Analyzing “T” in MIKTA: Turkey’s Changing Middle Power Role in the United Nations

  • Gonca Oğuz Gök
  • Radiye Funda Karadeniz


Although sharing some degree of middle power identification, big disparities exist among MIKTA (Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey, and Australia) countries with respect to their political and economic systems, domestic priorities and problems, and their regional context, which make it difficult to talk about a common MIKTA identity/role. This study draws on social constructivism to problematize and analyze Turkey’s changing middle power role among MIKTA countries through their debates at the United Nations (UN). To this aim, the chapter will conduct a detailed and comparative discourse analysis of Turkey’s and the other MIKTA countries’ statements at the opening sessions of the UN General Assembly from 2001 to 2017 with respect to their social claims about themselves, including the way they define their (1) roles in global governance, (2) attitude toward international order, and (3) the nexus between their global and regional roles. By doing so, the chapter will theoretically question and empirically analyze whether there exists any meaningful evidence demonstrating Turkey’s adoption of a middle power role that could create the opportunity for converging interests among these countries.


Middle Power Role Global Governance United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) DISCUSSION Comparative Analysis Turkish Foreign Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Official Sources

    Selected Statements of MIKTA Officials in UN General Assembly Sessions Between 2000 and 2017

    1. Letter dated 18 October 2010, from the Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations, addressed to the President of the Security Council, (S/2010/546.)Google Scholar
    2. Speech by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, 10 July 2006, “Should Australia Think Big or Small in Foreign Policy?”
    3. Speech by Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, “Australia’s Foreign Policy Interests in the Middle East”.
    4. Speech by Senator the Hon Brett Mason on Behalf of Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.
    5. Statement by Ahmet Davutoglu, UN General Assembly, 15th Plenary Meeting, 28 September 2012.
    6. Statement by Alexander Downer, UN General Assembly, 20th Plenary Meeting, Monday, 18 September 2000.
    7. Statement by Claude Heller, UN General Assembly, 22nd Plenary Meeting, Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
    8. Statement by Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Gul, 17th Plenary Meeting, 22 September 2006.,
    9. Statement by Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Gul, 17th Plenary Meeting UN General Assembly 2003, 14th Plenary Meeting, 26 September 2003. Available at
    10. Statement by Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, UN General Assembly, 10th Plenary Meeting Thursday, 25 September 2008.
    11. Statement by Kevin Rudd, UN General Assembly, 16th plenary meeting, Saturday, 25 September 2010. Available at
    12. Statement by Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Mr. Ban Ki-Moon. UN General Assembly. 15th Plenary Meeting. 21 September 2006.
    13. Statement by Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea, Mr. Yun Byung-se, UN General Assembly, 16th Plenary Meeting, 21 September 2016.
    14. Statement by Mr. Hassan Wirajuda, Minister for Foreign Affairs, UN General Assembly, 18th Plenary Session, 25 September 2006, 17–18. Available at
    15. Statement by Mr. Lee Myung-bak. President of the Republic of Korea. 2009. UN General Assembly. 3rd Plenary Session, 42.
    16. Statement by Mr. Muhammad Jusuf Kalla, Vice-President of the Republic of Indonesia, UN General Assembly, 13th Plenary Meeting, 21 September 2017.
    17. Statement by President Abdullah Gul 5th plenary meeting, Tuesday, 24 September 2013.
    18. Statement by President Abdullah Gul at UN General Assembly Opening Session, 2005. Last visited 10 August 2017.
    19. Statement by President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, UN General Assembly, 6th Plenary Meeting, Thursday, 7 September 2000. Available at
    20. Statement by President Erdogan, UN General Assembly, 6th Plenary Meeting, 24 September 2014.
    21. Statement by President Felipe Calderon Hinojosa, UN General Assembly, 7th Plenary Meeting Wednesday, 24 September 2008.
    22. Statement by President Vicente Fox, UN General Assembly, 44th Plenary Meeting.Google Scholar
    23. Statement by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, UN General Assembly 5th Plenary Meeting Thursday, 24 September 2009. Available at
    24. UN General Assembly. 3rd Plenary Meeting. High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly: Separate Meeting on Financing for Development, 14 September 2005.

