Middle Powers: Regional states risk instability as global order erodes
The rules-based international system faces accelerating erosion amid intensifying superpower competition. Middle powers including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates criticize Western hypocrisy but may face greater instability without existing multilateral frameworks. This analysis examines implications for MENA regional powers operating from hubs like Dubai.
Overview
Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman argues middle powers express mounting frustration with the US-led global order yet may underestimate consequences of its decline. Nations including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Brazil, Turkey and Indonesia derive tangible benefits from international rules that constrain raw superpower dominance, according to the analysis.
Dubai represents a test case for this dynamic as a financial center that prospers under predictable international norms. The assessment highlights a fundamental shift driven by renewed US assertiveness and expanding Chinese influence. Middle powers welcome reduced Western moralizing on governance but overlook protections against aggression and coercion that existing frameworks provide.
The analysis draws from Financial Times reporting and related coverage to assess stakes for MENA states navigating great-power competition.
Relief from Western Pressure
Middle powers demonstrate resentment toward Western lectures on human rights and democratic governance, particularly following incidents including the Khashoggi killing in Saudi Arabia. An amoral international system appears attractive to regional powers seeking freedom from such interference.
“In addition to relief at the end of hypocrisy, some countries may welcome an amoral take on the global order.”
Significance: For Riyadh and Dubai, reduced pressure on domestic policies enables focus on economic diversification initiatives. However, this shift simultaneously exposes these states to unchecked influence from powers including China and Russia operating without normative constraints.
Neutrality Proves Illusory
Critics of the existing order assume strategic neutrality permits middle powers to maneuver freely between the United States and China. Superpowers view middle powers as strategic prizes in great-power rivalry rather than independent actors.
“Even if you are not interested in the superpowers, they will sooner or later be interested in you.”
Significance: The UAE’s Dubai operates as a neutral trade and financial hub that depends on international order to attract investment flows. System erosion invites direct superpower pressure that could disrupt supply chains and financial operations central to the emirate’s economic model.
Rules-Based Framework Protects Smaller States
Without functioning institutions including the United Nations and World Trade Organization, international relations revert to power-based competition. Middle powers historically derive protection from norms preventing territorial aggression and economic coercion.
Significance: Saudi Arabia and the UAE employ forums including OPEC+ under established rules to assert influence in energy markets. Framework collapse heightens exposure to regional conflicts and great-power proxy wars that could destabilize MENA economies.
What’s Next / Outlook
The UAE’s participation in forums including Davos offers signals of middle-power coalition strategies, with leaders including Canada’s Mark Carney advocating collective approaches. Riyadh’s bilateral relationship with the United States under the Trump administration will test regional balancing strategies. BRICS expansion presents another indicator of potential MENA alignment shifts away from Western-led institutions.
Conclusion
Middle powers criticize structural flaws and Western hypocrisy within the global order while depending on its stability for economic prosperity and security. Dubai and Riyadh exemplify gains from rules-based frameworks amid superpower tensions. System erosion invites direct interference that threatens MENA economic hubs. The analysis underscores value in preserving multilateral norms that constrain great-power coercion against smaller states.
Sources: Financial Times, Financial Post, BBC
