bs_bs_banner
Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, vol. ••,no.••,pp.••–•• doi: 10.1002/app5.148 Original Article
Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA): Middle, Regional, and Constructive Powers Providing Global Governance
Jorge A. Schiavon* and Diego Domínguez
Abstract 1. Introduction
This paper argues that MIKTA (Mexico, The current international system faces two Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and central challenges. On one hand, the decline Australia) are middle, regional, and construc- of the United States as the sole hegemonic tive powers that can serve as providers of power in the world since the end of the Cold global governance in the international system. War has created a scenario in which uncer- In order to support this idea, the paper first tainty prevails and competition among states reviews the literature on these concepts, argu- to become the new hegemon is on the rise. ing that they can be complementary. Then, it The empowerment of China as a new explains why the MIKTA countries can be economic and political superpower and the defined as middle, regional and constructive possibility of a reorientation of the world to powers. To do so, it describes what MIKTA is, the Pacific have been pointed by many scholars as well the common characteristics, objectives, (Ikenberry 2008; Mearsheimer 2014). On the and strategies that the countries that compose other hand, multilateral institutions have enor- this mechanism share. Finally, it argues that mous limitations to effectively address the in order for MIKTA countries to serve as most critical situations that pose a threat to middle, regional, and constructive powers, international peace and security. The United they need to consolidate the support of all Nations Security Council (UNSC) has been relevant State and non-State actors in their somewhat deadlocked for almost a decade, countries, allowing MIKTA to become a and has repeatedly struggled to tackle the polit- relevant mechanism to promote and generate ical and humanitarian crisis in countries such public goods in the international system, as Syria, Iraq, and Libya, among others. specially global governance. The lack of a hegemonic power that imposes order and stability in the world, and the enor- Key words: MIKTA, middle power, regional mous challenges faced by international institu- power, constructive power, global governance tions to cope with critical situations has created a growing need for innovative alternatives that can provide public goods at the international level, such as global governance. We argue that middle, constructive powers can and must play a leading role not only in filling this * Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas capacity vacuum, but also in building and (CIDE), División de Estudios Internacionales, strengthening global governance. Countries Mexico. Corresponding author: Jorge A. Schiavon, must meet two basic criteria in order to be con- email:
© 2016 The Authors. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd and Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. 2 Asia & the PacificPolicyStudies •• 2016 must be sufficiently important in terms of terri- strength of economy, military capability); tory, population, capabilities and resources to geography (located in the middle between the haveasignificant influence in the international system’s great powers); and a normative system but, at the same time, not so big to be a component (wiser than states either above or threat to other countries. Second, they must below them, more trustworthy because of their serve as bridges in multiple policy areas, espe- diplomatic influence, acquired responsibilities cially between developed and developing to the creation and maintenance of global countries. In other words, these countries must order) (Cooper et al. 1993). be relevant in world affairs without being a Stephen (2013) defines middle powers as threat and, at the same time, serve as ‘states that have both middling power capabil- representatives of their regions or cohorts of ities and who adopt the behavioural traits of similar countries in various realms, in order to ‘middlepowermanship”.Twocomponents serve as providers and generators of global make up this definition. The first is their capa- governance. bilities, which he takes from Martin Wight. Wight (1978, p. 65) states that a middle power 2. Middle, Regional, and Constructive is ‘a power with such military strength, Powers resources and strategic position that in peace- time the great powers bid for its support, and Even after decades have passed since the term in wartime, while it has no hope of winning ‘middle power’ was first used by scholars to a war against a great power, it can hope to in- classify states which are consider neither su- flict costs on a great power out of proportion to perpowers, nor small countries, an agreement that the great power can hope to gain by has not yet been reached in the literature attacking it’. Capabilities, according to Ste- regarding a definition for this term. ‘Not even phen, need not be only material. Less tangible with regard to terminology ―secondary powers, capabilities such as state structures, internal