Secondary Sources

  1. Acharya, Amitav. 2017. After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of a Multiplex World Order. Ethics and International Affairs. Available at CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aral, Berdal. 2009. Turkey in the UN security council: Its election and performance. Insight Turkey 11 (4): 151–168.Google Scholar
  3. Aras Bulent. 2012. Turkey’s Mediation and Friends of Mediation Initiative. Center for Strategic Research Papers 4. Available at Accessed 20 May 2014.
  4. Barlas, Dilek. 2005. Turkish Diplomacy in the Balkans and the Mediterranean. Opportunities and Limits for Middle-Power Activism in the 1930s. Journal of Contemporary History 40 (3): 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beeson, Mark. 2011. Can Australia Save the World? The Limits and Possibilities of Middle Power Diplomacy. Australian Journal of International Affairs. 65 (5): 265–278.Google Scholar
  6. Bremmer, Ian, and Nourel Roubini. 2011. A G-Zero World. Foreign Affairs 90 (2), March–April. Available at
  7. Buzan, Barry. 2011. A World Order Without Superpowers: Decentred Globalism. International Relations 25 (1): 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr, A. 2014. Is Australia a Middle Power? A Systemic Impact Approach. Australian Journal of International Affairs 68 (1): 70–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cem, İsmail. 2002. Turkish Foreign Policy: Opening New Horizons for Turkey at the Beginning of a New Millenium. Turkish Policy Quarterly. Available at
  10. Chapnick, Adam. 1999. The Middle Power. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal 7 (2): 73–82. Scholar
  11. Çolakoğlu, Selçuk. 2015. MIKTA: A Global Vision of Middle Powers. Eurasia Review, Expert Opinion. Available at
  12. Colakoglu, Selcuk. 2016. The Role of MIKTA in Global Governance: Assessments & Shortcomings. Korea Observer 47 (2): 267–290.Google Scholar
  13. Çolakoğlu, Selçuk. 2017. Is MIKTA Sustainable as a Middle Power Grouping in Global Governance?. Diplo, 11 July. Available at
  14. Cooper, Andrew F. 1997. In Between Countries: Australia, Canada, and the Search for Order in Agricultural Trade. Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper. Squeezed or Revitalized? The Middle Power Model, the G20, and the Evolution of Global Governance. Paper Presented at the Madrid 2012, XXll World Congress of Political Science, 8–12 July. Available at
  16. Cooper, Andrew. 2015a. G20 Middle Powers and Initiatives on Development. In MIKTA, Middle Powers, and New Dynamics of Global Governance: The G20’s Evolving Agenda, Asan-Palgrave Macmillan Series, ed. M. Jongryn. New York: Palgrave Pivot.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2015b. Recalibrating Middle Power Diplomacy: The Changing ‘Soft Power’ Brands of Republic of Korea and Canada in Comparative Perspective. Seul, Republic of Korea: EAI Middle Power Diplomacy Initiative Working Paper, 11.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2016. Testing Middle Power’s Collective Action in a World of Diffuse Power. International Journal 71 (4): 529–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cooper, Andrew, and Emel Parlar Dal. 2016. Positioning the Third Wave of Middle Power Diplomacy: Institutional Elevation, Practice Limitations. International Journal 71 (4): 516–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cooper, Andrew F., Richard A. Higgott, and Kim Richard Nossal. 1993. Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  21. Darmosumarto, Santo. 2013. Indonesia and the Asia-Pacific: Opportunities and Challenges for Middle Power Diplomacy. German Marshall Fund Policy Brief, July 2013.
  22. Davutoğlu, Ahmet. 2010. Turkish Vision of Regional and Global Order. Political Refection 1 (2): 37–50.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 2014. Principles of Turkish Foreign Policy and Regional Political Structuring. Horizons, 1.Google Scholar
  24. Diez, Susana Garcia, and Daniel O’Donnel. 2017. G-20 in Figures, Summit of the G-20 States in Hamburg 2017, Federal Statistics Office of Germany, June.Google Scholar
  25. Efstathopoulos, Charalampos. 2017. Middle Powers and the Behavioural Model. Global Society 32 (1). Scholar
  26. Engin, Belma, and Gürol Baba. 2015. MIKTA: A Functioning Product of “New” Middle Powerism? Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika 11 (42): 1–40.Google Scholar
  27. Evans, Gareth. 2011. Middle Power Diplomacy, Chile Pacific Foundation, Santiago, June 29. Available at
