Hannah Mae Tubalinal

IDS41
Mr. Jumel Estrañero
International Political Economy

I. Introduction

In the 15th century, Giovanni Botero, the mayor of Milan, defined a "middle power" as a
player with adequate capacity and power to stand on its own without the support of
others. In the final stages of World War II (WWII), the concept of middle powers was
critically studied in relation to Canada and Australia. Based on their contributions to the
Allies, the two countries attempted to increase their influence. In the early days of the
United Nations (UN), Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King insisted on cooperation
among middle-power countries in order to secure their influence in international society,
coining the term "Middlepowerhood" in 1944. Foreign policy behavior distinguishes the
middle powers. Middle power foreign policy is not defined by the features of
middle-power states or their positions in the world system, though these attributes do
shape their internationalism. It is, instead, the result of deliberate action that is
contextually located. Attempts to identify middle powers focus on at least one, but more
often a combination of the following characteristics: state capacity, position in the world
order, the normative composition of the middle-power state-societal complex, domestic
class interests, and the central role of foreign policymakers. Industrialized states that have
historically been able to "punch above their weight" have pursued middle power
diplomacy extensively by deploying sophisticated diplomatic machinery in terms of
knowledge, resources, and expertise. The term "middlepowermanship" was coined as a
foreign policy platform that could justify these states playing a unique role in
international affairs, and it was frequently modified to accommodate foreign policy
needs of Western states' requirements. This functional therapy of the middle power
concept frequently led to the mistaken belief that only a small number of Western states
can act as middlemen.

II. Lecture Proper

The lecture primarily focused on their bilateral connections, as well as their influence and
relationship with ASEAN. While the study of middle powers has recently regained
prominence in the academic world, in international relations literature, defining middle
powers remains a challenge. Scholars have recently debated the apparent lack of
diplomatic leadership on the international stage by "middle powers" such as Australia and
South Korea. Despite their geographical distance, Australia and the Republic of Korea
(ROK) share common ground in the promotion of an international order based on free
trade, multilateralism, and the rule of law. Because Australia and South Korea are located
in comparable geostrategic environments, they must navigate similar dynamics that may
shape their conceptualizations of their middle power identities. Furthermore, no other
country in the Asia Pacific region has been as consistent in recent times in projecting a
middle power identity. To be sure, Australia has had this identity since the end of WWII,
whereas South Korea began referring to itself as a middle power in the early 1990s.
 Additionally, the lecture highlighted the potential of ASEAN to be classified as a middle
power because of its major trade, programs and investment with Australia. Along with
their interest in smaller groups, Australia and South Korea are expected to rethink their
relationship with ASEAN. Following the establishment of the ASEAN-Australia
Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in 2021, Labor has announced several Southeast
Asian initiatives, including an additional A$470 million in aid and development
assistance and the appointment of an ASEAN Special Envoy. Meanwhile, the new South
Korean government has hinted that it may revise its predecessor's New Southern Policy
to include "a strengthened strategy aspect," potentially expanding its niche in defense
industry cooperation with selected Southeast Asian partners.

III. Analysis

Middle-power cooperation must be re-envisioned in an Indo-Pacific era marked by a

strategic clash between the US-led Indo-Pacific strategy and the Chinese Belt and Road
Initiative. Traditional ASEAN-centered processes and institutions may be strengthened, if
not completely replaced, by a new type of middle-power cooperation involving "external"
ASEAN countries such as Japan, Australia, India, and South Korea. Australia and South
Korea have many similarities in their foreign policy perspectives and approaches.
Nonetheless, their new governments will face a number of challenges in resetting their
middle-power ambitions. Such disparities between ambition and reality will be difficult
to bridge, but both middle powers, under new leadership, should effectively leverage
rapidly shifting geopolitical dynamics to contribute to regional and global stability.
Middle powers must continue to consider new policy ideas and engage in coordinated
advocacy.

IV. Conclusion

For over 70 years, Australia has assumed a middle-power identity, while South Korea has
done so for nearly three decades. These two are broadly located in the same region,
which is significant because identity is often dependent on and specific to context. Both
are middle powers in comparable geostrategic environments, confronted with similar - if
not identical - challenges and opportunities. Understanding the middle power identities of
states such as Australia and South Korea in the context of external dynamics provides a
better understanding of what drives these states as middle powers and how they view
their roles in the international system. In contrast to Australia's outspoken and bold
support for a "free and open Indo-Pacific," Korea has tended to assert in wide perspective
for a "inclusive" regional economic order whilst also pursuing to strengthen bilateral ties
with India and ASEAN nations through its New Southern Policy Plus initiative. Here,
then, is an ideal opportunity for Australia and Korea to reevaluate their established
foreign economic policy frameworks and collaborate together to address a major strategic
challenge: shaping and supporting the development of a genuinely development-friendly
trade and investment regime in the region.
References:

Efstathopoulos, C. (2015). Middle Power Diplomacy in International Relations. In: Middle

Powers in World Trade Diplomacy. Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations. Palgrave
Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137381767_2

Emmers, R. (2018). The Role of Middle Powers in Asian Multilateralism. Asia Policy 25(4),
42-47. doi:10.1353/asp.2018.0060.

Soeya, Y. (2020). Middle-power cooperation in the Indo-Pacific Era. Issues & Studies, 56(02),
2040009.

Proof of Attendance: