Headings have been added for easier reading.
The end of the old order
It seems that every day we’re reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry—that the rules-based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.
And this aphorism of Thucydides is presented as inevitable, as the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself. And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along, get along to accommodate, to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety.
Well, it won’t. So what are our options?
In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel, later president, wrote an essay called “The Power of the Powerless,” and in it he asked a simple question: how did the communist system sustain itself?
And his answer began with a greengrocer.
Every morning, the shopkeeper places a sign in his window: “Workers of the world, unite!” He doesn’t believe in it. No one does. But he places the sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persists—not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.
Havel called this living within a lie. The system’s power comes not from its truth, but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true. And its fragility comes from the same source. When even one person stops performing, when the greengrocer removes his sign, the illusion begins to crack.
Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.
It seems to be such an interesting choice for PM Carney to find the time, within an otherwise mostly decently written speech, to incorporate jabs at communism.
While he is willing to “stand up” to Trump’s Imperialist America, it is clear he has no intention of changing (or even reforming) the current system’s inefficiencies.
The fiction of the “rules-based order”
For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically, and we knew that international law applied with varied rigour, depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
This fiction was useful, and American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
After so many years, Canada has finally admitted something we have known since the Cold War.
The “international rules-based order” has always been a fiction useful to Western and American imperialism, and its rules have historically not been applied to powerful oppressors equally (if at all).
So we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.
This bargain no longer works.
Weaponized interdependence and the crisis of multilateral institutions
Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.
Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.
You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.
The multilateral institutions on which the middle powers have relied—the WTO, the UN, the COP, the very architecture of collective problem-solving—are under threat. As a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions that they must develop greater strategic autonomy in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains. And this impulse is understandable.
Carney fails to realize that these institutions are not under threat; they are themselves the threat.
NATO and the UN, especially, have been instrumentalized by Western powers, such as—but not only—by Imperialist America, as weapons against the East and Global South.
“On January 14, Israeli forces stormed into an UNRWA health centre in East Jerusalem and ordered it to close.” Yet beyond a weak condemnation and labelling it a “wake-up-call” by Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzaroni, no tangible action was taken to my knowledge.
To add, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has long been criticized for its veto power, which has always been a consistent barrier to free and fair voting (a cornerstone of the so-called “democratic principles” the UN claims to uphold, though they are not a “democratic institution” officially) as it wholly ignores the will of the General Assembly.
A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.
As of November 2025, “the number of people using food banks to fill the fridge [in Canada] has doubled since 2019.” As an economist, it is unsurprising to see Carney viewing the State as the “country” rather than the People—the workers—who form it.
The dangers of “fortress” economies and isolationism
But let’s be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable.
And there’s another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate.
Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships. Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. They’ll buy insurance, increase options in order to rebuild sovereignty—sovereignty that was once grounded in rules but will increasingly be anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.
Interesting words coming from a “democratic” economist, but I digress.
This room knows this is classic risk management. Risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortresses. Shared standards reduce fragmentations. Complementarities are positive sum.
The question for middle powers like Canada is not whether to adapt to the new reality—we must.
The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls, or whether we can do something more ambitious.
Canada’s new strategic posture
Now, Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture. Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumptions that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security, that assumption is no longer valid. And our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb, the president of Finland, has termed value-based realism.
Or, to put it another way, we aim to be both principled and pragmatic. Principled in our commitment to fundamental values, sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter and respect for human rights.
And pragmatic in recognizing that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner will share all of our values.
So we’re engaging broadly, strategically, with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait around for a world we wish to be.
We are calibrating our relationships so their depth reflects our values, and we’re prioritizing broad engagement to maximize our influence, given the fluidity of the world at the moment, the risks that this poses and the stakes for what comes next.
And we are no longer just relying on the strength of our values, but also the value of our strength.
On this note, I will offer slight praise for Carney’s decision to rebuild diplomatic-economic relations with China. The right-leaning Canadian news outlet National Post has reported that the trade deal is “already paying off.”
Domestic strength as the foundation of foreign policy
We are building that strength at home. Since my government took office, we have cut taxes on incomes, on capital gains and business investment. We have removed all federal barriers to interprovincial trade. We are fast-tracking $1 trillion of investments in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors and beyond. We’re doubling our defense spending by the end of this decade, and we’re doing so in ways that build our domestic industries. And we are rapidly diversifying abroad.