  28. Fealy, Greg, and Hugh White. 2016. Indonesia’s ‘Great Power’ Aspirations: A Critical View. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies. 3 (1): 92–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Forde, Francis. 1945[1984]. Speech at the Plenary Session of the United Nations Conference on International Organization. San Francisco, April 27. (quoted in) Carsten Holbraad, Middle Powers in International Politics, p. 61. London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gilley, Bruce, and Andrew O’Neil. 2014. Middle Powers and the Rise of China. US: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gök, Gonca Oğuz. 2014. Tracing the Shift in Turkey’s Normative Approach Towards Order Through the Debates in the UN. Perceptions 19 (4): 77–106.Google Scholar
  32. Gök, Gonca Oğuz, and Emel, Parlar Dal. 2016. Understanding Turkey’s Emerging “Civilian” Foreign Policy Role in the 2000s Through Development Cooperation in the Africa Region. Perceptions 21: 3–4, 67–100.Google Scholar
  33. Green, Michael J. 2017. Korean Middle Power Diplomacy and Asia’s Emerging Multilateral Architecture. In The Korean Pivot, The Study of South Korea as a Global Power. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.Google Scholar
  34. Heenam, Choi. 2015. Middle Power Cooperation and Related Issues in the G20. In MIKTA, Middle Powers, and New Dynamics of Global Governance: The G20’s Evolving Agenda, Asan-Palgrave Macmillan Series, ed. M. Jongryn. New York: Palgrave Pivot.Google Scholar
  35. Herzog, Marc, and Philip Robins. 2014. The Role, Position and Agency of Cusp States in International Relations. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Holbraad, Carsten. 1984. Middle Powers in International Politics. London: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ikenberry, John. 2016. American Leadership May Be in Crisis, But the World Order Is Not. Foreign Affairs, January 27.Google Scholar
  38. Jordaan, Eduard. 2003. The Concept of a Middle Power in International Relations: Distinguishing Between Emerging and Traditional Middle Powers. Politikon 30 (1): 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keohane, Robert. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2005 Edition.Google Scholar
  40. Kuo, A. Mercy. 2016. The End of American World Order, Insights from Amitav Acharya. The Diplomat. Available at
  41. Loraine, Sievers, and Sam Daws. 2014. The Procedure of the UN Security Council. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Maihold, Günther. 2016. Mexico: A Leader in Search of Like-Minded Peers. International Journal 71 (4): 545–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Manicom, James, and Jeffrey Reeves. 2013. Locating Middle Powers in International Relations Theory and Power Transitions. International Affairs 89 (3): 635–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Manicom, J., and J. Reeves. 2014. Locating Middle Powers in International Relations Theory and Power Transitions. In Middle Powers and the Rise of China, 23–44. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Mi-Kim, Sung. 2016. South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy: Changes and Challenges. Chatham House Asia Programme. Research Paper 5, June 2016.Google Scholar
  46. “MIKTA as a Force for Good”. 2014. Daily Sabah.
  47. Naim, Moises. 2009. Minilateralism. Foreign Policy. Available at
  48. Narlikar, Amrita, and Rajiv Kumar. 2012. From Pax Americana to Pax Mosaica? Bargaining Over a New Economic Order. The Political Quarterly. 83 (2): 384–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nolte, Defley. 2010. How to Compare Regional Powers: Analytical Concepts and Research Topics. Review of International Studies 36 (4): 881–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Öniş, Ziya, and Mustafa Kutlay. 2016. The Dynamics of Emerging Middle-Power Influence in Regional and Global Governance: The Paradoxical Case of Turkey. Australian Journal of International Affairs 71 (2): 164–183. Scholar
  51. Özerkan, Fulya. 2009. Domestic Double Standards in Darfur Policies. Hürriyet.Google Scholar
