Middle Powers Rise: Forging a Third Path in the Age of Great Powers

When the United States walked away from the world order it built after World War II, effectively joining the revisionist camp alongside China and Russia, the writing was on the wall. We're heading back to 19th-century style great power spheres of influence. But what happens to everyone else caught in this seismic shift?

A Wake-Up Call from Davos

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered the most powerful speech at this week's World Economic Forum with a blunt message: "Middle powers must act together because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu."

Carney acknowledged that despite all its flaws and hypocrisies, the liberal rules-based order did benefit smaller powers enough to earn their loyalty. But that era is over. We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking we're in a "transition" that might someday return to something resembling the old normal, he warned.

"The great powers can afford, for now, to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not. But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what's offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating."

Real Sovereignty vs. Performance of Sovereignty

Carney's most cutting insight was distinguishing between actual sovereignty and merely performing sovereignty while accepting subordination. When middle powers compete for favor rather than combining forces, they're essentially auditioning for the role of most compliant client state.

His prescription was specific: First, name reality. Stop invoking "rules-based international order" as if it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is—a system where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a weapon of coercion.

Second, apply consistent standards. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, they reinforce narratives of powerlessness.

A World of Distributed Power

Anne-Marie Slaughter, former director of policy planning at the U.S. State Department, offers a complementary vision. She argues we face a fundamentally different world than the 19th century. Great power dominance is only part of today's story.

Mapping the contemporary world requires including cities, states, provinces, multinational companies, civil society organizations, middle powers, and regional arrangements from ASEAN to the African Union. These actors all face common global challenges—from climate change to pandemics to economic and security threats from great power predation.

This isn't a map of powerlessness but of distributed power, where actors are "multi-partnered and multi-aligned," forming pivotal hubs organized around trade, finance, climate mitigation, technology, or other competencies that provide global public goods.

The Test of Cohesion

Carney's intervention offers hope for those seeking to live in a principled yet pragmatic world where might alone doesn't confer right. Countries like Canada, South Korea, Australia, and various European middle powers have significant economic clout, technological capabilities, and soft power resources.

Consider how Samsung's semiconductor dominance, South Korea's cultural exports, or Canada's natural resources create leverage that transcends traditional military metrics. These assets become more powerful when coordinated rather than competed away in bilateral negotiations with hegemons.

The principle of economic diversification that Carney champions isn't just prudent policy—it's the material foundation for honest foreign policy. Countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.

The Asymmetry Challenge

Yet one fundamental question looms over this vision of middle power cooperation and distributed networks: Can geographically non-contiguous diversity across so many realms, with no center of gravity, cohere enough to serve as an effective counterweight to the great powers?

The challenge isn't just diplomatic—it's structural. Great powers have the advantage of concentrated decision-making and unified command structures. Middle power coalitions must navigate multiple domestic political systems, economic interests, and cultural differences while maintaining enough unity to project meaningful influence.