Who are the middle powers? Can they stop Trump?

With the resurgence of American dominance in the West and the apparent collapse of the rules-based international order, some are looking to the world’s “middle powers” as a potential bulwark against growing unilateralism among the world’s superpowers.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney reinforced this hope last week, telling participants at the World Economic Forum (WEF) that “middle powers” must work together to counter the rise of hard power, the collapse of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, and build a more cooperative and peaceful world.

“The great powers can afford to go it alone for now. They have the size of their markets, they have the military power, they have the influence to dictate terms. The middle powers don’t have that,” Carney told delegates.

“The middle powers must act together, because if we are not at the table, we are on the menu,” he warned.

Superpowers are often defined as countries with permanent seats on the UN Security Council, such as China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, but China and the United States are probably the only superpowers with real influence in the world today.

The definition of a “middle power” is less clear, but it is generally used to refer to a state that has economic, diplomatic, and political influence but is seen as a “second tier” of the geopolitical hierarchy.

According to the WEF white paper entitled “Forging Cooperation in a Fragmented World,” most of the G20, for example, are classified as “China Powers”, with Australia, Canada and South Korea among the most prominent Chinese powers of the Global North, while Argentina, Brazil and Indonesia are placed in the same camp of the Global South.

Although he did not mention Trump by name, Carney’s speech was seen as a narrow clarification that the US president made widespread threats last year to use tariffs to force favorable trade terms on other countries.

Trump also threatened to use military force to seize Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, which upset Western allies. While there is no love lost for Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, his unceremonious detention by the United States has also raised questions about America’s compliance with international law.

Mr. Carney’s speech was in line with the zeitgeist of Davos attendees, many of whom are frustrated by Mr. Trump’s hostility and perceived disrespect for longtime allies. Since then, the Canadian leader is believed to have led a “moderate charge” against Trump.

If the accusations gain momentum, analysts say more middle powers could forge their own bilateral geopolitical and trade agreements, like the one announced Tuesday between India and the European Union, to sideline the United States, or at least escape trade tariffs and threats.

“What was most striking about Mr. Carney’s provocative speech was that for the first time, the leader of a close ally of the United States had the courage to stand up to President Donald Trump and say enough is enough,” Stewart Patrick, senior fellow and director of the World Order and Institutions Program at the Carnegie Endowment for World Peace, said in a post-Davos analysis.

“He explained to the entire audience the devastating impact of Washington’s current policy on the world order, and suggested that at least one former ally is prepared to not only avoid risk against an unpredictable and predatory United States, but also balance it if necessary,” it added.

Understandably, the White House wasn’t too happy. In his speech at Davos, Trump slammed Carney, saying, “Canada lives because of the United States. Mark, please remember that next time you speak.”

While America’s former allies may have begun to question the depth and strength of their relationships with the United States last year when President Trump first announced his tariff policy, many are now openly questioning their alliance with the United States, analysts say. It can have long-term effects.

“The United States’ closest and most longtime allies are now publicly questioning not only America’s credibility but also its motives,” Michael Butler, professor and chair of Clark University’s political science department, said in emailed comments.

“It’s important to note that alliances are a two-way street, so it would be a mistake to think that if U.S. foreign policy moderates under this president or any future president, Canada and Europe will immediately return to the alliance,” he said.

Carnegie’s Patrick said that while the middle powers may be “meeting their moment,” that doesn’t mean they can restore international cooperation or the old world order.

“Some realism is natural,” Patrick points out. “First of all, world multipolarization is inevitable, but it is still in its early stages. For now, the structure of international politics remains bipolar, dominated by two superpowers (China and the United States).”

Even though the middle powers are trying to keep the two geopolitical giants in check, both countries may be trying to block what he called “middle power activities” and curb minilateral efforts.

Second, he pointed out that “Today’s middle powers are a heterogeneous group whose particular interests, competing values, and clear visions of the world often limit their sense of solidarity and enthusiasm for joint projects.”

Finally, we should avoid idealizing middle powers, Patrick cautioned: “Not all are admirable, much less ready to contribute to international cooperation. And even countries that support multilateralism, although enlightened, are motivated by selfishness rather than altruism.”