The Role of Middle Powers in Reshaping Multilateralism: Guidance for and partnership with the next United Nations Secretary-General

---

Download the full PDF report here, or read it below.

The Role of Middle Powers in Reshaping Multilateralism.pdf

Download PDF • 4.34MB

---

PUBLICATION INFORMATION

Title: The Role of Middle Powers in Reshaping Multilateralism - Guidance for and Partnership with the Next United Nations Secretary-General

Author: Daryl Swanepoel

Published jointly by: Inclusive Society Institute (ISI) and Global South Perspectives Network (GSPN)

Published: 2026

COPYRIGHT

© 2026 Inclusive Society Institute and Global South Perspectives Network. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission from the publishers, except for brief quotations for research, review or other purposes permitted by applicable copyright law.

DISCLAIMER

This publication synthesises the principal ideas, perspectives and conclusions emerging from the panel discussion. It does not constitute a verbatim record of the proceedings or the individual contributions of the panellists.

The views and interpretations expressed in this report should not necessarily be regarded as representing the official views or positions of the Inclusive Society Institute (ISI), Global South Perspectives Network (GSPN), Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS), United Nations, the organisations or institutions represented by the panellists, or any government.

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication. The author and publishers accept no liability for any loss or consequence arising from its use or reliance upon its contents.

SUGGESTED CITATION

Swanepoel, D. (2026). The Role of Middle Powers in Reshaping Multilateralism: Guidance for and Partnership with the Next United Nations Secretary-General. Inclusive Society Institute & Global South Perspectives Network.

USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools may have been used to assist with the drafting, editing, synthesis and presentation of this report. All substantive content, interpretations and conclusions remain subject to human review and editorial oversight, and responsibility for the final publication rests with the author and publishers.

Published jointly by the Inclusive Society Institute (ISI) and the Global South Perspectives Network (GSPN), South Africa, 2026.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Report of the Panel Discussion of the Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS) Annual Meeting

Panel Composition

1. Introduction

2. Multilateralism at a Crossroads

3. Why Middle Powers matter

4. Beyond Diplomacy: Communication, Narrative and Public Legitimacy

5. Partnering with the next United Nations Secretary-General

6. Towards a Middle-Power Agenda for Renewing Multilateralism

7. Conclusion

Cover photo: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT (OpenAI), 2026.

REPORT OF THE PANEL DISCUSSION OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL ON THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM (ACUNS) ANNUAL MEETING

LISBON, PORTUGAL | 1 JULY 2026

 PANEL COMPOSITION

The panel was moderated by Daryl Swanepoel, Chief Executive Officer of the Inclusive Society Institute (ISI), South Africa. The discussion brought together four distinguished contributors representing academia, civil society and international organisations. Dr Cilene Victor is Professor and Researcher in the School of Communication, Marketing and Technology at Universidade Anhembi Morumbi, São Paulo, Brazil. Dr Sudha Reddy is Chairperson of the Foundation for Human Horizon, India. Dr Georgios Kostakos is a former senior official of the United Nations and served as Executive Director of the Foundation for Global Governance and Sustainability (FOGGS), Belgium. Ms Yoriko Yasukawa is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and former Director of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Regional Bureau for Africa, and currently serves as a member of the Earth Trusteeship Initiative, Japan. Together, the panellists brought complementary expertise spanning global governance, multilateral diplomacy, strategic communication, sustainable development and international cooperation, providing a rich and diverse foundation for the discussion. 

1. INTRODUCTION

The international system is entering a period in which the assumptions that have underpinned multilateral cooperation for much of the post-war era are being fundamentally tested. Intensifying geopolitical rivalry, growing strategic competition among the major powers, and declining confidence in international institutions have combined to create an environment in which collective responses to global challenges have become increasingly difficult. But, paradoxically, the need for international cooperation has never been greater. Climate change, armed conflict, humanitarian crises, food insecurity, migration, technological disruption and sustainable development all transcend national borders and demand solutions that no state can deliver alone. It was against this backdrop that the Global South Perspectives Network (GSPN), through the Inclusive Society Institute (ISI), convened a panel discussion on "The Role of Middle Powers in Reshaping Multilateralism: Guidance for and Partnership with the New United Nations Secretary-General" during the 2026 Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS) Annual Meeting in Lisbon.

The discussion proceeded from a central proposition. The future of multilateralism is unlikely to be secured by the major powers acting alone, nor will it be restored through institutional reform in isolation. Rather, the discussion explored whether middle powers, acting more strategically and in closer cooperation with one another, can help stabilise the international system, restore confidence in international law and strengthen the effectiveness of the United Nations. The appointment of the next Secretary-General was viewed within this broader context, not as an isolated institutional process, but as an opportunity to renew political leadership within the multilateral system and to establish new partnerships capable of supporting that leadership over the coming decade.

