Middle Power Leadership on the Human Security Agenda

Abstract

This study illustrates how middle power states — such as Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway — have exercised leadership on the human security agenda, and thus challenges the realist view of middle powers as mere followers of great power leadership on global security issues. The hegemonic United States (US) is likely to counter any initiative that threatens its core national interest: the security of the American territory, institutions, and citizenry. Therefore, it is hypothesized that the US is more likely to oppose a middle power-led human security initiative if the initiative challenges the rights of American citizens protected under the US Constitution. A qualitative analysis of four human security initiatives provides support for the hypothesis. The US acquiesced to the formation of the Stand-by High Readiness Brigade for United Nations Operations (SHIRBRIG) and the ban on antipersonnel landmines (APLs), which did not pose threats to any constitutional rights. But Washington opposed the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the adoption of stricter regulations on the legal trade in small arms and light weapons (SALW), because these initiatives challenged specific constitutional rights of American citizens. The study examines a second hypothesis: that a middle power-led human security initiative is more likely to be successful if the middle powers engage in fast-track diplomacy rather than consensus-based diplomacy. The case studies demonstrate that the middle powers succeeded when they used fast-track diplomacy on the SHIRBRIG, APL, and ICC initiatives, but failed when they relied on consensus-based diplomacy on the SALW initiative.