Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stated at the Davos Forum that the old international order led by the United States has ended, and middle powers must stop pretending the rules still apply and should unite to build strategic autonomy. He called on all countries to confront the reality of great powers using economic integration for coercion, address the challenges through domestic strength building and multilateral cooperation, and promote new alliances based on shared values and interests.
Article author and source: Phoenix.com
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a strongly worded speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on Tuesday, making the significant statement: "The old order is over." He indicated that the long-standing rules-based international order dominated by the United States has ended, and middle powers like Canada must change their strategies to avoid becoming victims of further coercion by powerful nations.
Carney did not directly name US President Trump, but instead mentioned "American hegemony," stating that major powers are using economic integration as a "weapon." He called on middle powers to stop "pretending the rules still apply" and to strive for genuine strategic autonomy through joint action.
The following is a translation (with omissions) of Phoenix.com's "World Affairs" section:
We seem to be reminded every day that we live in an era of great power competition—the so-called "rules-based order" is fading, the strong can do whatever they want, and the weak can only bear the consequences they have to bear.
Thucydides' maxim is presented as an inevitable reality, as if it were a re-emergence of the natural logic of international relations. Faced with this logic, countries often tend to go with the flow, accommodate each other, avoid trouble, and hope that compliance will bring security.
But that's not the case. So, what are our choices?
In 1978, Czech politician Václav Havel wrote an article that mentioned the story of a vegetable vendor.
Every morning, this shopkeeper would place a sign with a symbolic slogan in his window. He didn't believe in the slogan. But he still put it up to avoid trouble, to show compliance, and to seek peace. And it was because every shopkeeper on every street did this that the system was able to continue—not only through violence, but also through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they knew in private to be false.
Havel called this state "living in a lie." The power of the system does not come from its authenticity, but from everyone's willingness to pretend it is real. And its fragility stems from this: the illusion begins to crumble the moment even one person stops performing, the moment the vegetable vendor takes the sign away from the window.
Friends, now is the time for businesses and the government to take these labels down.
For decades, countries like Canada have thrived under what we call the “rules-based international order.” We join these institutions, admire their principles, and benefit from their predictability. This has enabled us to pursue a values-based foreign policy under their protection.
We also know that this so-called international rules-based order is, to some extent, a fabrication: the most powerful countries will exonerate themselves when it is convenient, trade rules are enforced asymmetrically, and the application of international law depends on the identity of the defendant or victim.
This fiction has been useful in the past. In particular, American hegemony has helped provide public goods—open sea routes, a stable financial system, collective security, and institutional frameworks for resolving disputes.
Therefore, we put the sign in the shop window. We participated in these rituals and largely avoided pointing out the gap between words and reality.
But this kind of deal is no longer working.
I'll be blunt: we are in the midst of a fracture, not a transition.
Over the past two decades, successive crises in the financial, public health, energy, and geopolitical spheres have exposed the risks posed by high levels of globalization. More recently, major powers have begun to weaponize economic integration, using tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as a tool of coercion, and supply chains as exploitable vulnerabilities.
When integration itself becomes the source of your dependence on others, you can no longer live in the lie of "mutual benefit and win-win".
The multilateral institutions upon which middle powers depend—the WTO, the UN, the climate conference mechanism, and the entire institutional framework for collective problem-solving—are under threat. Consequently, many countries have come to the same conclusion: they must develop greater strategic autonomy in energy, food, critical minerals, finance, and supply chains. This impulse is understandable.
A country that cannot be self-sufficient in food, energy, or defense has very limited options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.
But we must be soberly aware of where this path will lead. A world riddled with fortresses will be poorer, more vulnerable, and less sustainable.
Another fact is that if major powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values and only pursue unrestrained power and interests, then the benefits of transactional diplomacy will become increasingly difficult to replicate.
Hegemonic powers cannot indefinitely monetize relationships. Allies will hedge against uncertainty through diversification, purchasing "insurance," and increasing options to rebuild sovereignty—sovereignty that was once based on rules but will now increasingly rely on the ability to withstand pressure.
Everyone here understands that this is a classic example of risk management. Risk management has its costs, but the costs of strategic autonomy and sovereignty can be shared. Collective investment in resilience is far cheaper than building fortresses individually. Common standards can reduce fragmentation, and complementarity brings a positive-sum effect.
For a middle power like Canada, the question is not whether to adapt to this new reality—we must adapt.
The question is whether we can simply build higher walls, or whether we can do something more ambitious.
Canada was one of the first countries to hear this wake-up call, prompting a fundamental shift in our strategic posture. Canadians understand that our comfortable assumptions—that geography and union membership automatically guarantee prosperity and security—are no longer valid. Our new path is based on what Finnish President Stubb calls “value-based realism.”
In other words, we adhere to both principles and pragmatism. In principle, we firmly defend fundamental values, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, abide by the principle of prohibiting the use of force except in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and respect human rights.
Realistically speaking, we also recognize that progress is often gradual, interests may diverge, and not all partners will share all our values.