second-tier states, great powers, intermediate cohesion, diplomatic skill, and leadership are states, middle powers, middle-tier states, also important (Stephen 2013, p. 38). The sec- regional (great) powers, to enumerate some ond component is their behaviour. Middle examples ―do the different authors or scien- powers are characterized by being mediators, tific approaches agree. The same applies to the coalition-builders, confident about the effec- semantic discrimination with regard to the tiveness of multilateralism and compromise concepts of great power, regional power and brokerage (Stephen 2013, 39). Their tactics middle power’ (Nolte 2010, p. 885). Stephen are: ‘compromising, building coalitions, par- (2013, p. 37) points out the difficulty of classi- ticipating in international organizations, forg- fying countries within each of the various ing consensus, and maintaining international terms: ‘Yet despite the widespread use of the order’ (Welsh 2004). concept of ‘middle powers’ in world affairs, Cooper et al. (1993) identify some factors there is little consensus over what exactly a that define their behaviour: diplomatic efforts middle power is. Compounding the problem directed towards easing global tensions and of an elusive definition, it is also unclear exactly averting the outbreak of war; mediators which countries qualify as middle powers in between antagonistic states (especially during contemporary world politics’. The same ambi- the Cold War); and trust in the effectiveness guity and disagreement over a clear-cut defini- of diplomacy as a means of solving disputes tion in the literature is true for regional powers. and reaching consensus. For Ravenhill (1998, However, there seems to be an agreement p. 310), middle powers meet the criteria of regarding the basic characteristics of middle the ‘five C’s’: capacity, concentration, and regional powers. Traditional views on creativity, coalition-building, and credibility. middle powers focused on their position in This means that middle powers have an the international hierarchy (located in the average material, but a broader diplomatic middle point in terms of population, size, capacity to fully engage in the international
© 2016 The Authors. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd and Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University Schiavon & Domínguez: MIKTA: Constructive Powers & Governance 3 arena. They also propose innovative solutions regional powers must meet some basic criteria: to international issues, which means that they first, the internal dynamics of such states have a strong sense of internationalism. As should allow them to play a stabilizing and coalition-builders, they participate in multilat- leading role in their region. Second, such state eral institutions and boost relationships with should indicate and demonstrate their willing- like-minded countries. ness, and of course also their ability, to take Now then, which countries meet the criteria the role of a regional leader, stabilizer and, if mentioned above and can thus be considered as not peacekeeper, at least peacemaker. Third, middle powers? Stephen (2013, p. 41) states they should be acceptable to their neighbours that potential candidates include Australia, ―the members of the security complex in Brazil, Canada, France, Indonesia, Italy, which they operate ― as leaders responsible Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi for regional security (Nolte 2010, p. 890). Re- Arabia, and Turkey. This list is based on four gional powers claim a leading position in their elements, namely, power capabilities, their region and foster it by displaying material and GDP as a share of global GDP, military expen- ideological resources (Nolte 2010, p. 893). diture, and CO2 emissions. The author then They exercise great influence within their re- classifies countries in terms of the two dimen- gions and are also well connected with the sions explained above (capabilities and behav- other regions of the world. iour). The final result is shown in the following Nolte also argues that regional powers tables (Tables 1–4). provide a collective good for their regions In contrast, regional powers are identified, and, as we stated before, the most important first and foremost, based on their geographic collective goods in the international and location. Nolte (2010, p. 889) defines a regional systems are global and regional gov- regional power as: ‘A state which is geograph- ernance. Although there is no consensus over ically part of the delineated region; a state which countries could be considered regional which is able to stand up against any coalition powers, Rocha Valencia and Morales of other states in the region; a state which is Ruvalcaba (2010) consider Brazil, China, highly influential in regional affairs; and a state Mexico, Russia, and South Africa as their rep- which, contrary to a ‘middle power’,might resentative group for their statistical models, also be a great power on a world scale in addi- but they also add Argentina, Egypt, tion to its regional standing’ (cited by Østerud Malaysia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and 1992, p. 12). Furthermore, according to him, the United Arab Emirates.