A striking feature of the discussion was the degree of convergence among the contributors. Although approaching the subject from different perspectives, the panel collectively argued that middle powers possess attributes that are becoming increasingly important in an era characterised by geopolitical fragmentation. They often maintain constructive relations across competing political groupings; they have established traditions of coalition-building and mediation; they generally rely upon international law and multilateral institutions for their own security and prosperity; and many enjoy credibility across both the Global North and the Global South. These characteristics position them to make a distinctive contribution to renewing multilateral cooperation at a time when dialogue among the major powers has become increasingly constrained.

The discussion equally recognised that middle powers cannot simply assume such a role. They constitute a highly diverse group of states with different histories, political systems, strategic interests and regional priorities. Their influence will depend not upon their collective size alone, but upon their willingness to cooperate more consistently around shared objectives. Throughout the discussion, emphasis therefore shifted away from the traditional question of how middle powers should position themselves between competing great powers, towards a more practical consideration of how they might work together to strengthen the institutions and norms upon which effective international cooperation depends.

Several themes emerged repeatedly during the discussion. One concerned the importance of moving beyond reactive diplomacy towards sustained, issue-based cooperation among middle powers. Another highlighted the growing significance of communication and public diplomacy in strengthening the legitimacy of multilateralism. A third focused on the need for the next Secretary-General to enjoy not only broad international support during the selection process, but also sustained political backing after assuming office. Running through all these themes was a common conviction that the renewal of multilateralism requires more than institutional reform; it requires renewed political commitment, stronger partnerships and a more compelling vision of international cooperation itself.

This report synthesises the principal ideas emerging from the discussion. Rather than presenting the individual papers separately, it considers the broader conclusions that emerged collectively. It examines the changing international environment within which middle powers now operate, the distinctive contribution they can make to strengthening multilateralism, the importance of communication and public legitimacy, the opportunities presented by the appointment of a new Secretary-General, and the practical agenda that emerged for strengthening cooperation among middle powers in support of a more effective, inclusive and resilient multilateral order.

Figure 1: The changing context of multilateralism: Key drivers shaping the role of middle powers in a fragmented international order

2. MULTILATERALISM AT A CROSSROADS

The discussion proceeded from the shared assessment that multilateralism is confronting one of the most challenging periods in its modern history. Participants agreed that the international system is undergoing a profound political transition in which geopolitical rivalry has increasingly displaced cooperative approaches to global governance. As strategic competition among the major powers intensifies, international institutions have found it progressively more difficult to fulfil the purposes for which they were established. The discussion therefore began not by questioning the relevance of multilateralism, but by examining why its effectiveness has come under increasing pressure.

The panel concept note argued that Realpolitik has once again become the dominant organising principle of international relations. This renewed emphasis on power politics threatens many of the gains achieved through decades of post-war multilateral cooperation in peace and security, human rights and sustainable development. Rather than acting as forums for collective problem-solving, international institutions increasingly find themselves operating within a wider environment characterised by strategic rivalry, competing geopolitical interests and declining political trust, and so discussion suggested that this changing context poses one of the most significant challenges to the multilateral system since the establishment of the United Nations.

Participants nevertheless cautioned against interpreting the current difficulties as evidence that multilateralism itself has failed, instead they argued that contemporary global challenges reinforce, rather than diminish the necessity of international cooperation. Armed conflict, climate change, pandemics, food insecurity, migration, technological disruption and widening inequality all transcend national boundaries. None can be addressed sustainably through unilateral action or bilateral diplomacy alone. The central paradox confronting the international community is therefore that, precisely when cooperation has become most essential, it has also become more politically difficult to achieve.

The discussion also recognised that the pressures facing multilateralism are not solely institutional, because they reflect a broader erosion of confidence in the international system itself. International organisations now operate in an environment where competing political narratives, public scepticism and growing geopolitical polarisation increasingly shape perceptions of their legitimacy and effectiveness, which has made it more difficult to build international consensus, even where common interests clearly exist. The challenge is therefore not confined to improving institutional performance; it extends to rebuilding confidence that multilateral cooperation remains capable of addressing the concerns of states and societies alike.

An important contribution to the discussion emphasised that the debate should not become confined to relations between governments alone. The United Nations was established in the name of "We the Peoples," and its success must ultimately be measured by its ability to improve the lives of people, rather than simply manage relations among states, and with this in mind it was argued that multilateralism derives its legitimacy not only from international agreements, but from its capacity to advance peace, human dignity, sustainable development and social justice. The growing disconnect between international institutions and the everyday concerns of citizens therefore represents an important dimension of the current challenge, and therefore renewing multilateralism requires reconnecting global governance with the people it is intended to serve.

The discussion further observed that confidence in the multilateral system depends upon the consistent application of its underlying principles, such as international law, the peaceful settlement of disputes, respect for sovereignty, human rights and the pursuit of sustainable development that together constitute the normative foundations of the United Nations. Participants expressed concern that perceptions of inconsistency in the application of these principles have weakened public confidence in international institutions, and whether it be in relation to addressing conflict, humanitarian crises or broader questions of international justice, the credibility of multilateralism depends upon the extent to which its principles are seen to apply universally, rather than selectively.

