 97 (5) ◽  
pp. 1377-1394
Author(s):  
Umut Aydin
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Order ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
Market Reforms ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Middle Power ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
Political Globalization ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Middle Powers

Abstract In the post-Cold War era, a number of middle powers rose to prominence thanks to domestic reforms and a favourable international environment of economic and political globalization. These countries began to pursue middle power foreign policies, working actively in international organizations, engaging in areas such as conflict mediation, humanitarian assistance and the promotion of human rights, and helping to diffuse democracy and market reforms in their neighbourhoods. In this way, they contributed to the stability and expansion of the liberal international order in the post-Cold War period. Nonetheless, recent democratic and economic backsliding in these middle powers raises concerns. Focusing on the cases of Turkey and Mexico, this article explores how reversals in democratic and market reforms, exacerbated by recent trends towards deglobalization, influence emerging middle powers' foreign policies and their potential contributions to the liberal international order. I argue that whereas their rise had helped reinforce and expand the liberal international order, emerging middle powers' illiberal turn may have a destabilizing effect on this order.

Regional Middle Powers and the Indo-Pacific Strategic Narrative

2019 ◽  
pp. 110-142
Author(s):  
Timothy Doyle ◽  
Dennis Rumley
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Pacific Region ◽  
Economic Competition ◽  
Middle Power ◽  
The Us ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
Middle Powers ◽  
Policy Interest

In this chapter we argue that, in the Indo-Pacific region since the ‘end’ of the ‘old’ Cold War, there has been a process of political and economic competition among regional great powers for influence over Indo-Pacific core middle powers. One of the essential aims of this process is to create a regional middle power coalition in opposition to either China or the US, one of the elements of the new Cold War. As a result, the foreign policies of US-co-opted states will exhibit a shift in emphasis towards support for the US pivot and an expression of a greater foreign policy interest than heretofore in the Indo-Pacific region, following the US. The result is that an Indo-Pacific self-identification and an ‘Indo-Pacific narrative’ become important components of the foreign policy rhetoric and debate of US-co-opted states.

Road to Normalization between South Korea and Vietnam: Factors and Policy-making Process

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-180
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Vietnam War ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Middle Power ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Policy Making Process ◽  
Cold War Era ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
The Vietnam War

Bilateral relations between South Korea and Vietnam have remarkably improved in the past 25 years, since the normalization of relations in 1992. They have been acknowledged positively as the result of a successful process of the diplomatic ties. Meanwhile, it is plausible that conflicting issues were raised while establishing diplomatic ties because the two countries were hostile during the Vietnam War. This research explores the process of normalization, which coincided with their mutual economic and geopolitical interests in international relations in the decline of socialism and the post-Cold War era. As Vietnam urgently needed to establish cooperative relations with capitalist countries, this served as a concession in overcoming the historical legacy of the Vietnam War. The process of diplomatic negotiations between South Korea and Vietnam shows that the foreign policies of small- and middle-power countries are determined not only in cooperation with their allies but also with some degree of relative autonomy in the post-Cold War era. Received 9th December 2019; Revised 2nd March 2020; Accepted 20th March 2020

scholarly journals Sad delusions: The decline and rise of Greater Europe

2021 ◽  
pp. 187936652199975
Author(s):  
Richard Sakwa
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Order ◽  
Berlin Wall ◽  
Mikhail Gorbachev ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Fundamental Tension ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
West European

The end of the Cold War was accompanied by the idea that the fall of the Berlin Wall represented the beginning of the unification of Europe. Mikhail Gorbachev talked in terms of a “Common European Home,” an idea that continues in the guise of the project for a “Greater Europe.” However, right from the start, the transformative idea of Greater Europe was countered by the notion of “Europe whole and free,” whose fundamental dynamic was the enlargement of the existing West European order to encompass the rest of the continent. This was a program for the enlargement of the Atlantic system. After some prevarication, the enlargement agenda proved unacceptable to Moscow, and while it continues to argue in favor of transformation its main efforts are now devoted to creating some sort of “greater Eurasia.” There remains a fundamental tension between Atlanticist and pan-continental version of the post-–Cold War international order in the region. This tension gave rise to conflict and war: in 2008 (the Russo-Georgian War) and again from 2014 (Ukraine), and to what some call the Second Cold War. The continent is once again divided. However, pan-continentalism is far from dead, and although Greater Eurasian ideas have thrived, some sort of Greater European continentalism remains on the agenda. Is this, though, no more than a “sad delusion” or a genuine possibility?

The Clinton Administration and Ethnic Conflict Management: Limits of Intervention in a Partially Autonomous Africa

1998 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-46
Author(s):  
Donald S. Rothchild
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Conflict Management ◽  
Clinton Administration ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Communal Identity ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Management Objectives ◽  
Difficult Time ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
The Impact

The Clinton administration and its predecessors have had a difficult time assessing the impact of ethnicity and nationalism on international conflict. They are inclined to focus on state power and individual rights considerations, downplaying the importance of the ties of communal identity and the emotive appeals of ethnic self-determination. Then, when ethnic groups do gain political significance, U.S. officials often give the communal concerns a prominence out of proportion with reality. The primary challenge for the Clinton administration is that U.S. liberalism classically has involved commitments that preclude flexibility on communally based demands for self-determination and group rights. Such perspectives can at times complicate the formulation of effective foreign policies for a region only partially integrated into the global capitalist economy, and therefore autonomous for some purposes from U.S. manipulation. What is needed is an involved but pragmatic liberalism that links U.S. conflict management objectives with what Thomas Friedman describes as a “coherent post–Cold War strategic framework.” Without that framework, he writes, “the Americans look like naive do-gooders trying to break up a street brawl.”

