MIKTA and its declining fortunes
MIKTA started with leaders; passed to foreign ministers; was thrown to senior officials. Next, it'll be third-secretaries and boxed lunches.
The Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA) partnership was established in 2013 to amplify their voices as middle powers in global governance. The group aimed to foster collaboration on issues of mutual concern, emphasizing democracy, open economies, and the rules-based international order. Now, it’s pretty much dead on the diplomatic gala floor.
MIKTA started with Leaders’ Summits. It was then passed to Foreign Ministers’ Summits. They still met during the pandemic over video. It was then passed to senior officials’ meetings. It then most recently passed to a rapid photo op on the side of the UNGA. If this trend continues, it will soon be third-secretaries with boxed lunches.
Over the past decade, the partnership has seen a notable decline in its influence and cohesion. The primary reason for this decline is the increasingly divergent positions of its member states on critical issues of global governance, which starkly contrasts with how traditional middle power coalitions were formed through shared values and aligned strategic interests.
MIKTA was conceived by South Korea as a flexible and informal partnership that sought to fill the gap between larger powers like the G7 or BRICS and smaller, often less influential states. The concept was to create a platform where middle powers could collaborate on global challenges, leveraging their combined influence to shape international policies.
Unlike traditional middle power groupings, MIKTA was not built on a foundation of strong historical ties or regional affiliations but rather on a loose convergence around values like democratic governance, economic openness, and multilateralism.
At the time of its formation, MIKTA aimed to play a constructive role in stabilizing the global order. The group’s diverse geographic distribution and cultural backgrounds were considered assets, allowing it to bridge gaps between different regions and perspectives. Its focus was on promoting global stability, free trade, and sustainable development, with an underlying emphasis on reinforcing the international rules-based order. However, this initial vision has gradually faded due to the differing foreign policy priorities and domestic political dynamics of its members.
The decline of MIKTA’s relevance is primarily due to the divergent paths its member states have taken on issues of global governance. Unlike traditional middle power alliances, which were built on closely aligned issue-specific national interests, MIKTA’s members have exhibited significant variations in their global outlooks, which has undermined their ability to act as a unified bloc.
For instance, Turkey’s increasingly authoritarian turn under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and its assertive foreign policy stance have frequently clashed with the principles of liberal democracy and multilateralism that MIKTA was initially supposed to champion. Ankara’s actions in the Eastern Mediterranean and its confrontational approach towards NATO allies have distanced it from the group’s original vision.
Similarly, Mexico under recent administrations has pursued a foreign policy that prioritizes non-intervention and sovereignty, limiting its willingness to engage robustly in global governance debates. This approach has made it less active in addressing issues like human rights and democratic backsliding, which are critical areas for MIKTA’s agenda.
Indonesia and South Korea, while still supportive of multilateralism, have also taken steps that highlight their diverging interests. Indonesia’s focus on regional leadership in ASEAN often pulls its attention away from broader MIKTA objectives, while South Korea’s security concerns related to North Korea and its desire to balance its economic relationship with China and its strategic relationship with the U.S. sometimes lead it to adopt positions that do not align with the more neutral or independent stance that MIKTA advocates.
Australia remains committed to the rules-based order and multilateral engagement but faces its own challenges balancing its alliance with the U.S. and the economic realities of its relationship with China. This tightrope walk has often led Canberra to adopt a cautious approach on global issues, limiting the proactive leadership role that MIKTA once envisioned for itself.
MIKTA was developed without in-depth consideration of its sustainability. While South Korea has been at the center of ther academic study of middle powers for the last ten years, it has always lacked an in-depth practical understanding of middle power diplomacy.
Traditional middle power coalitions, like the Canada-led initiatives in the past or Nordic cooperation, were usually built on a foundation of shared values, regional proximity, and a common worldview. These coalitions tended to be more cohesive because their members shared a similar understanding of international norms and collective security. For example, alliances like the Cairns Group in trade negotiations succeeded largely because they had an issue-specific unified economic interest in reducing agricultural tariffs.
In contrast, MIKTA’s formation was based more on the idea of potential collective influence rather than concrete shared interests. The group’s diversity, initially seen as a strength, has proven to be a significant weakness. The lack of a unifying strategic goal or a consistent approach to international issues has made it difficult for MIKTA to project a coherent voice in global affairs.
The decline of MIKTA underscores the limitations of coalition-building based on loosely aligned interests rather than shared issue-specific strategic goals. While MIKTA was ambitious in its attempt to serve as a bridge between different global regions, the divergent positions of its members on key issues have led to a lack of cohesive action and diminishing influence in global governance.
For MIKTA to regain relevance, it would need to redefine its objectives around more specific, mutually beneficial goals that align the strategic interests of its diverse members, akin to how traditional middle power alliances have successfully operated in the past. This is unlikely to happen.