Participants also reflected on the widespread calls for institutional reform. There was broad agreement that reform remains necessary if multilateral institutions are to reflect contemporary political realities more accurately, but at the same time, the discussion suggested that structural reform by itself will not resolve the deeper challenges confronting the international system. Institutions function effectively only when Member States remain committed to working through them in pursuit of shared objectives, and so without renewed political commitment to cooperation, even well-designed institutions will struggle to achieve meaningful outcomes. The future of multilateralism therefore depends as much upon political leadership as it does upon institutional architecture.

Against this backdrop, the discussion deliberately shifted from diagnosis towards opportunity. Rather than asking whether the multilateral system can survive, participants considered how it might evolve. The panel concept note suggested that one of the most promising opportunities lies in greater strategic cooperation among middle powers. Possessing significant diplomatic reach, material resources and normative credibility, these states are well placed to help stabilise the international system by strengthening dialogue, defending international law and reinforcing the principles of the UN Charter. The discussion therefore framed the present period not simply as one of institutional crisis, but as a moment in which new forms of international leadership may emerge.

The panel concluded that the future of multilateralism should not be viewed as a choice between preserving the existing international order or accepting its decline. The more important challenge is to ensure that multilateral cooperation adapts to changing geopolitical realities without abandoning the principles upon which it has been built. That task will require broader leadership, stronger political commitment and new forms of partnership. It was within this context that the discussion turned to the distinctive contribution that middle powers can make to strengthening an increasingly fragile, but no less essential, multilateral system.

3. WHY MIDDLE POWERS MATTER

If multilateralism is to be renewed, the question that follows is where the political energy for that renewal might come from. The panel did not suggest that middle powers can or should replace the major powers. The great powers will continue to exercise considerable influence over the international system. Rather, the proposition that emerged was that the space between great-power dominance on the one hand and institutional paralysis on the other has become increasingly important. It is within this space that middle powers have an opportunity to make a more deliberate contribution.

This opportunity derives partly from the nature of middle-power influence itself. Middle powers do not generally possess sufficient military, economic or political weight to impose their preferences on the international system. Their influence must consequently be exercised differently. They depend more heavily upon persuasion, coalition-building, mediation, agenda-setting and the legitimacy that comes from working through international institutions. What may traditionally have been regarded as a limitation could, in the present geopolitical environment, become an important advantage. When coercion and confrontation are themselves contributing to international fragmentation, the ability to persuade, convene and bridge differences assumes greater value.

The discussion therefore challenged the idea that influence within the international system should be measured primarily by material power. Diplomatic reach matters. Credibility matters. The ability to maintain relationships across political divides matters. So too does a country's willingness to invest in international institutions and to work patiently towards outcomes that enjoy legitimacy beyond its own immediate interests. These are precisely the areas in which middle powers can exercise influence disproportionate to their relative size.

There are already indications of what this can mean in practice. The discussion pointed to India's engagement across BRICS, the G20 and broader Global South initiatives; Indonesia's role within ASEAN; Brazil's advocacy around climate justice and South-South cooperation; South Africa's emphasis on international law and stronger Global South representation; and the mediation roles played by Norway, Qatar and Oman. These examples are different in character, but they demonstrate a common point: countries need not dominate the international system in order to influence it. They can create political space, bring parties together, advance issues that might otherwise receive insufficient attention, and maintain channels of engagement across political divides.

This becomes particularly important as the divide between the Global North and Global South assumes greater prominence within debates about global governance. The panel recognised the very real differences in history, experience, development and interests that underpin this divide. It nevertheless cautioned against allowing it to become yet another permanent fault line in an already fragmented international system. Middle powers exist on both sides of that divide. This creates the possibility of cooperation that cuts across it, rather than reinforces it. Indeed, the ability to establish such relationships may prove to be one of the most important contributions that middle powers can make to the future of multilateralism.

The point is not to find a new position of neutrality between competing camps. Nor is it to suggest that middle powers should somehow remove themselves from the pursuit of national interests. The discussion was clear that middle powers, like all states, have their own interests, domestic political pressures and strategic considerations. They will not always agree, and their interests will sometimes diverge sharply. Any attempt to construct a meaningful middle-power agenda must start by acknowledging this reality, rather than wishing it away.

This led to an important distinction in the discussion between the possession of middle-power characteristics and the practice of middle-power diplomacy. One contribution differentiated between "authentic middle powers" and "aspirational great powers." The distinction is useful precisely because it shifts attention away from labels and towards behaviour. A state may possess the material characteristics normally associated with a middle power while increasingly seeking influence through status, dominance or alignment with great-power competition. Conversely, a state demonstrates authentic middle-power behaviour when it uses its influence to encourage dialogue, strengthen mediation, uphold international law and build cooperation across political divides.

This raises the question of credibility. If middle powers wish to present themselves as defenders of multilateralism, they must themselves be prepared to uphold its principles consistently. Support for international law loses much of its persuasive force if it changes according to the parties involved. The same applies to human rights and the peaceful resolution of disputes. Middle powers cannot credibly call upon the major powers to respect international norms while themselves treating those norms selectively. Their influence as bridge-builders ultimately depends upon the trust that others are prepared to place in them.