Doubling defense spending is a choice that requires caution.
It is worth noting, as well, that Canada has also deported “a record number [19,000] of foreign nationals in 2025,” primarily made up of asylum seekers, despite Canada itself being stolen land, just like Imperialist America.
Global partnerships and issue-specific coalitions
We’ve agreed to a comprehensive strategic partnership with the EU, including joining SAFE, the European defense procurement arrangements. We have signed 12 other trade and security deals on four continents in six months.
In the past few days, we’ve concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar. We’re negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines, and Mercosur.
We’re doing something else: to help solve global problems, we’re pursuing variable geometry. In other words, different coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests. So on Ukraine, we’re a core member of the Coalition of the Willing and one of the largest per capita contributors to its defense and security.
Unsurprisingly, Canada, much like most other Western countries, continues to fund Ukraine despite the conflict being a proxy war between NATO/the West and Russia/the East.
On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland’s future.
Where was this resolve when Venezuela was attacked?
Unlike China and Russia, both of whom condemned the attacks and called for elected President Nicolás Maduro’s return, Carney met with and expressed support for opposition leader María Corina Machado, viewing the attack as an exploitable opportunity to “bring democracy.”
Our commitment to NATO’s Article 5 is unwavering, so we’re working with our NATO allies, including the Nordic-Baltic Eight, to further secure the alliance’s northern and western flanks, including through Canada’s unprecedented investments in over-the-horizon radar, in submarines, in aircraft, and boots on the ground—boots on the ice.
Canada strongly opposes tariffs over Greenland and calls for focused talks to achieve our shared objectives of security and prosperity in the Arctic.
On plurilateral trade, we’re championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the European Union, which would create a new trading bloc of 1.5 billion people.
On critical minerals, we’re forming buyer’s clubs anchored in the G7 so the world can diversify away from concentrated supply. And on AI, we’re co-operating with like-minded democracies to ensure that we won’t ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyperscalers.
“Middle powers” must act together
This is not naïve multilateralism, nor is it relying on their institutions. It’s building coalitions that work issue by issue with partners who share enough common ground to act together. In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations. What it’s doing is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities.
Our view is the middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.
But I’d also say that great powers can afford, for now, to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not. But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what’s offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.
Ironically, Carney has pointed out the weakness of capitalism’s push for individuality, pitting the oppressed (in this case, “middle powers”) against each other, rather than against their oppressors (in this case, the “great powers”).
This is not sovereignty. It’s the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.
In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favour, or combine to create a third path with impact. We shouldn’t allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong if we choose to wield it together.
What should Canada and other “middle powers” do?
Which brings me back to Havel. What does it mean for middle powers to live the truth?
First, it means naming reality. Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is: a system of intensifying great power rivalry where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as coercion.
It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.
Speech and action must align. Carney has yet to condemn Imperialist America’s attacks on Venezuela, choosing to stay silent and, ironically, invoking “international law.”
It means building what we claim to believe in, rather than waiting for the old order to be restored. It means creating institutions and agreements that function as described, and it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion.
That’s building a strong domestic economy. It should be every government’s immediate priority.
And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence; it’s a material foundation for honest foreign policy, because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.
So, Canada. Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are amongst the world’s largest and most sophisticated investors. In other words, we have capital talent. We also have a government with immense fiscal capacity to act decisively. And we have the values to which many others aspire.
Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse, and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability. We are a stable and reliable partner in a world that is anything but, a partner that builds and values relationships for the long term.
Canada’s proposed Bill C-9 has been opposed by faith leaders and activists alike for going against the ability to be “loud, diverse, and free.”
And we have something else: we have a recognition of what’s happening and determination to act accordingly. We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is.
We are taking the sign out of the window.
We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn’t mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fracture we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just. This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from genuine co-operation.
The powerful have their power. But we have something too: the capacity to stop pretending, to name realities, to build our strength at home and to act together.
That is Canada’s path. We choose it openly and confidently, and it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.
Thank you very much.
This transcript of PM Carney's speech provides valuable insight into Canada's approach to navigating the current shift in global power dynamics. The emphasis on 'middle powers' finding their voice amid great power rivalry is particularly timely. The reference to Thucydides and the tension between the rules-based order and realpolitik framing raises crucial questions about how nations like Canada can maintain sovereignty while dealing with larger economic and military powers. Would be interested to hear more analysis on the practical policy implications of this positioning.