Table 1 Stephen’s (2013) table on middle power capabilities and behaviour
Middle Power Capabilities no yes Middle Power Behaviour no Great Powers Rising Powers India Brazil China Russia US South Africa Germany European Union yes Concerned Citizens Middle Powers New Zealand Australia Norway Canada Sweden Turkey South Korea
Source: M Stephen (2013) The Concept and Role of Middle Powers during Global Rebalancing, Secton Hall Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations 14(2), p. 50.
© 2016 The Authors. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd and Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University 4 Asia & the PacificPolicyStudies •• 2016
Finally, constructive power is a different security challenges. Cooperation is thus to be concept that has recently emerged in the issue-based’ (Heredia 2012, p. 10). literature to classify countries with specific The aforementioned elements that define characteristics and common goals. ‘Construc- middle, regional, and constructive powers have tive powers are defined as influential, econom- several points in common. First, they all exert ically significant, non-nuclear-armed states some influence in the international arena, with a proven track record of proactive and especially by building coalitions, fostering innovative diplomacy at the regional and multilateral institutions, and serving as bridges global levels’ (Hampson et al. 2011, p. 6). Fur- between groups of countries and regions. All thermore, ‘These countries have a history of three of them do not articulate such influence creative diplomacy and the capacity to make by coercive or military means. Persuasion, a positive difference, particularly through mediation roles and the development of norms cooperation and partnerships with other con- are some means by which these sets of states structive powers’ (Heinbecker & Palamar acquire a leading role and gain legitimacy from 2013, p. iv). Heredia (2012, p. 10) emphasizes other state actors. Second, and related to the the fact that ‘the permanent members of the first point, middle, regional and constructive UNSC are not included, nor are nuclear pow- powers assume a wide range of responsibilities ers, as their participation would likely skew in the global order and make good use of the proceedings’. He also quotes Heinbecker, diplomatic instruments to fulfil their commit- as he argues that ‘constructive powers need to ments. They firmly believe in institutional address the most pressing political and security frameworks to solve disputes and reach challenges that are facing their states, and to consensus on different areas of the interna- ascertain the desirability and practicability of tional agenda. increased policy cooperation to meet common Two conclusions can be drawn based on these shared characteristics. First, certain states can be middle, regional and constructive pow- Table 2 Membership in international organizations ers, as they possess attributes that belong to all three classifications of states. Therefore, it is APEC, important to stress that these concepts are not UN, G20, FEALAC, RF, WTO GGGI Bali Process OECD mutually exclusive, but rather they comple- ment each other. Second, those states that can MIKTA MIK_A _IKTA M_KTA be labelled middle, regional and constructive Source: www.mikta.org powers have the capacity and willingness to provide collective goods to the international community, particularly global governance. Table 3 GDP (billion USD) and world rankings We will now turn to this issue. Country GDP World ranking Mexico 1.260 15 3. Global Governance Indonesia 0.870 16 Republic of Korea 1.304 14 Turkey 0.820 18 In order to determine how and why some Australia 1.505 12 countries can and are willing to provide global public goods such as governance in the interna- Source: www.mikta.org tional system, we need first to define what Table 4 World rankings of trade
Mexico Indonesia South Korea Turkey Australia Exports (merchandise trade 2013) 15 26 7 31 20 Imports (merchandise trade 2013) 14 26 9 21 19
Source: WTO 2013
© 2016 The Authors. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd and Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University Schiavon & Domínguez: MIKTA: Constructive Powers & Governance 5 global governance is. One of the most widely agenda. Informal groups of states do not only used definitions was adopted at the 1995 Com- provide a mechanism to link issues of com- mission on Global Governance, which defined mon interest, but the members of these groups governance as ‘the sum of the many ways indi- can also take a leading role in voicing the con- viduals and institutions, public and private, cerns and aspirations of their respective re- manage their common affairs. It is a continuing gions. As trustworthy countries, these powers process through which conflicting or diverse in- will have the necessary legitimacy to push terests may be accommodated and cooperative for peaceful actions to solve the problems that action may be taken. It includes formal […]as many states face. well as informal arrangements that people and If we agree that some countries can be mid- institutions have agreed to or perceive to be in dle, regional, and constructive powers at the their interest’ (Commission on Global Gover- same time, due to their defining features and nance 