  52. Parlar Dal, Emel. 2013. Assessing Turkey’s “Normative” Power in the Middle East and North Africa Region: New Dynamics and their Limitations. Turkish Studies 14 (4): 709–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. ———. 2018. Profiling Middle Powers in Global Governance and the Turkish Case: An Introduction. In Middle Powers in Global Governance: The Rise of Turkey, ed. Emel Parlar Dal. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. Parlar Dal, Emel, and Ali Murat Kurşun. 2016. Assessing Turkey’s Middle Power Foreign Policy in MIKTA: Goals, Means and Impact. International Journal 71 (4): 608–629. p. 617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parlar Dal, Emel, and Ali Murat Kurşun. 2018a. Turkey in the UN Funding System: A Comparative Analysis with the BRICS Contries (2010–2013). In Middle Powers in Global Governance: The Rise of Turkey, ed. Emel Parlar Dal. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  56. Reeves, Jeffrey. 2014. Rethinking Weak State Behavior: Mongolia’s Foreign Policy Toward China. International Politics 51 (2): 254–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Robertson, Jeffrey. 2017. Middle-Power Definitions: Confusion Reigns Supreme. Australian Journal of International Affairs 7: 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sander, Oral. 1998. Türkiye’nin Dış Politikası. İstanbul: İmge.Google Scholar
  59. Santikajaya, Awidya. 2016. Walking the Middle Path: The Characteristics of Indonesia’s Rise. International Journal 71 (4): 563–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schiavon, Jorge A., and Diego Domínguez. 2016. Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA): Middle, Regional, and Constructive Powers Providing Global Governance. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies. 2 (2): 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sever, Aysegul, and Gonca Oğuz Gök. 2016. UN Factor in the “Regional Power Role” and the Turkish Case in 2000s. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29 (3): 1150–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sohn, Yul. 2015. Searching For a New Identity: South Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy, Policy Brief No: 212, p. 4, December.Google Scholar
  63. Stockholm Peace Institute, Military Expenditure Database, Data for All Countries from 1988–2016 in Constant 2015. USD.
  64. Stuenkel, Oliver. 2016. The Post-Western World and the Rise of a Parallel Order. The Diplomat.
  65. Teo, Sarah. 2017. Middle Power Identities of Australia and South Korea: Comparing the Kevin Rudd/Julia Gillard and Lee Myung-bak Administrations. The Pacific Review: 1–19.
  66. United Nations Statistics Division, Population and Vital Statistics Report, Population, Latest Available Census and Estimates (2015–2016). Last Updated 2 November 2017.
  67. Vezirgiannidou, Sevasti-Eleni. 2013. The United States and Rising Powers in a Post- Hegemonic Global Order. International Affairs 89 (3): 635–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wang, Hongying, and Erik French. 2013. Middle Range Powers in Global Governance. Third World Quarterly 34 (6): 985–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Watson, Iain. 2011. Global Korea: Foreign Aid and National Interests in an Age of Globalization. Contemporary Politics 17 (1): 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weiss, Thomas. 2016. Rising Powers, Global Governance, and the United Nations. Rising Powers Quarterly 1 (2): 7–19.Google Scholar
  71. Wight, Martin. 1987[2014]. Power Politics (quoted in) James Manicom and Jeffrey Reeves. Locating Middle Powers in International Relations Theory and Power Transitions. In Middle Powers and the Rise of China, ed. Bruce Gilley and Andrew O’Neil, p. 65. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Wilkins, Thomas S. 2014. Australia: A Traditional Middle Power Faces the Asian Century. In Middle Powers and the Rise of China, ed. Bruce Gilley and Andrew O’Neil. US: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Wright, Thomas. 2015. Middle Powers and the Multilateral Pivot. In MIKTA, Middle Powers, and New Dynamics of Global Governance: The G20’s Evolving Agenda, Asan-Palgrave Macmillan Series, ed. M. Jongryn. New York: Palgrave Pivot.Google Scholar
  74. Xing, Li. 2016. The Nexus Between the Emerging Powers and the Existing World Order: Interdependent Hegemony. Op-Ed. Rising Powers Project. Available at
  75. Yanık, Lerna. 2009. The Metamorphosis of Metaphors of Vision: “Bridging” Turkey’s Location, Role and Identity After the End of the Cold War. Geopolitics 14 (3): 531–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. ———. 2011. Constructing Turkish “Exceptionalism”: Discourses of Liminality and Hybridity in Post-Cold War Turkish Foreign Policy. Political Geography 30 (2): 59–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gonca Oğuz Gök
    • 1
  • Radiye Funda Karadeniz
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of International Relations, Faculty of Political ScienceMarmara UniversityİstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Administrative SciencesGaziantep UniversityGaziantepTurkey

Personalised recommendations