There is, therefore, an element of responsibility attached to the opportunity now available to middle powers. Greater influence cannot simply mean acquiring a louder voice in existing institutions or securing a larger share of international decision-making. It must also entail assuming greater responsibility for sustaining the system within which that influence is exercised. The discussion suggested that this means defending international law, supporting institutions even when particular outcomes may be inconvenient, maintaining channels of communication with states with which they disagree, and investing diplomatic resources in finding common ground.

This is also why issue-based cooperation featured so strongly in the discussion. Middle powers do not have to agree on everything in order to work together on something. Peacebuilding, climate action, food security, humanitarian response, public health and sustainable development provide areas in which cooperation can be constructed around practical objectives, rather than geopolitical identity. This approach accepts difference, rather than attempting to eliminate it. It asks where interests overlap and whether those areas of convergence can be converted into collective action.

There is an important pragmatic dimension to this approach. If middle powers wait for broad geopolitical agreement before acting together, very little is likely to happen. If, instead, they identify areas where cooperation is possible and demonstrate that such cooperation can deliver results, they help preserve the practice of multilateralism itself. Each successful instance of cooperation creates another reason to cooperate again. In this way, issue-based partnerships can become building blocks for something more substantial.

But the panel also recognised that this is precisely where the present weakness lies. Middle powers have demonstrated their capacity to cooperate on individual issues, but they have not yet translated that capacity into sustained collective leadership on the future of multilateralism. One contribution was particularly clear on this point: despite the deterioration in the international environment and the growing need for alternative sources of leadership, there is still no sufficiently coherent middle-power initiative aimed at strengthening the global governance system as a whole.

This gap matters. Ad hoc cooperation can solve individual problems, but it is unlikely on its own to reshape the direction of the international system. If middle powers are serious about playing a greater role, they will have to move from episodic cooperation towards something more deliberate and sustained. This does not mean creating another geopolitical bloc. That would defeat the very purpose of the exercise. It means developing the habit of consultation, identifying shared priorities and being prepared to act together where collective influence can make a difference.

Seen in this way, the potential significance of middle powers lies not in their capacity to become another pole in an increasingly competitive international order. It lies in their ability to resist the logic that every international relationship must eventually resolve itself into competing poles. Their comparative advantage is the ability to connect, rather than divide; to keep dialogue alive when others withdraw from it; and to demonstrate through practical cooperation that differences between states do not have to make collective action impossible.

That is the opportunity. But it is not yet the achievement. The central question emerging from the panel was therefore whether middle powers are prepared to convert their considerable individual diplomatic capabilities into a more sustained collective endeavour. If they are, they may become an important stabilising force in the international system. If they are not, the potential identified throughout the discussion will remain precisely that - potential.

4. BEYOND DIPLOMACY: COMMUNICATION,

NARRATIVE AND PUBLIC LEGITIMACY

While the discussion devoted considerable attention to diplomacy and institutional cooperation, one of its more distinctive contributions was the recognition that the future of multilateralism will depend as much on communication as on negotiation. Effective diplomacy no longer takes place exclusively around negotiating tables or within the formal structures of international organisations. It is increasingly shaped by the ability of states to explain their objectives, build public understanding and develop narratives capable of sustaining confidence in international cooperation. Communication was therefore presented not as a supporting activity, but as an integral component of contemporary diplomacy.

This represents an important shift in the way middle-power influence should be understood. Traditionally, diplomatic success has been measured by agreements concluded, coalitions formed or resolutions adopted. The discussion suggested that these remain important, but are no longer sufficient. International politics now unfolds within a global communications environment where governments, international organisations, civil society, academic institutions, media organisations and digital platforms all influence how international developments are interpreted. Diplomatic initiatives that are not understood beyond official circles often struggle to generate the wider political support necessary for their implementation. Middle powers therefore need to communicate not only with one another, but with global audiences.

Participants argued that communication strengthens multilateralism in several ways. It helps explain why cooperation remains necessary in an increasingly uncertain international environment. It allows successful initiatives to become examples from which others may learn, it broadens participation in debates that might otherwise remain confined to governments, and most importantly, it contributes to legitimacy. International institutions derive authority not only from legal mandates, but also from public confidence that they continue to serve meaningful purposes. When that confidence weakens, institutional effectiveness is inevitably affected.

The discussion suggested that middle powers possess important comparative advantages in this regard. Unlike the major powers, whose international messaging is frequently interpreted through the prism of strategic competition, many middle powers are better positioned to articulate narratives centred on cooperation, dialogue and shared interests. This does not imply that they are politically neutral, nor that they are free of national interests. Rather, it reflects the fact that their diplomatic influence has generally been built through persuasion, rather than coercion. Communication therefore becomes an extension of the very diplomatic methods through which middle powers traditionally exercise influence.