1995, p. 2). Global governance is, thus, characteristics, and that these countries can also ‘the multi-level collection of governance-related provide global collective goods to the interna- activities, rules, and mechanisms, formal and in- tional community, then it is necessary to iden- formal, public and private, existing in the world tify which countries fitthedefinition. We today’ (Karns & Mingst 2009, p. 4). argue that five particular countries meet the Global governance is, according to the defi- criteria stated above: Australia, Indonesia, nitions mentioned above, a process of coopera- Mexico, South Korea and Turkey. These five tion in which divergent interests and objectives countries, collectively known as MIKTA (an are brought together and adjusted through pol- acronym of the names of the five countries), icy coordination in order to better manage possess some specific characteristics that are common affairs that are shared by the members consistent with the definitions of middle, re- of the international community. In the face of gional, and constructive powers. Furthermore, conflicting interests, middle, regional, and they have some characteristics in common that constructive powers can make good use of make it possible for them to share ideas, poli- diplomatic means in order to build coalitions cies, and goals. Finally, it can be argued that and foster cooperation among states that will they can serve as providers of global gover- ultimately create a better scenario for all nance to their respective regions and to the in- parties. In other words, middle, regional, and ternational community as a whole. As we constructive powers may serve as bridges that show in the next section, the MIKTA group is connect states with opposite interests and com- a good example of middle, regional, and con- mon goals. Furthermore, these groups of coun- structive powers that work together to advance tries firmly believe in peaceful means to solve shared objectives and, most importantly, to take disputes and reach consensus on international a joint leading role in providing collective issues, which is key for global governance. goods, creating international norms and pro- Global governance is better achieved within moting international governance in different an effective institutional framework. Middle, policy areas. regional, and constructive powers not only rely on institutions as the best means to fulfil 4. MIKTA: More Than an Acronym of their goals, but they also participate in the cre- Five Middle, Regional and Constructive ation of innovative institutions that address Powers present and future challenges. Global gover- nance is, thus, advanced when like-minded It is no secret that the international community countries strengthen international institutions has failed to reform multilateral institutions that mitigate conflict, promote cooperation, that make them more capable to address the and bring about better outcomes for all parties. challenges of the new international order. Furthermore, middle, regional, and construc- Therefore, alternative ways, called ‘new multi- tive powers from different regions can boost lateralism’, ‘multiple multilateralisms’ or ‘mul- the creation of informal groups with an open tilateral regionalisms’ have been put in place
© 2016 The Authors. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd and Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University 6 Asia & the PacificPolicyStudies •• 2016
(De Icaza & Ruiz 2014, p. 22). Other alterna- of countries has engaged in a number of un- tives include informal groups of states based dertakings with the aim of consolidating the on common identities, similar economic, polit- group and presenting themselves to the ical and social policies, or shared objectives. world. So far, MIKTA has witnessed six The first of these ‘design–based groups’ was meetings of the foreign ministers, produced BRIC ―made up of Brazil, Russia, India and a number of joint statements on issues such China ―, which was proposed in 2001 by a as the Ebola outbreak, the situation in North Goldman Sachs executive, Jim O’Neill, be- Korea, climate change, and the shooting cause he identified these four countries as be- down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, ing in the same path of economic growth. and organized several seminars for students, Eight years later, South Africa joined this scholars, and journalists. Also, an Academic group of emerging economies, changing the Network was created with the participation acronym to BRICS. Since then, other countries of five academic institutions and their respec- have been put together into acronyms based on tive focal points, and this network first met in similarities among them. Most of these infor- May 2015 in Seoul. mal groups have been created based on their Even though a number of meetings, aca- economic growth and development. Groups demic seminars, and informal consultations such as N–11,1 MINT,2 EAGLE3 or CARBS4 have taken place in the first two years of were created by financial institutions due to MIKTA’s existence, it was not until the fifth their economic performance and growth rates. meeting of foreign ministers held in Seoul in Although representatives of these groups have May 2015 that a Vision Statement was re- met after being created in order to share