MIKTA promotes 'club governance'
By Stephan Klingebiel
The concept of “club governance” is on the rise. Governments are increasingly organizing “clubs” to identify joint positions and approaches toward international issues, and to push for common agendas. Often, these clubs do not have a clubhouse (an institutional foundation or organization), as they opt to utilize more informal and flexible platforms.
Well-known examples of such clubs are the G20 (Group of Twenty), the G7 (Group of Seven) and the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) group. Some clubs already have a long tradition of cooperation (like the G7), while other clubs were created or re-formed in the last 10 to 15 years (e.g. the G20 and the BRICS).
“MIKTA” belongs to the less well-known group of clubs of increasing importance. MIKTA stands for the names of its five member countries: Mexico, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Turkey and Australia. As an acronym, it is only known in small circles of officials and experts. So, one might ask: Do I have to remember this abbreviation? The answer: a resounding “Yes!” … because of the following reasons:
1. MIKTA is a club of middle powers ― and middle powers are often perceived as crucial supporters of multilateralism. This is reflected in MIKTA's vision statement, which outlines that, “the MIKTA countries are … like-minded on many of the global challenges of our time and are active contributors in major international forums. We have both the will and the capability to contribute to protecting public goods and strengthening global governance.”
Since middle-powers rely on effective global governance structures and a rule-based system of international cooperation, MIKTA is explicitly committed, “to the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter and other universally recognized norms governing international relations.” Thus, MIKTA as a club has, at least in theory, a clear interest in strengthening a U.N.-based global order.
2. MIKTA is not a group of superpowers. Nevertheless, middle-powers, specifically the MIKTA group, have the potential to significantly influence and sharpen global agendas. The total population of the five countries is well beyond 500 million people. Finally, the whole group generates almost 10% of global trade. Thus, MIKTA's current and potential power role should neither be over- nor understated.
Why should we take note? All five MIKTA countries have a chair at the G20 table. However, given the dominance of the agendas by the G7 and BRICS countries at the G20 table there is an incentive for the remaining club members to counterbalance the dynamics.
3. MIKTA has a unique transregional characteristic and potential. The countries themselves are relevant actors; all of them play a distinct role in their respective regions and beyond their immediate neighborhood. For example, Turkey's visibility in a number of African countries has increased over the last decade. Moreover, South Korea's pronounced approach of New Southern and New Northern policies has also indicated the expansion of its strategic outreach across Asia and the Pacific.
4. MIKTA member states are economically diverse. From the perspective of country profiles and legacies, the composition of the group seems odd to a certain extent. Two MIKTA members are regarded (by IMF classifications) as advanced economies (Australia and South Korea), while the three others are considered to be emerging economies. Thus, bringing together a group of non-typical like-minded countries might be an advantage in terms of overcoming traditional country categories (developing vs. developed countries).
5. Development cooperation is one of the areas where MIKTA has a lot of potential. The combination of well-established and emerging development providers (North-South and South-South cooperation models) in a rather small club format is a unique advantage. This is why MIKTA has the potential to sharpen the global development agenda. All five MIKTA countries now have their own institutional development cooperation structures in place.
MIKTA “has achieved less than optimists envisioned, but lasted longer than pessimists imagined,” Jeffery Robertson commented recently. This seems to be a fair assessment of the first seven years of the existence of this informal middle-power club.
At the beginning of this year, a chairmanship handover meeting from Mexico to South Korea took place in New York, at the level of MIKTA missions to the United Nations. The number of minster and senior official meetings in 2020 is already exceptionally high and indicates at least a continued interest in this informal platform by its members.
South Korea's pro-multilateralism approach and its constructive role in international processes―including the collaboration on COVID-19 responses and a proactive role in sharpening the global aid architecture ― could be important components for enhancing MIKTA's role in global governance in the future.
Stephan Klingebiel is director of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Seoul Policy Centre. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations, including UNDP, or the U.N. member states.