Brazil's recent international engagement was discussed as an illustration of this approach. Participants noted the consistency with which themes such as multilateralism, inclusive development, climate justice and stronger Global South participation have been advanced across different international platforms. Although each forum addressed different policy questions, the underlying message remained coherent. This consistency was presented as an important diplomatic asset. It demonstrates that communication is most effective when it forms part of a broader strategic approach, rather than a series of isolated public statements.

At the same time, participants recognised that the international communications environment presents significant challenges for middle powers. Global media attention continues to focus predominantly on the actions of the major powers, armed conflict and geopolitical confrontation. Constructive initiatives emerging from middle powers often receive comparatively limited attention, irrespective of their potential significance. As a result, innovative policy proposals frequently fail to shape wider international debate. The discussion therefore suggested that middle powers need to invest more deliberately in communicating both their ideas and their achievements if they wish to influence the broader direction of global governance.

The discussion also moved beyond communication as a diplomatic technique to consider the importance of narrative itself. Participants argued that multilateralism currently suffers not only from institutional weaknesses, but also from the absence of a compelling story about its future. Much contemporary debate has become dominated by narratives of rivalry, confrontation and geopolitical competition, and while these realities cannot be ignored, they should not become the only lens through which international affairs are understood. If multilateralism is to regain confidence and legitimacy, it requires a positive narrative capable of inspiring cooperation, rather than merely responding to conflict.

In this regard, one contribution argued that hope itself constitutes an important political resource. The discussion observed that international cooperation has contributed significantly to improvements in human development, democratic governance, poverty reduction, education, health and human rights across many parts of the world. These achievements should not be overlooked simply because contemporary international politics is characterised by heightened geopolitical tension. The international community requires a narrative that acknowledges current challenges, while also recognising the progress that cooperation has historically made possible, because without such a narrative, public confidence in multilateralism is likely to continue eroding.

Participants further suggested that this narrative should remain firmly people-centred. International institutions ultimately exist not for their own preservation, but to improve human wellbeing. Communication should therefore connect multilateral cooperation to the everyday concerns of people, rather than presenting it solely as an abstract exercise in international diplomacy. Peace, human dignity, equality, justice and sustainable development were repeatedly identified as the values around which such a narrative could be constructed. In doing so, communication would reinforce the reminder contained in the opening words of the UN Charter that the Organisation exists in the name of "We the Peoples." 

The discussion also identified an important role for universities, think tanks, civil society organisations and policy networks. Building confidence in multilateralism cannot be left exclusively to governments. Research institutions contribute evidence and analysis, civil society connects international debates to communities, and academic networks create opportunities for sustained dialogue across national boundaries. Participants therefore envisaged communication as a genuinely collaborative endeavour extending well beyond official diplomacy.

This broader understanding of communication also has implications for the next Secretary-General. Participants suggested that the Secretary-General will need to be more than an effective administrator or skilled diplomat. The Office will increasingly require someone capable of articulating a convincing vision of international cooperation, explaining the continuing relevance of the United Nations and inspiring confidence that multilateralism remains the most effective means of addressing shared global challenges. Middle powers, through coordinated communication and consistent public diplomacy, can become important partners in amplifying that message and broadening its international reach.

The discussion therefore concluded that communication should no longer be regarded as peripheral to multilateral diplomacy. It has become one of the means through which diplomacy itself is conducted. Middle powers may succeed in building coalitions, advancing innovative proposals and strengthening international institutions, but unless these efforts are communicated effectively and situated within a compelling narrative about the future of international cooperation, their wider influence is likely to remain limited. Renewing multilateralism will therefore require not only better diplomacy, but also a more persuasive explanation of why multilateralism continues to matter.

5. PARTNERING WITH THE NEXT UNITED NATIONS

SECRETARY-GENERAL

A distinctive feature of the panel discussion was that it did not treat the appointment of the next Secretary-General of the United Nations as a procedural event, but as a strategic opportunity to strengthen multilateralism itself. Rather than viewing the selection process as an end in itself, participants considered how middle powers might influence both the choice of the next Secretary-General and, more importantly, how they might work in partnership with that person to restore confidence in the United Nations and the wider multilateral system.

The discussion proceeded from the recognition that the Office of the Secretary-General occupies a unique position within the international system. Although the Secretary-General exercises neither the executive authority of a head of government nor the political power of the major states, the Office carries considerable moral authority and possesses an important convening function. It has the capacity to shape international agendas, facilitate dialogue, encourage mediation and articulate a vision for international cooperation. The effectiveness of the Office, however, depends not only on the qualities of the individual appointed, but also on the willingness of Member States to provide the political support necessary for the Secretary-General to fulfil these responsibilities.

Participants therefore argued that middle powers have an important role to play during the selection process itself. Acting individually, their influence is necessarily limited. Collectively, however, they represent a significant constituency within the United Nations and possess sufficient diplomatic influence to contribute meaningfully to discussions on the qualities required of the Organisation's next leader. The discussion suggested that middle powers should seek to promote leadership criteria centred on integrity, independence, commitment to the United Nations Charter and demonstrated support for effective multilateral cooperation. The objective should not be to advance regional or national preferences, but to strengthen the legitimacy of the Office itself.

