Henry Huiyao Wang: Middle powers are taking up the mantle of multilateral leadership
The President of CCG writes in the South China Morning Post that, with the US in retreat, nations committed to economic integration are moving forward through partnerships like the CPTPP
Henry Huiyao Wang, founder and President of the Center for China and Globalization (CCG), wrote in his opinion column in the South China Morning Post on Wednesday, March 25.
For much of the post-war era, the architecture of global governance rested on the simple assumption that the United States would support the systems it largely designed and uphold the rules it helped to create.
The first Trump administration was no isolated incident. Now, from the vantage point of 2026, amid the US-Israel attack on Iran and the subsequent closing of the Strait of Hormuz, it is quite clear that there is little sign of an appetite in Washington for the US to once again safeguard the order it helped create.
Yet the retreat of one great power does not mean the collapse of globalisation or multilateralism. Instead, the torch has passed to middle powers who are coming together in flexible formations to sustain the institutions that underpin globalisation and multilateralism.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney expressed this critical juncture at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, where he laid to rest hopes of a return to normal. He argued, quite rightly, that countries must increasingly build flexible forms of cooperation rather than rely solely on rigid ideological blocs.
As we enter a “Romance of the Three Kingdoms period” in global politics, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) stands as an example of middle-power agency. When the US abandoned the original Trans-Pacific Partnership, the framework verged on collapse. Yet it did not.
Instead, a coalition of middle powers, including Japan, Canada, Australia and other economies, rallied to save it in a revealing experiment in middle-power leadership. The agreement’s constituent economies account for roughly 15 per cent of global gross domestic product and represent some of the most dynamic trading nations in the Asia-Pacific, and it now includes the United Kingdom.
The CPTPP is just a single facet of an emerging architecture as middle powers ranging from Group of Seven members to regional actors – such as Turkey and India – respond to a world where the US no longer anchors the security and economic architecture of the international system. That does not mean the US has ceased to matter, but it does mean even its formerly close middle-power allies are beginning to exercise greater autonomy.
But today, the agreement is more important than ever. In a period marked by rising tariffs, industrial policy disputes and unilateral economic measures, it represents a shared commitment to open markets and predictable trade rules with a significance that has expanded beyond the Pacific Rim. Sweden has proposed that the European Union join the CPTPP.
At a time when tariffs, sanctions and industrial policy measures are increasingly deployed outside multilateral frameworks, and the US-Israel attack on Iran casts doubts on the future of multilateralism, the CPTPP serves as an indictment of unilateralism, defending open trade with free and fair rules against protectionism.
The emergence of this united front can be reinforced by answering one of the most consequential questions for the CPTPP’s future: whether other middle powers can find their place in the agreement. Both China and the EU could cooperate or even accede to the agreement, working hand in hand to develop a free, fair and open future for both world trade and global governance.
China is interested in both cooperation and possible membership. In recent years, Simon Birmingham, who served as Australian trade minister, has publicly encouraged China to pursue CPTPP membership. Integrating major economies into high-standard trade frameworks strengthens both the agreements themselves and the broader international economic order.
Furthermore, China is developing its own trade policy trajectory in ways that are complementary. Participation in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the world’s largest trade agreement by population, has been a prelude focused on increasing market access and harmonising trade rules. But Beijing is ready to step beyond that to the next generation of more encompassing trade agreements. Already, China has seen an extensive raft of reforms, which represent a commitment to the high-standard trade rules of the CPTPP.
The demand for global trade is still strong. As the lifeblood of the world’s prosperity, trade’s share of global economic activity remains consistent. What is changing are the institutional pathways through which trade flows. The partners on the dance floor may be shifting, but the dance itself continues. Together, a sort of World Trade Organization 2.0 could be built as a logical extension of the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement.
Here, Japan could play a critical role. As the largest economy currently inside the CPTPP, Tokyo occupies a position of gentle influence. If Japan were to support and guide China’s pathway towards CPTPP membership, it could not only reinforce the agreement’s economic weight but also open a channel to bolster trust and cooperation. This is crucial, especially given the current low ebb of China-Japan relations.
Ultimately, the CPTPP’s significance lies in what it means for globalisation’s future. The world is entering a multipolar era in which economic and political leadership is distributed rather than concentrated. In such a system, multilateralism depends on coalitions willing to uphold open markets and shared rules.
The US may even decide to rejoin this framework someday. Should it look to do so, the door should remain open. But the experience of the CPTPP reflects an important reality: the future of global trade will not wait for any single country. Nations that remain committed to economic integration are moving forward together. In doing so, they are shaping the foundations of a more plural – but still open – global system. (Enditem)