ideas leased. This document acknowledges the di- and commit to joint strategies and policies, versity of the group, but also the similarities their agendas are somewhat narrow, for they among the five countries, such as being democ- focus mostly on economic and financial issues. racies that benefit from open economies. Most MIKTA differs from this trend of informal importantly, all MIKTA countries have ‘both groups of countries because they were not cre- the will and the capability to contribute to ated by others, but decided themselves to join protecting public goods and strengthening as an informal mechanism to cooperate among global governance’ (MIKTA 2015), by playing them to promote common interests and ideas. a constructive role and exerting influence in the Their members have sought to include a international agenda. broader set of issues on which they can cooper- Furthermore, MIKTA seeks to serve as a ate based on common realities and goals. cross-regional consultative platform to find However, in order to understand what MIKTA opportunities for cooperation among its mem- seeks to achieve, it is necessary to first under- bers. The grouping seeks to play a ‘bridging stand what MIKTA actually is. role’ between developed and developing coun- MIKTA was created by the foreign minis- tries worldwide ‘to promote global governance ters of the five countries during a meeting and complement the efforts of regionalism’ hosted by Mexico on the sidelines of the (MIKTA 2015). Finally, MIKTA countries see UN General Assembly (UNGA) in Septem- themselves as facilitators in ‘launching initia- ber of 2013. All MIKTA countries are mem- tives and implementing global governance bers of the G20, where the roots of this reform’ (MIKTA 2015) by building norms, grouping are found. Since then, this group sharing best practices and developing guidelines to address issues of the international agenda. 1. Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Thus, it is clear that global governance is the Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea, Turkey and core of the MIKTA initiative as it was argued Vietnam. previously. 2. Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey. 3. South Korea, Indonesia, Mexico, Turkey, Egypt, Based on collective action theory (Olson Taiwan and BRIC. 1971), achieving common goals or objectives 4. Canada, Australia, Russia, Brazil and South Africa. is easier when four criteria are met. First,
© 2016 The Authors. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd and Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University Schiavon & Domínguez: MIKTA: Constructive Powers & Governance 7 when there is a reduced number of capabilities, both politically and economically, participants, in this case States. Second, when but not so powerful to be a threat to other the States are similar in their characteristics. states, using Wight’sdefinition. This is impor- Third, when they have common interests. tant because they can be seen as regional or Finally, fourth, when they share strategies to emerging powers and, as such, serve as bridges obtain these common interests. Following between developing and developed countries these criteria, four basic questions can guide around the world. MIKTA countries are also, us to have a better understanding of MIKTA: economically speaking, open, stable, and who are the MIKTA countries, what are their low-inflation and medium to high growth common characteristics, interests, and economies. These five countries are non- strategies? nuclear states which are also recognized glob- As stated before, MIKTA has its origins in ally as pacifists. This is extremely important the G20, which in turn makes this forum one because they can work together to promote of its most important spaces of cooperation. non-proliferation at the international level. If However, the G20 and the issues that are we go back to the definition of Heredia discussed in it are not the sole issues of cooper- (2012), constructive powers are non-nuclear ation for MIKTA. First, all five countries are countries who are committed to achieving not only members of the G20, but also of all international peace and security through peace- the most important international organizations, ful means. Therefore, it can be argued that like the United Nations, the World Trade MIKTA countries are not only middle and Organization, the International Monetary Fund regional, but also constructive powers. and the World Bank, and the OECD (with the Also, it is important to note that these five exception of Indonesia, who will soon become countries have all survived hegemony. They a member State). This means that MIKTA are countries which, to some extent, are close countries have found spaces of cooperation or in direct contact of the world superpowers not only within the G20 but also within these (United States, China, and Russia). Not other multilateral organizations, specially surprisingly, they have learned that non- within the United Nations. intervention is central for their survival, and Furthermore, in terms of their identities and that they have developed independent and characteristics, all five countries are middle, active foreign policies to contain hegemony. regional, and constructive powers, and they These active external policies have included, believe in