The panel was equally clear that the appointment of a new Secretary-General should not mark the conclusion of middle-power engagement. Indeed, participants suggested that the more important task begins after the successful candidate assumes office. One of the recurring weaknesses of the multilateral system has been the tendency to regard the Secretary-General as operating largely in isolation from sustained political support by Member States. But effective leadership within the United Nations depends upon governments that are prepared not only to endorse the Organisation's principles, but also to support initiatives aimed at giving practical effect to those principles.

The discussion therefore proposed a different model of engagement. Rather than limiting cooperation to formal institutional processes, middle powers should develop a continuing partnership with the Secretary-General around a shared commitment to strengthening the effectiveness of the United Nations. Such a partnership would not compromise the independence of the Office, nor would it seek to create an alternative centre of political authority within the Organisation. Its purpose would instead be to provide the political support necessary for the Secretary-General to pursue initiatives that strengthen multilateral cooperation, uphold international law and reinforce confidence in the United Nations.

Preventive diplomacy emerged as one of the most important areas for such cooperation. Participants observed that international engagement frequently occurs only after disputes have escalated into violent conflict or humanitarian crisis. Middle powers, by virtue of their often constructive relations across different political groupings, possess considerable potential to support the Secretary-General's efforts to encourage dialogue before positions become irreconcilable. This need not involve formal mediation alone. It includes confidence-building, discreet diplomacy and creating opportunities for continued communication at times when official channels have become strained. Strengthening preventive diplomacy was therefore presented as one of the most practical contributions that middle powers could make to international peace and security.

Participants also identified several substantive areas around which closer cooperation could be developed. Climate change, sustainable development, food security, public health, humanitarian response and migration were all cited as examples of global challenges requiring sustained multilateral action. Progress in these areas depends less upon geopolitical competition than upon practical cooperation among states willing to work collectively in pursuit of shared objectives. A closer partnership between middle powers and the Secretary-General could therefore help sustain political momentum around issues where broad international interests continue to converge despite wider geopolitical tensions.

The discussion further emphasised that such cooperation should remain firmly anchored in the principles of the United Nations Charter. Respect for international law, peaceful settlement of disputes, sovereign equality, human dignity and sustainable development were repeatedly identified as the normative foundations upon which the partnership should rest. Participants argued that middle powers should support the Secretary-General in defending these principles consistently, recognising that their credibility depends upon their universal application, rather than their selective invocation in particular circumstances.

An important practical proposal emerging from the discussion was the possible establishment of a Group of Friends to support the next Secretary-General. Participants suggested that such a group could consist primarily of middle powers committed to strengthening multilateralism and providing sustained political backing for the Office of the Secretary-General. Unlike existing power structures within the United Nations, the purpose of such a group would not be to direct or constrain the Secretary-General, but rather to create greater political space for effective leadership by mobilising support around initiatives consistent with the Charter and the broader interests of the international community.

The discussion also recognised that the Secretary-General's effectiveness increasingly depends upon engagement beyond governments alone. Echoing the broader emphasis on a people-centred approach to multilateralism, participants argued that closer relationships should also be fostered with civil society, academia, youth, women, Indigenous communities and other non-state actors. These constituencies not only contribute expertise and practical experience but also strengthen the legitimacy of international decision-making by ensuring that multilateral governance remains connected to the concerns of those it ultimately serves. Middle powers, many of which have extensive experience in participatory governance and multi-stakeholder engagement, are well placed to support the Secretary-General in broadening these relationships.

Throughout the discussion there was a clear recognition that the next Secretary-General will assume office at a particularly demanding moment in the history of the United Nations. Expectations are likely to exceed the formal powers of the Office, while geopolitical divisions may continue to constrain institutional decision-making. Participants nevertheless rejected the view that these constraints diminish the importance of the position. On the contrary, they reinforce the need for a Secretary-General capable of exercising principled leadership, supported by Member States willing to invest political capital in strengthening the multilateral system.

The panel therefore concluded that the relationship between middle powers and the next Secretary-General should be viewed not as a temporary alignment around a particular appointment, but as the foundation for a broader partnership in support of effective multilateralism. By acting collectively in defence of the Charter, supporting preventive diplomacy, strengthening cooperation around shared global challenges and providing sustained political backing to the Office of the Secretary-General, middle powers can make a practical contribution to restoring confidence in the United Nations and enhancing its capacity to serve the common good.

6. TOWARDS A MIDDLE-POWER AGENDA FOR

RENEWING MULTILATERALISM

The discussion concluded by turning from diagnosis to action. Having considered the changing geopolitical environment, the distinctive contribution that middle powers can make, the importance of communication, and the opportunities presented by the appointment of a new Secretary-General, participants reflected on what practical agenda should emerge from the discussion. While there was no suggestion that middle powers alone can reshape the international order, there was broad agreement that they can make a far more significant contribution than they presently do if they begin to act with greater strategic purpose and consistency.

