Carney Come Lately |
Get audio access with any FP subscription.
Subscribe Now
ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney arrived in Davos, Switzerland, with momentum. His speech at the World Economic Forum on Tuesday drew rave reviews because it said plainly what many leaders have avoided: The world has not eased into a new phase. It has ruptured. Constraints are weakening. Coercion is normalizing. The old language is starting to sound like theater.
The timing mattered, too. Carney did not come to Davos only from Ottawa. He came via Beijing, where Canada had just concluded a new “strategic partnership” with China. That diplomatic prelude gave his Davos message a different weight. Canada was not merely describing a harsher world. It was adjusting to one.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney arrived in Davos, Switzerland, with momentum. His speech at the World Economic Forum on Tuesday drew rave reviews because it said plainly what many leaders have avoided: The world has not eased into a new phase. It has ruptured. Constraints are weakening. Coercion is normalizing. The old language is starting to sound like theater.
The timing mattered, too. Carney did not come to Davos only from Ottawa. He came via Beijing, where Canada had just concluded a new “strategic partnership” with China. That diplomatic prelude gave his Davos message a different weight. Canada was not merely describing a harsher world. It was adjusting to one.
Carney called the rules-based international order a “pleasant fiction,” warned that major powers were increasingly acting as if they faced “no constraints,” and rejected the hope that compliance would buy safety. His message was blunt—and persuasive.
Yet there is a problem at the heart of his speech. It is not that Carney is wrong. It is that he is late—and lateness shapes credibility.
Carney framed his appeal around “middle powers,” countries that cannot dictate global outcomes but can pool leverage and build coalitions. It is an attractive image but an increasingly imprecise category. In a world structured by China-U.S. rivalry, “middle power” risks becoming shorthand for almost everyone outside the two poles: states that are not writing the rules yet can be made to live with outcomes they did not choose.
The more useful question is not whether a country is “middle” but how much agency it retains—how much latitude it has to hinge between the rival........