Summary of Southern Middle Powers and the liberal international order
Efstathopolous (2021)
Introduction
The article discusses the role of Southern middle powers in the liberal international order. It
examines the current systemic trajectories of these powers, specifically Brazil and South
Africa, in light of recent developments (global power shifts and crises) and the challenges they
face in their engagement with the liberal international order. The article argues that the ability
of these middle powers to commit to internationalism, like-minded coalitions, and
multilateralism, is crucial in determining their systemic role in the liberal order. The analysis
shows that South Africa, under the current administration, is more inclined towards a middle
power approach and internationalism, while Brazil has weakened its commitment in all three
dimensions, opting for an anti-globalist stance.
Ambivalent internationalism
Ambivalent internationalism refers to the foreign policy approach of middle powers in the
Global South, who pursue internationalism with less clearly defined attributes than their
Western counterparts. Their "reformist internationalism" involves an emergence within the
liberal order through an increase in their economic capabilities and an ideational shift towards
stabilizing and legitimizing the liberal order, without challenging its core norms. However, the
trajectory of these middle powers has been marked by international and domestic
contradictions, causing some to abandon reformism and pursue a more combative approach
towards the liberal order. These constraints have led to the concept of "ambivalent
internationalism," where middle powers retain some middle power roles but are selective in
how they are operationalized, and display a preference for pragmatism over leadership. This
allows them to either commit more fully to the liberal order or withdraw from diplomatic
initiatives that support it.
Restricted like-mindedness
The concept of "restricted like-mindedness" among middle powers, which refers to their ability
to form coalitions with other states that share similar interests in pursuing internationalism,
multilateralism, and good international citizenship. Middle powers can lead these coalitions
and provide a platform for collective bargaining to support the institutions of the liberal order.
Informal and issue-based coalitions of like-minded democracies appear promising for tackling
global challenges (e.g. authoritarianism and the COVID-19 pandemic). However, the role of
Southern middle powers in these coalitions remains uncertain. Historical divides between
North and South can shape shared world-views, and some Southern middle powers face the
challenge of balancing their independence from major powers while also retaining access to
trade and investment flows. Southern middle powers may be in a position of restricted like-
mindedness, having to choose between coordinating their diplomacy with like-minded
democracies or focusing on bilateral partnerships for narrow national interests.
Efstathopolous (2021)
Introduction
The article discusses the role of Southern middle powers in the liberal international order. It
examines the current systemic trajectories of these powers, specifically Brazil and South
Africa, in light of recent developments (global power shifts and crises) and the challenges they
face in their engagement with the liberal international order. The article argues that the ability
of these middle powers to commit to internationalism, like-minded coalitions, and
multilateralism, is crucial in determining their systemic role in the liberal order. The analysis
shows that South Africa, under the current administration, is more inclined towards a middle
power approach and internationalism, while Brazil has weakened its commitment in all three
dimensions, opting for an anti-globalist stance.
Ambivalent internationalism
Ambivalent internationalism refers to the foreign policy approach of middle powers in the
Global South, who pursue internationalism with less clearly defined attributes than their
Western counterparts. Their "reformist internationalism" involves an emergence within the
liberal order through an increase in their economic capabilities and an ideational shift towards
stabilizing and legitimizing the liberal order, without challenging its core norms. However, the
trajectory of these middle powers has been marked by international and domestic
contradictions, causing some to abandon reformism and pursue a more combative approach
towards the liberal order. These constraints have led to the concept of "ambivalent
internationalism," where middle powers retain some middle power roles but are selective in
how they are operationalized, and display a preference for pragmatism over leadership. This
allows them to either commit more fully to the liberal order or withdraw from diplomatic
initiatives that support it.
Restricted like-mindedness
The concept of "restricted like-mindedness" among middle powers, which refers to their ability
to form coalitions with other states that share similar interests in pursuing internationalism,
multilateralism, and good international citizenship. Middle powers can lead these coalitions
and provide a platform for collective bargaining to support the institutions of the liberal order.
Informal and issue-based coalitions of like-minded democracies appear promising for tackling
global challenges (e.g. authoritarianism and the COVID-19 pandemic). However, the role of
Southern middle powers in these coalitions remains uncertain. Historical divides between
North and South can shape shared world-views, and some Southern middle powers face the
challenge of balancing their independence from major powers while also retaining access to
trade and investment flows. Southern middle powers may be in a position of restricted like-
mindedness, having to choose between coordinating their diplomacy with like-minded
democracies or focusing on bilateral partnerships for narrow national interests.