The first conclusion was that middle powers should move beyond episodic cooperation towards a more sustained habit of strategic consultation. Existing cooperation has demonstrated that middle powers are capable of working effectively together on individual issues. The challenge is to ensure that such cooperation is no longer confined to isolated negotiations or particular international crises. Regular consultation would enable middle powers to identify emerging challenges earlier, exchange perspectives, coordinate positions where appropriate and provide greater continuity in support of multilateral institutions. Such consultation need not create another formal organisation. Indeed, the discussion suggested that flexibility remains one of the principal strengths of middle-power diplomacy. What is required is not another institution, but a stronger political commitment to working together.

Secondly, participants argued that middle powers should define themselves less by geopolitical alignment than by the practical issues around which they choose to cooperate. One of the strengths of issue-based cooperation is that it enables countries with different political traditions and strategic relationships to work together where genuine common interests exist. The discussion repeatedly identified areas such as peacebuilding, sustainable development, climate change, food security, humanitarian assistance and public health as examples where middle powers are already demonstrating the value of practical cooperation. Expanding such collaboration would not only deliver tangible international benefits but also reinforce confidence that multilateralism remains capable of producing meaningful outcomes.

A third conclusion concerned the continued defence of international law and the United Nations Charter. Throughout the discussion there was broad agreement that middle powers have a particular interest in preserving an international system governed by agreed rules, rather than by the exercise of power alone. Their own security and prosperity frequently depend upon the predictability, stability and legitimacy that such a system provides. Participants therefore suggested that middle powers should continue to champion the peaceful settlement of disputes, sovereign equality, respect for international law and the strengthening of multilateral institutions. At the same time, they recognised that such advocacy will remain credible only if these principles are applied consistently and without political selectivity.

The discussion also reinforced the importance of building broader partnerships around multilateralism. Governments alone cannot renew international cooperation. Universities, think tanks, civil society organisations, youth, women, Indigenous communities and the private sector all possess knowledge, experience and networks that can strengthen international policymaking. Participants therefore envisaged a more inclusive model of multilateralism in which governments continue to exercise political leadership while drawing more systematically on the expertise and practical experience of wider society. Such partnerships would not only improve policy outcomes but also strengthen the legitimacy of international institutions by reconnecting them with the people they ultimately serve.

Another important conclusion concerned the need to strengthen communication as an integral component of middle-power diplomacy. The discussion suggested that many constructive international initiatives fail to achieve broader influence, because they are insufficiently communicated. Middle powers should therefore invest more deliberately in public diplomacy, strategic communication and the development of narratives that explain the continuing relevance of international cooperation. This requires more than public relations. It calls for a coherent and consistent explanation of why multilateral institutions remain indispensable in addressing the increasingly interconnected challenges confronting humanity. In this regard, communication should be understood as a strategic instrument of diplomacy rather than simply a means of reporting diplomatic activity.

Participants also returned to the importance of maintaining a long-term perspective. The immediate international environment is inevitably dominated by crises that demand urgent attention, but the renewal of multilateralism cannot be achieved through crisis management alone, in that it requires sustained investment in institutions, relationships and political trust over time. The discussion therefore encouraged middle powers to adopt a longer strategic horizon by identifying areas where continued cooperation can strengthen the resilience of the international system, even when short-term political circumstances become more difficult.

Finally, the discussion returned to the central proposition with which the panel had begun. The future of multilateralism will not be secured by the major powers acting alone, nor by institutional reform in isolation. It will depend upon whether a broader group of states is prepared to assume greater responsibility for the health of the international system. Middle powers are uniquely positioned to make that contribution, because they possess diplomatic credibility across different regions, experience in coalition-building, and a strong interest in preserving an international order based on cooperation and international law. Whether they choose to exercise that potential more strategically remains an open question. The discussion nevertheless concluded that the opportunity now exists for middle powers to become a more influential force in shaping the next phase of multilateral cooperation.

In this sense, the discussion was ultimately one of cautious optimism, in that it acknowledged the seriousness of the challenges confronting the international system, while rejecting the assumption that fragmentation is inevitable. The multilateral system has evolved continuously since the establishment of the United Nations, adapting to changing geopolitical realities while remaining anchored in the principles of the Charter. The discussion suggested that the emergence of more active and strategically aligned middle powers may represent the next stage in that evolution, because by working together more consistently, communicating more effectively and supporting principled international leadership, they have the opportunity to help renew confidence in multilateralism and strengthen the capacity of the United Nations to respond to the challenges of an increasingly complex world.

Figure 2: From discussion to action: A practical middle-power agenda for renewing multilateralism through strategic cooperation, partnership with the next United Nations Secretary-General, and strengthened public legitimacy.

7. CONCLUSION

The discussion began with a concern about the future of multilateralism, but it concluded with a more fundamental reflection on the future of international leadership. The question before the panel was never whether middle powers should replace the major powers as the dominant actors in global governance. Rather, it was whether they are prepared to assume greater responsibility for preserving and renewing a multilateral system upon which all states ultimately depend. The discussion suggested that this question has become increasingly urgent as geopolitical rivalry places growing strain on the institutions established to promote international cooperation.

