Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke common sense. The world is changing. Might is right is replacing the rule of law. It is time for the middle powers to lift their heads out of the sand, look around and start discussing international systems that do not involve holding onto the coattails of greater powers.

Europe, Japan, Britain, Australia and others have enjoyed the American military and economic umbrella for the past 80 years. They have prospered inside a US-protected system but were largely denied the opportunity to shape their nice, warm American-made cocoon and now can’t easily or safely exit it.

Britain, possibly more than any other country, has allowed itself to become a dependency of the United States. The British nuclear deterrent cannot be delivered without US-made Trident missiles. Five Eyes is dominated by America’s National Security Agency. Key defense equipment comes from the US and Britain has supported Washington in almost every post-war military operation (Vietnam is the big exception). Finally, the British and American financial systems are locked together, and each country is the single biggest investor in the other.

It is unrealistic to expect Britain to completely disentangle itself from the United States. It can, however, create options and alternatives to ensure that its own power does not exist only as a derivative of the US.

It can seek greater cooperation with France in developing each other’s nuclear deterrent. This would involve working together on warhead production and storage, command and control procedures, alternative delivery systems and a nuclear doctrine which reflects the needs of both middle powers.

Britain is out of the EU. It is not returning anytime soon. But that does not mean it cannot improve relations with Brussels. Rejoining the single market is probably a step too far but a return to the customs union benefits both sides while keeping options open.

Conventional military independence is also best achieved through coordination with Europe. Ukraine—coupled with Trump’s unwillingness to be involved—is providing an impetus to develop a more independent defense industry.  But there is no way that any European country has the economic infrastructure to replace America’s defense industries on their own, but if each were to specialise than the collective result could potentially dwarf the US and strengthen the European arm of NATO.

Achieving independence on intelligence—especially electronic—is more problematic. The US dominates intelligence gathering with its satellites and Silicon Valley technology and AI.  There is scope, however, for greater independence when it comes to the analysis of intelligence gathered. The non-American members of the group can make the case for the “Four-Eyes” producing one coordinated analysis for consideration by US analysts rather than having to wade through four separate – and often conflicting- analyses from each country.

It should be made clear that it is in no country’s interest that the US and/or China are snubbed or politically contained or isolated. It is in every country’s interest—including America and China—that the interests of all countries are served by a policy of equal opportunity rather than one which enriches a great power at the expense of a lesser power.

The ”Middies” (aka the middle powers) have a special role to play, especially if they act collectively. The Middies possess enough economic scale, institutional capacity, diplomatic credibility and coalition-building ability to shape global rules rather than just absorb those set by the great powers.

To fully utilise their power, they need to form an international institution similar to the G7 or BRICS which enables them to act collectively. Membership would be based on behaviour and commitments. The main commitment would be support for the rule of international law. To that end, the members would need to fully support the UN and all of its agencies. Their aim is not to in any way to replace the UN. It is to ensure its survival by acting as a backstop for it.

Middies United (a possible name) will not be some grand new world order. It is about keeping the courts functioning; making treaties enforceable; keeping international institutions solvent and preventing smaller states from being crushed.

Some states will be excluded. They will be barred not because they are poor or non-Western or inconvenient, but because they seek to rewrite the system rather than to stabilise it.

Middies United will also sit uncomfortably between exclusivity and universality. That discomfort is not a flaw. It is the price of effectiveness. The organisation should be narrow enough to act; broad enough to legitimise itself and modst enough to insist that it is not a substitute for the UN but rather its last line of defense.

History suggests that international orders do not fail because great powers are reckless, but because the states in between are passive. The middle powers are numerous enough, wealthy enough, and capable enough to matter—if they choose to act together. Middies United would not command the world, reshape ideology, or impose values. It would do something more modest and more necessary: defend the machinery that allows states to coexist without coercion. The question is no longer whether the middle powers are strong enough to act. It is whether they are prepared to accept the responsibility that comes with their strength.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”