global governance, diplomacy and among other things, the creation and diffusion international cooperation. Being so, MIKTA of international norms; the creation and active countries share a common interest in generat- participation in multilateral organizations; ing public international goods for better global using mediation and other peaceful means to governance, and they also share that this ideal solve international disputes; building coalitions is possible. Therefore, MIKTA is not just an among states to achieve common goals; and acronym; MIKTA is a group of countries that serving as mediators to guarantee that force is would like to provide global governance for a used as the last resort to end conflicts. better world. This is consistent with the defin- MIKTA countries also share that, over the ing features and goals of middle, regional, course of the last half century, they have had and constructive powers: creative, responsible, two stages in terms of modernization and and constructive countries that believe in the development. First, they followed an inward importance of global governance as a public import substitution industrialization model. good, and that are committed to jointly Second, once this model was no longer sustain- working on its provision to the whole interna- able due to increasing globalization and inter- tional community. dependence in the international system, they Second, in terms of their characteristics, changed to an outward oriented export promo- what do MIKTA countries have in common? tion model. In both cases, they have been They are relevant countries with extensive portrayed as successful models to the rest of
© 2016 The Authors. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd and Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University 8 Asia & the PacificPolicyStudies •• 2016 the world, which means that they are credible have agreed that they can disagree in partic- actors that can serve as bridges between ular cases. Therefore, instead of just setting a developing and developed countries. common goal, MIKTA countries have to Also, all MIKTA members are democracies identify the specific areas in which they can —with varying levels of citizen satisfaction—, provide public good in terms of global gov- and they are also growing economies in com- ernance. In order to do so, they have agreed petitiveness, foreign direct investment flows, to meet regularly, at least three times a year, and innovation. Most importantly, these five once during the G20 meeting, another during countries are also very diverse in terms of re- the initiation of sessions of the UNGA, and a gions, cultures, and religions. This makes them third time as a formal meeting organized by good representatives of the different regions, the country that coordinates MIKTA for cultures and religions of the world. Therefore, any given year. This has been the case in they can make good use of their common char- the first years of the mechanism, so a strong acteristics, but also of their complementary dif- precedent has been established. So far, six ferences in order to move forward as a group. high-level meetings have been held with the We now turn to the third question: what are participation of the foreign ministers of the MIKTA’s goals and objectives? There is virtue five countries. in starting with a limited agenda but with the However, government officials meetings possibility of increasing the number of issues are not enough. MIKTA countries are willing that this group can jointly address. The five to replicate a G20 initiative in terms of includ- countries have been very cautious in their un- ing other relevant actors in their discussions dertakings, including new issues in an incre- by convening other important players in the mental process, slowly building a common definition of foreign policy, like academics, agenda. In order to jointly define the areas of private and labour sectors, and civil society common interest, MIKTA countries first organizations. The proposal will be to try invested in strengthening their bilateral ties, in- to have Business–MIKTA, Civil Society– creasing the level of communication between MIKTA, Labour–MIKTA, Think–MIKTA them, as well as the resources and personnel and Youth–MIKTA meetings when the gov- in their embassies and consulates in the other ernment officials meet, replicating the B20, countries. Then, through extensive consulta- C20, L20, T20 and Y20 of the G20. Before tion, potential issues of shared interest started and during the G20 meetings, these MIKTA to arise: economic5 and trade cooperation and actors will try to get together to discuss and facilitation,6 promoting open and global econ- build a common agenda, finding ways in omies, and cooperating in areas like global risk which to jointly impact the G20 agenda and management, climate change, disaster relief, generate global governance in general. These research development, and even cyberspace meeting have to be informal and flexible, security. serving as consultation and consensus-based Finally, what are their common strategies? mechanisms. All MIKTA countries have shown their com- One major development to create a joint mitment to jointly working in the provision external image was the creation of a logo of global governance. However, this is not and a webpage (www.mikta.org) in order to an easy task, particularly because global present what MIKTA is and promotes, as well governance encompasses several areas and as to provide the public with useful mechanisms to function adequately. First information about this group. The information and foremost, these countries have agreed included in the webpage has been be that they can agree in many issues, but they provided by each of the MIKTA countries following a standardized format. The website 5. Joint GDP represents 8 per cent of global GDP. not only facilitates MIKTA countries to have 6. Joint total exports sum $1.53 trillion USD. Joint total better knowledge of each another, but also imports sum $1.59 trillion USD. provides a public and easily accessible