A clear consensus emerged that the challenges confronting the international community cannot be addressed through unilateral action or through great-power politics alone, because climate change, humanitarian crises, food insecurity, migration, technological disruption and armed conflict require sustained cooperation across regions and political traditions. In this environment, middle powers possess important comparative advantages. Their experience in coalition-building, mediation, bridge-building and support for international law positions them to become important contributors to a more stable and effective multilateral order. That potential, however, will only be realised if they are prepared to act more strategically and more consistently than has generally been the case to date.

The discussion nevertheless resisted any tendency to romanticise middle powers. Throughout the panel there was recognition that they are as diverse in their interests and political priorities as any other group of states. They pursue national interests, operate under domestic political constraints and will not always agree on international questions. Their future contribution therefore depends less on what they are than on how they choose to exercise their influence. The distinction drawn between authentic middle powers and aspirational great powers captures this point well. Ultimately, the defining characteristic of middle-power leadership is not the accumulation of influence but the willingness to use influence to strengthen dialogue, uphold international law, support cooperation and advance human dignity.

An equally important conclusion concerned the need to reconnect multilateralism with the people it is intended to serve. The discussion repeatedly returned to the opening words of the United Nations Charter - "We the Peoples" - as a reminder that the purpose of multilateralism extends beyond the management of relations among states, and that its success should ultimately be measured by its contribution to peace, justice, sustainable development and the dignity of the human person. If international cooperation is to regain public confidence, it must once again demonstrate its relevance to people's everyday lives, which will require governments, international institutions and civil society alike to place human wellbeing at the centre of global governance.

The panel also highlighted the growing importance of communication in shaping the future of multilateralism, because international cooperation can no longer depend solely upon successful negotiations among governments. It must also be explained, understood and supported by broader publics. Communication therefore emerged as a strategic resource through which middle powers can strengthen legitimacy, broaden participation in international debate and articulate a more compelling vision of global cooperation. Equally, the discussion recognised that the international community requires a more hopeful narrative; one that acknowledges contemporary challenges while also recognising the considerable progress achieved through decades of multilateral cooperation. Such a narrative should not deny the realities of geopolitical competition, but neither should it allow those realities to define the limits of what remains possible through international partnership.

The appointment of the next Secretary-General was identified as a particularly important opportunity to translate these ideas into practice. The discussion argued that the successful candidate will require more than broad international support during the selection process. The Secretary-General will also require sustained political backing from Member States committed to strengthening the United Nations and defending the principles of the Charter. Middle powers, acting collectively, are well placed to provide such support through closer consultation, stronger issue-based cooperation, enhanced preventive diplomacy and, potentially, through the establishment of a Group of Friends dedicated to supporting the work of the Secretary-General while fully respecting the independence of the Office.

Perhaps the most significant conclusion to emerge from the discussion is that the future of multilateralism should not be viewed solely through the lens of institutional reform. Reform remains important, but institutions cannot substitute for political leadership, nor can new structures compensate for the absence of trust and cooperation among states. Renewing multilateralism is ultimately a political project, that will require governments to be prepared to invest in dialogue, to uphold international law consistently, to support effective international institutions and to work together in pursuit of the common good. Middle powers possess many of the attributes necessary to help lead that process. The question now is whether they are prepared to do so.

The discussion therefore concluded on a cautiously optimistic note. It recognised that the multilateral system is under considerable pressure, but it rejected the assumption that its decline is inevitable. The institutions of international cooperation have adapted before, and they can adapt again. Their future will depend not only on the decisions of the major powers, but also on the willingness of a broader community of states to assume greater responsibility for sustaining an international order founded on dialogue, cooperation and respect for international law. Middle powers have an opportunity to become an important part of that process. By working more strategically with one another, partnering more closely with the next Secretary-General, communicating a more compelling vision of international cooperation and remaining firmly anchored in the principles of the United Nations Charter, they can help shape a more inclusive, resilient and effective multilateral order for the decades ahead.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This report has been published by the Inclusive Society Institute

The Inclusive Society Institute (ISI) is an autonomous and independent institution that functions independently from any other entity. It is founded for the purpose of supporting and further deepening multi-party democracy. The ISI’s work is motivated by its desire to achieve non-racialism, non-sexism, social justice and cohesion, economic development and equality in South Africa, through a value system that embodies the social and national democratic principles associated with a developmental state. It recognises that a well-functioning democracy requires well-functioning political formations that are suitably equipped and capacitated. It further acknowledges that South Africa is inextricably linked to the ever transforming and interdependent global world, which necessitates international and multilateral cooperation. As such, the ISI also seeks to achieve its ideals at a global level through cooperation with like-minded parties and organs of civil society who share its basic values. In South Africa, ISI’s ideological positioning is aligned with that of the current ruling party and others in broader society with similar ideals.

Email: info@inclusivesociety.org.za

Phone: +27 (0) 21 201 1589

Web: www.inclusivesociety.org.za