MIKTA: A New Initiative

Conflict is an unwanted yet unavoidable part of life. Each of us faces innumerable choices every day and must decide one way or the other, in the process agreeing with some, while antagonizing others.
 
States in international society are in a comparable situation. They too must first ensure survival, after which they must decide on how to strengthen their capabilities, increase their opportunities and advance their interests.
 
Individuals when facing such challenges tend to confer with their friends, family and colleagues. They enter into dialogue with trusted persons to try to collectively find the correct path, to seek the best alternatives on offer. States, again, are not very different. Whereas individuals talk to their family and friends, states enter into discussions with their allies to discover and agree on joint strategies, the best policy to pursue.
 
Very rarely do states approach other states in determining domestic policy. As for foreign policy, it reflects that particular state's national interests. Given the fact that there are almost 200 states on the global stage, for any state's foreign policy to be effective it must be able to garner support from other states. No matter how powerful and influential a state may be, it is highly difficult, if not impossible, for it to achieve its foreign policy aims without any international support.
 
After World War I and II, states understood very well that international organizations held the potential to dampen desires for war as well as provide a forum whereby exchanges of views could be held. One must remember that the San Francisco conference took place while World War II continued. The postwar period witnessed both the creation of the United Nations and the emergence of the Cold War. In such an electrified atmosphere, conflict seemed highly likely, which placed a premium on delicate diplomacy.
 
One must not forget that many of today's influential international organizations emerged in the immediate aftermath of 1945. The idea of integration sprang forth in Europe, which included France and Germany, countries that had only five years previously been at war with each other. Diplomacy and international organizations promised much for maintaining peace as well as assisting economic growth. Establishing international organizations required intensive diplomacy that needed to continue afterwards to strengthen the organization and increase the rewards of membership.
 
Post-Cold War changes and threats
 
The end of the Cold War signaled that traditional diplomacy had lost its importance as a management tool as well as being part of the global governance system. One can identify three major changes that occurred in the realm of diplomacy with the emergence of the post-Cold War era.
 
The first and most obvious one concerned the increase in numbers of actors in international relations. These included states, international organizations, multinational corporations, nongovernmental organizations as well as civil society organizations. Such changes highlighted the fact that the world comprised and was characterized by heterogeneous states, those with highly different socio-economic systems, located along various steps of the social development ladder.
 
Second, the accepted international political agenda was expanded to include issues such as international trade. Therefore, rather than focusing almost exclusively on political, military and security matters, other issues that had traditionally been regarded as “low politics," such as economics and the environment, were elevated. New issues also emerged and were placed onto the international security agenda such as energy security and pandemic disease, which certainly went beyond the Cold War traditional concept of international security.
 
Finally, the third important change concerned the introduction of new technologies, especially what is termed as the information communication technology revolution. The effects and repercussions of this meant that the importance of geographical location became diminished. Such developments gave credence to the view that international phenomena were in actual fact global phenomena that over-arched the political economic and military dimensions.
 
Henceforth, much is made of the multiple challenges facing states in the post-Cold War era. Half a dozen threats are commonly thought to occupy the global agenda, which are:
 
 i. economic and social based;
 
 ii. interstate conflict;
 
 iii. internal conflict;
 
 iv. nuclear chemical and biological weapons;
 
 v. terrorism;
 
 vi. transnational organised crime (focused primarily on narcotics).
 
This list is obviously not an exhaustive one, but such challenges are certainly formidable ones that require international collaboration and cooperation.
 
MIKTA
 
Bearing the systemic changes as well as the pressing challenges in mind, an interesting development took place at the end of last month in New York at the sidelines of the traditional autumn opening of the United Nations General Assembly. It was a meeting that concerned the first ministerial meeting of the “MIKTA” initiative (the term formed from the initials of the countries involved) held on Sept. 25, which attracted very little attention in the international press.
 
According to the Turkish Foreign Ministry, the MIKTA initiative was “undertaken with the aim to establish an informal consultation and collaboration platform between Mexico, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Turkey and Australia.” Moreover, Turkey would “continue to contribute to this significant initiative with the understanding that the MIKTA platform could fill an important gap in the international arena and could facilitate the solution of major contemporary issues thus contributing to global peace, stability and prosperity.”
 
When investigating this emerging grouping in terms of Turkey's exports, it is clear to see that none of the four states plays a vital role, with the highest ranked being South Korea in 47th place, with less than half a billion dollars exported in 2012. Turkey does, however, possess some unique non-trading characteristics in its relationships with a couple of these countries. Regarding Korea, this is highlighted by Ankara's participation in the UN forces throughout the Korean War; as for Australia, many Turks migrated to find a better life there in the 1960s.
 
                                    Turkey’s Exports in 2012

 
 
Expanding multilateral diplomacy definitely has many advantages, as the weight behind a particular strategy or policy becomes greater, thus increasing its effectiveness. This particular venture is very much a trans-regional endeavor. The countries identified range from Central America to the South Pacific, from Southeast Asia to southeast Europe. They do, however, share a particular similarity: They are all either formally or informally allied to the United States.
 
Korea, Turkey and Australia all have formal alliances with the United States that stretch back to the early 1950s. It was in 1952 that Turkey became a stalwart member of NATO after having received assistance from Washington under the Truman Doctrine as well as in the form of Marshall Aid. South Korea and the United States are currently celebrating the 60th anniversary of the "relationship forged in blood," i.e., their military alliance. Australia and Turkey also contributed to defending South Korea during the Korean War.
 
Australia is also formally allied to the US through the Australia, New Zealand, United States treaty (ANZUS) of 1952. As for Mexico, while not having any formal military alliance with its northern neighbor, it did support military intervention in the Libyan civil war and remains an important partner within North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Concerning Indonesia, although no formal security treaties bind the two countries, relations with the US go as far back as the late 1940s when it played a role in Indonesian independence, very much welcoming Jakarta's anti-communist stance during the Cold War.
 
As for MIKTA, it remains to be seen whether “this platform is considered to have the potential to make important contributions with a view to facilitating constructive solutions to regional and global challenges, increasing the efficiency of global governance and implementing the necessary reforms in global structures.” From a first glance the platform seems to be very much focused on Asia, as it can be argued that four of its members are “Asian.” All five are committed to what could be identified as “Western” values of “open economies enjoying democratic pluralistic systems.”
 
Specifically looking at this development from the perspective of Turkey, established inter-governmental organizations such as NATO, the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) offer more opportunities to influence and interact. In terms of advancing a normative agenda, these institutions have a proven background, albeit with some shortcomings. If MIKTA intends to move beyond extending trading opportunities and become a force for democracy, the rule of law and human rights, then that depends greatly on some of its member states' fervent and unequivocal adherence precisely to such values. To be credible in terms of soft power, one must practice what one preaches.