Civil Wars & the Post–Cold War International Order

Daedalus ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 146 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce D. Jones ◽  
Stephen John Stedman
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Alternative Assessment ◽  
Previous History ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Order ◽  
Failed States ◽  
Global Crisis ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
And Migration

By the standards of prosperity and peace, the post–Cold War international order has been an unparalleled success. Over the last thirty years, there has been more creation of wealth and a greater reduction of poverty, disease, and food insecurity than in all of previous history. During the same period, the numbers and lethality of wars have decreased. These facts have not deterred an alternative assessment that civil violence, terrorism, failed states, and numbers of refugees are at unprecedentedly high levels. But there is no global crisis of failed states and endemic civil war, no global crisis of refugees and migration, and no global crisis of disorder. Instead, what we have seen is a particular historical crisis unfold in the greater Middle East, which has collapsed order within that region and has fed the biggest threat to international order: populism in the United States and Europe.

scholarly journals Illiberalism, geopolitics, and middle power security: Lessons from the Norwegian case

2019 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-102
Author(s):  
Nina Græger
Keyword(s):  
Soft Power ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Middle Power ◽  
Multilateral Cooperation ◽  
The Us ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
Bilateral Cooperation ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Middle Powers ◽  
Global Solidarity

Middle powers have played a key role in supporting global governance, a rules-based order, and human rights norms. Apart from conveying and effectuating global solidarity and responsibility, multilateral cooperation has been an arena where middle powers seek protection and leverage relatively modest power to greater effect, sometimes as “helpful fixers” to great powers. This article argues that geopolitical revival and the contestation of the liberal order are challenging middle powers' traditional sheltering policies, based on empirical evidence from the Norwegian case. First, the weakening of multilateral organizations is making middle powers more vulnerable to great power rivalry and geopolitics, and Norway's relationship with Russia is particularly pointed. Second, existing shelters such as NATO and bilateral cooperation with the US are negatively affected by the latter's anti-liberal foreign policies, making looser sheltering frameworks important supplements. While Norway's and other middle powers' traditional policies within the “soft power” belt may continue, “doing good” may become less prioritized, due to the need for security.

Diplomacy and War

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Weiner ◽  
Paul Sharp
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Order ◽  
Nuclear War ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Military Diplomacy ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Invasion Of Iraq

Scholars acknowledge that there is a close connection between diplomacy and war, but they disagree with regard to the character of this connection—what it is and what it ought to be. In general, diplomacy and war are assumed to be antagonistic and polar opposites. In contrast, the present diplomatic system is founded on the view that state interests may be pursued, international order maintained, and changes effected in it by both diplomacy and war as two faces of a single statecraft. To understand the relationships between diplomacy and war, we must look at the development of the contemporary state system and the evolution of warfare and diplomacy within it. In this context, one important claim is that the foundations of international organizations in general, and the League of Nations in particular, rest on a critique of modern (or “old”) diplomacy. For much of the Cold War, the intellectual currents favored the idea of avoiding nuclear war to gain advantage. In the post-Cold War era, the relationship between diplomacy and war remained essentially the same, with concepts such as “humanitarian intervention” and “military diplomacy” capturing the idea of a new international order. The shocks to the international system caused by events between the terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 have intensified the paradoxes of the relationship between diplomacy and war.

scholarly journals A CASE STUDY OF AN EXPANSION OF INDIAN FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS EAST ASIA: LOOK EAST POLICY TO ACT EAST POLICY

2018 ◽  
pp. 95-101
Author(s):  
Kashyap Kotecha ◽  
Mukesh Khatik
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
East Asia ◽  
Indian Government ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
Asean Countries ◽  
The Look ◽  
Indian Foreign Policy

Foreign policies of the Nation-States being corrected continuously, especially after the Post - Cold war multipolar scenario. India’s partnership with SouthEast Asian Nation-States is a Post – Cold war story. The era of globalisation impels India as well as ASEAN countries to explore opportunities for mutual economic and strategic benefits, as a result of that India adopted the Look East Policy during 1990. Look East Policy being implemented successfully by successive governments. Meanwhile, China is being emerged as a global economic superpower in the last two decades. Due to the rise of Chinese hegemony in the South-East Indian and Indo-Pacific region compel India and other stack holder countries to reshape their foreign policies according to time, to serve their national interests. Consequently, the last Indian Government redefined and renamed the Look East policy to Act East Policy. One could say it as an updated version of Look East policy. In earlier episode policy was limited to South East Asia while in next episode focus of the policy is on whole East Asia. Also, the scope of Look East policy was idealistic and economic-centred, while the scope of the Act East Policy is realistic and vast. The newly emerged Act East Policy has an extra strategic edge over previous Look East Policy, the newer version is multidimensional, and it inculcates the strategic vision like the balance of power in East Asia, national interest and security-related issues in addition to the economic vision. Indeed, the nature of foreign policy always should be dynamic rather than static; hence, the Indian foreign policy is being transformed continuously as per the requirement of the time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document