What are the middle powers and can they stop Trump?

With the resurgence of U.S. dominance in the West and the apparent ripping up of the rules-based international order, some are looking to the world’s “middle powers” as a possible bulwark against increasing unilateralism among global superpowers.

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney lent his voice to this hope last week, telling delegates at the World Economic Forum (WEF) that “middle powers” must work together to counter the rise of hard power, the disintegration of multilateral institutions like the United Nations and World Trade Organization, and to build a more cooperative and peaceful world.

“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,” Carney told delegates.

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

Superpowers have often defined as countries with a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, like China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. However, the world’s only current superpowers of any real consequence are arguably China and the U.S.

The definition of “middle powers” is more opaque, although it’s generally used to refer to states that have economic, diplomatic or political clout but are seen to be in the “second-tier” of the geopolitical hierarchy.

Most of the G20 would be classed as “middle powers” for example, with Australia, Canada and South Korea among the most prominent middle power economies in the Global North, while Argentina, Brazil and Indonesia would be placed in the same camp in the Global South, according to a WEF whitepaper entitled, “Shaping Cooperation in a Fragmenting World.”

While Trump was not mentioned by name, Carney’s speech was seen as a barely-veiled swipe at the U.S. president’s widespread threat and use of tariffs over the last year to coerce partners into trade terms favorable to the States.

Trump has also caused consternation among Western allies with his threat to use military force to seize Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark. While there was no love lost for Venezuela’s leader Nicolas Maduro, the U.S.’ unceremonious capture of the leader also prompted questions around America’s observation of international law.

Carney’s speech chimed with the zeitgeist among delegates at Davos, many of whom have expressed increasing frustration with Trump’s perceived hostility and disrespect of long-term allies. The Canadian leader has since been credited with leading a “middle powers charge” against Trump.

If that charge gathers momentum, analysts say it could see more middle powers forging their own bilateral geostrategic deals or trade agreements, such as that announced on Tuesday between India and the EU, as a way to sideline the U.S., or to at least take the sting out of trade tariffs or threats.

“The most striking thing about Carney’s provocative address was that it was the first time that the leader of a close U.S. ally had the courage to stand up to President Donald Trump and the guts to say enough is enough,” Stewart Patrick, senior fellow and director of the Global Order and Institutions Program at the Carnegie Endowment for Global Peace, said in post-Davos analysis.

“He laid out, for all to hear, the catastrophic implications of Washington’s current policies for global order and signaled that at least one erstwhile ally is prepared not only to hedge against an unpredictable and predatory United States, but if need be to balance against it,” he added.

Unsurprisingly, the White House was not too happy. Trump lambasted Carney in his own Davos speech, stating, “Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.”

While the U.S.’ former allies might have begun to question the depth and strength of their relationships with the U.S. last year, when Trump first unveiled his tariff policies, many are now beginning to openly question their alliances with Washington, analysts note. That could have longer-term repercussions.

“America’s closest and longest standing allies are now publicly questioning not only U.S. credibility but its motives,” Michael Butler, professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at Clark University, said in emailed comments.

“This is significant, in that alliances are a two-way street – meaning that it would be a mistake to assume that Canada and Europe will rush right back into the fold if and when U.S. foreign policy moderates under this or some future president,” he noted.

Middle powers might be “having their moment,” Carnegie’s Patrick noted, but that does not mean that they’ll be able to revive international cooperation and the old world order.

“A bit of realism is warranted,” Patrick noted. “To begin with, while a multipolar world is inevitable, it is still incipient. For now, the structure of international politics remains bipolar, dominated by two superpowers [China and the U.S.]”

Both may seek to thwart what he described as “middle power activism” and constrain minilateral initiatives, even as middle powers try to place checks on those two geopolitical behemoths.

Secondly, he noted that “today’s middle powers are a heterogeneous bunch, and their specific interests, competing values, and distinct visions for the world will often limit their solidarity and enthusiasm for joint projects.”

Finally, one should avoid idealizing middle powers, Patrick cautioned: “Not all are admirable, much less prepared to contribute to international cooperation. And even those that do support multilateralism are motivated not by altruism but by self-interest, albeit enlightened.”