Submission Statement: C. Raja Mohan argues the war on Iran is portrayed as proof that middle powers cannot meaningfully shape global order. Calls for collective action, from Canada to Europe and Asia, quickly fractured once the conflict began, exposing divergent interests and security dependencies. Diplomatic initiatives multiplied, but mostly lent multilateral cover to decisions taken in Washington rather than constraining them. Military power, Mohan reckons, remains decisive: the strategic landscape was reshaped by the United States and Israel, not by coalitions of lesser states. For now, global order still turns on great power rivalry between the United States and China, concludes Mohan.
spiderpai on
I fail to see China, Russia, India having more power than the “middle powers” collective in this current energy crisis. Frankly tiny powers like Israel are just abusing their top down relationship with the US to create this crisis. Even the US is powerless in this situation it seems, much like when the Soviets bit off more than they can chew in Afghanistan.
Because if the US had enough power, then this would not be a negotiation.
Jigsawsupport on
I mean this is obvious bull, what is the EU other than a collection of middle powers working collectively?
It absolutely shapes the worlds agenda, if we are using Iran as the litmus test China apparently is powerless as well, since their input into the crisis is limited as well.
SPQR-Tightanus on
Middle powers can deny other powers right to shape it.
If this works at national level with democracy, then there is no reason why it cannot work at international level.
Stahlmark on
Narrow-minded opinion. Maybe on their own they can’t but coalitions, alliances and trade agreements of middle powers absolutely can tip the scale.
BlueEmma25 on
The author makes some valid points, but he is guilty of over generalization when he in effect says “the irrelevance of the middle powers is proven by the fact that they have not solved the Hormuz crisis on their own terms”. The US and China haven’t been able to do any better, so what does it prove?
Also, Carney’s Davos speech is less than four months old. International orders don’t get reorganized in four months. We need to let it cook and check back in, say, 5-10 years.
6 Comments
Submission Statement: C. Raja Mohan argues the war on Iran is portrayed as proof that middle powers cannot meaningfully shape global order. Calls for collective action, from Canada to Europe and Asia, quickly fractured once the conflict began, exposing divergent interests and security dependencies. Diplomatic initiatives multiplied, but mostly lent multilateral cover to decisions taken in Washington rather than constraining them. Military power, Mohan reckons, remains decisive: the strategic landscape was reshaped by the United States and Israel, not by coalitions of lesser states. For now, global order still turns on great power rivalry between the United States and China, concludes Mohan.
I fail to see China, Russia, India having more power than the “middle powers” collective in this current energy crisis. Frankly tiny powers like Israel are just abusing their top down relationship with the US to create this crisis. Even the US is powerless in this situation it seems, much like when the Soviets bit off more than they can chew in Afghanistan.
Because if the US had enough power, then this would not be a negotiation.
I mean this is obvious bull, what is the EU other than a collection of middle powers working collectively?
It absolutely shapes the worlds agenda, if we are using Iran as the litmus test China apparently is powerless as well, since their input into the crisis is limited as well.
Middle powers can deny other powers right to shape it.
If this works at national level with democracy, then there is no reason why it cannot work at international level.
Narrow-minded opinion. Maybe on their own they can’t but coalitions, alliances and trade agreements of middle powers absolutely can tip the scale.
The author makes some valid points, but he is guilty of over generalization when he in effect says “the irrelevance of the middle powers is proven by the fact that they have not solved the Hormuz crisis on their own terms”. The US and China haven’t been able to do any better, so what does it prove?
Also, Carney’s Davos speech is less than four months old. International orders don’t get reorganized in four months. We need to let it cook and check back in, say, 5-10 years.