Therefore, we participate in world affairs with a clear vision and a broad and strategic approach. We proactively confront the real world, rather than waiting for an ideal world to arrive.
We are calibrating our relationships to deeply reflect our values, while maximizing our influence through broad engagement in today's fluid and risky world.
We no longer rely solely on the power of values, but also on the value of strength itself.
We are building this strength domestically. Since this administration took office, we have cut personal income taxes, capital gains taxes, and corporate investment taxes; eliminated all federal-level interprovincial trade barriers; and accelerated $1 trillion in investment in areas such as energy, artificial intelligence, critical minerals, and new trade routes. We plan to double defense spending by the end of this decade, with a focus on strengthening our domestic industries. At the same time, we are rapidly diversifying our international presence.
We have established a comprehensive strategic partnership with the EU, including joining the European Defence Procurement Mechanism (SAFE), and signed 12 trade and security agreements across four continents within six months.
In the past few days, we have reached new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar, and are negotiating free trade agreements with India, ASEAN, Thailand, the Philippines, and Mercosur.
We are also doing something else: to address global issues, we are promoting “variable geometry,” which means forming different alliances on different issues based on shared values and interests. On the Ukraine issue, we are one of the core members of the “Voluntary Union” and one of the countries with the highest per capita defense and security spending.
On the issue of Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their unique right to decide Greenland's future.
Our commitment to NATO Article 5 remains unwavering, and we are therefore working with NATO allies, including the Nordic-Baltic Eight, to strengthen security on the northern and western flanks of the alliance, including unprecedented investments by Canada in over-the-horizon radar, submarines, aircraft, and ground forces—ice troops.
Canada firmly opposes imposing tariffs on Greenland and calls for targeted dialogue to achieve our shared goals of security and prosperity in the Arctic region.
In terms of multilateral trade, we are pushing to build bridges between the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and the European Union to create a new trade bloc covering 1.5 billion people and centered on key minerals.
We are building a “buyer’s club” based on the G7 to help the world break free from its dependence on highly centralized supply. In the field of artificial intelligence, we are working with like-minded democracies to ensure that we are not ultimately forced to choose between hegemonic powers and hyperscale platforms.
This is not naive multilateralism, nor is it simply relying on existing institutions. Rather, it involves building viable alliances with partners who share sufficient common ground, based on specific issues. In some cases, this will encompass the vast majority of countries in the world. Its aim is to construct a dense network of connections in areas such as trade, investment, and culture to address future challenges and opportunities.
Our view is that middle powers must act together, because if we are not at the negotiating table, we will end up on the menu.
I would also like to say that major powers still have the capacity to act independently. They possess market size, military capabilities, and leverage to exert pressure, which middle powers lack. However, when we engage in bilateral negotiations only with hegemonic powers, we are negotiating from a position of weakness, accepting whatever is given to us, and competing with each other to see who is more compliant.
This is not sovereignty, but rather the performance of sovereignty while accepting a subordinate status.
In a world of great power competition, nations caught in the middle face a choice: compete with each other for favor, or unite to forge a third path with real influence. We should not let the rise of hard power blind us to the power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules—which will remain formidable if we choose to apply them collectively.
This brings me back to Havel. What does "living in reality" mean for a middle power?
First, it means facing reality. Stop pretending that the "rules-based international order" is still functioning as portrayed in propaganda, and instead point out the truth: this is a system of escalating great power competition, where the strongest are using economic integration to exert coercion and pursue their own interests.
This means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and adversaries. While middle powers criticize economic coercion from one direction while remaining silent about the other, we continue to display our signs in the shop window.
This means building what we say we believe in, rather than waiting for the old order to return. It means establishing institutions and agreements that truly function as described, and reducing the leverage that makes coercion possible.
This means building a strong domestic economy—which should be a top priority for every government.
International diversification is not only an economic necessity, but also the material foundation for an honest foreign policy. Only by reducing its vulnerability to retaliation can a country be qualified to uphold its principles.
So, Canada. Canada has what the world needs. We are an energy superpower with vast reserves of critical minerals, one of the world’s most educated populations, and our pension fund is one of the world’s largest and most sophisticated investors. In other words, we have capital and talent. We also have a government with enormous financial capacity and the ability to act decisively, and values that many countries aspire to.
Canada is a well-functioning, diverse society. Our public spaces are vibrant, diverse, and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainable development. We are stable and reliable partners in a highly volatile world, partners who value and cultivate long-term relationships.
There's another point: we are aware of what is happening and determined to act accordingly. We understand that this disruption requires not only adaptation but also honesty with the real world.
We are taking the sign down from the shop window.
We know the old order is gone, and we should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy. But we believe that a greater, better, stronger, and more just order can be built from this rupture. This is the task of middle powers—those who have lost the most in a fortified world but have benefited the most from genuine cooperation.
The strong have their strength. But we also have our own strength: the ability to stop pretending, face reality, build domestic power, and act together.
This is the path Canada has chosen. We walk this path openly and confidently, and we welcome any country that wishes to join us.
Thank you very much everyone.