© 2016 The Authors. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd and Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University Schiavon & Domínguez: MIKTA: Constructive Powers & Governance 9 sourceof information about the mechanism simultaneously; one hosted in Seoul by IFANS around the world. with the participation of academics and gradu- ate students from all MIKTA countries, and a 5. The Road Ahead second one was organized by the Australian government and the Australian National Uni- Once that we have established what MIKTA is, versity with the aim of consolidating MIKTA its characteristics, objectives and strategies, it from an academic perspective. These endeav- is necessary to explain how they can jointly ours have resulted in positive dialogues and serve as a middle and constructive powers creative initiatives towards strengthening mechanism to provide global governance. MIKTA. In the future, MIKTA needs to con- First, it is necessary to strengthen the capacities solidate its academic exchange network for of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs in each of graduate and post-graduate students by offer- the MIKTA countries, so they can conduct ing scholarships, promoting academic pro- effective public diplomacy individually and grams in key fields and creating opportunities as a group. Also, the countries have to invest for joint research projects and language in increasing the human, financial, and material training. resources at their embassies and consulates at Trade and investment is another area in MIKTA countries, but also in their Permanent which MIKTA countries can devote re- Representations to international organizations sources to achieve their goals. Entrepreneurs like the UN, WB, IMF, WTO, OECD, among and investors from these five countries need others. to explore the MIKTA markets and search Second, the societies of MIKTA countries for business opportunities and joint projects need to know and understand each other better. that will bring about economic and social It is true that a number of non-state actors, such benefits for all. One major step in this line as entrepreneurs, civil society organizations, is the proposal to hold a meeting of scholars and students lack the necessary business persons from all MIKTA countries knowledge and information to fully engage in during the G20 summits or ministerial meet- joint projects with their counterparts from other ings. Finally, a third group that needs to MIKTA countries. If MIKTA aims to become participate more actively in MIKTA is the a broad network that involves more than public civil society. All five countries have vibrant officials and diplomats, some steps need to be civil society organizations and NGOs that taken in order to bring together these other deal with current pressing issues of the relevant social actors. In the academic realm, domestic and international agendas. In order it is necessary to invest in more academic to improve their work, these actors should exchange programs and seminars among meet on a regular basis with the aim of MIKTA countries, and to promote research sharing best practices and engaging in about MIKTA and its individual members in constructive dialogues. the most important universities, building a research network to jointly understand MIKTA 6. Conclusion from the academic perspective. Some steps have been taken in this direction. For instance, In sum, MIKTA countries are and can serve as in 2015, the Mexican Diplomatic Academy middle, regional, and constructive powers. If (Institute Matías Romero of Diplomatic Stud- they join their efforts and consolidate the sup- ies) held its XI Foreign Affairs’ Course for for- port of all relevant State and non-State actors eign diplomats, inviting for the first time a in their countries, the mechanism will gradu- diplomat from each MIKTA country to partic- ally consolidate itself domestically and interna- ipate. Also, an academic seminar took place in tionally, allowing MIKTA to become a Mexico City in April 2014 with the attendance relevant actor to promote and generate public of scholars from the five MIKTA countries. In goods in the international system, specially July 2015, two academic seminars took place global governance.
© 2016 The Authors. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd and Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University 10 Asia & the PacificPolicyStudies •• 2016
July 2016.
© 2016 The Authors. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd and Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University