Lilliana Swainson
The Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi and the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr Justin Trudeau, during the Joint Press Statement, at Hyderabad House, in New Delhi on February 23, 2018. Image sourced from Indian Prime Minister’s Office via Wikimedia Commons.
On the 14th of October, Canadian officials accused Indian government agents of being linked to the murder of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar on Canadian soil in June 2023, in violation of Canada’s sovereignty. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau then accused India of using “clandestine information gathering techniques [and] coercive behaviour targeting South-Asian Canadians”. India’s rejection of the accusations as “baseless” has not stemmed the ensuing diplomatic chaos, which included a freezing out of consular services by both middle power states. However, this is not the first time that India has been accused of clandestine activity. This calls into question the definition of middle powers as ‘peacekeepers’ in the increasingly multipolar world.
India: Not the Typical Middle Power
Middle powers bring significant texture to world affairs with their influence and capability in their regions. This is because they simply do not have the size, military or economic power of a great power. Instead they have a tendency to embrace collaborative approaches to global issues with a ‘safety in numbers’ approach. Being the ‘bridges’ between small and great powers, middle powers focus on coalition-building, multilateralism, and working closely with organisations like the United Nations to mediate international conflicts. This renders middle powers advocates for negotiation and diplomacy and characterises them as good international citizens.
India and Canada are widely accepted as middle powers. India currently ranks as the number one middle power in the Indo-Pacific on the Lowy Institute Asia Power Index and is capable of becoming the next great economic power. They play a key role in maintaining a regional balance of power with the intensification of the United States (US) and China's power competition in the Indo-Pacific. In typical middle power style, they have formed issue-based partnerships like ASEAN with like-minded states to deal with shared challenges in the Indo-Pacific, including with energy, technology and regional connectivity. In this they have focused on promoting open, free and inclusive regional order.
However, Canada’s allegations against its fellow middle power India of spying on friendly states or murdering domestic opponents on foreign soil completely contradict the very nature of a middle power. Such developments demonstrate a complete breakdown of trust with no hope for negotiation due to the withdrawal of consular services. India’s actions are far from what would be defined as the behaviours and attitudes of a good international citizen. This brings into question whether characterisations of middle powers as power stabilisers always ring true.
A Reoccuring Concern
India and Canada’s public bilateral rift continues to be characterised as a sudden “all-time low.” However, a broader investigation of India’s international behaviour tells a different story. Canada’s accusations were made public just days after the US charged a former Indian intelligence officer for the attempted murder of a prominent Sikh separatist in New York. This comes after Australia in 2020 had expelled a “nest of [Indian] spies” that had developed targeted relationships with politicians and foreign embassies. The breaking down of trust between India and its Western allies has been labelled an international “concern” by Five Eyes members.
The nature of India’s actions requires careful handling by states given its sensitivity. Australia’s current Director-General of Security of ASIO Michael Burgess AM in response to India’s infiltration warned that Australia handled the situation quickly and quietly because “if you make a public criticism [against India], then it will blow up and become an enormous issue”. This is a typical example of a middle power management of conflict especially given that Australia has two diverging interests between the East and West. While Canada claims to have attempted to quietly de-escalate the situation, Burgess' prediction of likely repercussions has come true for Trudeau.
New Power Dynamics, New Definition
Since the Cold War, the previous unipolar world has been redistributed between multiple ‘polars’. Multipolarity has been recognised as an inherently unstable system. In other words, it is a ‘thinning of world order’ which typically also leads to a weakening of international organisations and law. What the India-Canada crisis shows is that the definition previously utilised for middle powers is idealistic. It cannot be their sole responsibility to keep the great powers in check. We expect middle power states to be better than great powers in diplomacy, which makes India’s actions seem all the more sudden.
Whilst states like India may lack the strength expected of a great power, it has, like many middle powers, a strategy for niche-building, technical competence, and entrepreneurial thinking. In a world of uncertainty and fast-changing power dynamics, it is expected that the underdogs might use ‘sneakier’ tactics in their geopolitical operations.
This heralds a new era in middle power-ism for a definition that is not only more realistic but suits the complexities and challenges of a multipolar world. With states becoming more self-interested in the rise of defensive nationalism globally, it is now more important than ever that states work together to solve the world’s problems. States cannot afford to be blinded by assumptions that others will play by the rules like good citizens. Instead, they must come together to hold each other accountable - regardless of their geopolitical standing.
Lilliana Swainson is a third-year Bachelor of International Relations/Laws (Honours) student, and Research Assistant at Bond University.
Comments