Mark Carney's speech at Davos

vegansrock

Yes refreshing to hear an articulate, eloquent speech. And nice to see a well groomed attractive man in politics ( yes I know that’s shallow) . Basically he was saying don’t put all your eggs in one basket in a forceful and convincing way.

Blimey vegansrock I find myself agreeing with you 🙀

It's great to be able to actually listen to a political speech.

Yes refreshing to hear an articulate, eloquent speech. And nice to see a well groomed attractive man in politics ( yes I know that’s shallow) . Basically he was saying don’t put all your eggs in one basket in a forceful and convincing way.

This Canadian applauds our prime minister for his speech.He did our country proud. Just hope it hasn’t annoyed Trump so much that he will retaliate in his spiteful way.

Galaxy

I am glad it made you happier.

Thank you, happy is not a word I'd use to describe my feelings, more hopeful is probably closer but I'm also realistic!

Carney comes over as an intelligent, experienced statesman. A grown up!

I am glad it made you happier.

👍

I'm not a member of the "chattering classes" described in Embery's tweet, just a rather elderly woman who cares about the world we live in and who is appalled by the way Trump has set about wrecking so much that has given the world some sense of order, however imperfect that world may be. Using Havel's greengrocer analogy was a very apt introduction to his speech and the perfect antidote to Trump's assertion that those with power can subordinate those with less power, getting a standing ovation from the audience at Davos was a tiny but important step in changing mindsets.

Galaxy

Crikey I am rarely successful at linking on this phone.
I don't care what anyone says now, that ability has made me happy

Link, even though to X, much appreciated. Thanks, Galaxy

Yes, and I think his strength in standing up to Trump and the enthusiasm his speech created went a good way towards Trump backing down.

Trump is the naked emperor.

I read Mark Carney's speech yesterday and thought he demonstrated powerful leadership. It struck a nerve with Trump- who retaliated later to Carney, in his own speech in a childish, petulant way... Trump also seemingly backed down on Tariff retaliation and using force in Greenland. Did Carney's speech on the Davos world stage have any impact on Trump's advisors such as they advised Trump to tone down his rhetoric and actions- maybe...

Carney has had a long standing career as an economist and central banker speaking beside business leaders and political elite on the world stage of global thinkers and multinational institutions. He articulates and stands up for the values of international co operation and the need for shared rules and open economies. Trump threatens that and Carney holds no fear whatsoever in standing up for his values and beliefs, on the world stage, towards Trump, in a measured articulate way. In sharp contrast to Trump.

I applaud Carney for leading the way.

Of course IL has failed in these particular cases, but it has proven very useful and successful in many other areas.

Human rights has been upheld, particularly in the west.

The Antarctic and artic has largely been protected.

Every day large states abide by IL when dealing with smaller states.

Disputes are largely resolved through IL rather than by force.

Don’t dismiss IL as something that is merely a concept and not something that oils our diplomatic wheels every single day.

Crikey I am rarely successful at linking on this phone.
I don't care what anyone says now, that ability has made me happy

x.com/i/status/2013945421270589655

I don't agree that it is a recent failure, as I said on a previous thread the concept of international law has been just that ( a concept) for years.
Iraq
Ukraine
What consequences were there? If you can't enforce a law it is meaningless.

Wasn't Paul Embery a very vocal Brexit supporter? Not sure he would have many points of agreement with Mark Carney.

@Galaxy

A link to what Paue Embery said about Carney's speech would be very helpful.

Otherwise, I'm none the wiser as to what you are criticising.

Sorry if it drives people mad - the transcript - but I assume you scrolled past it☺️.

I think the idea of middle powers working together has merit, but I keep going back to the fact that we had a rules based order that stood us in good stead for 80 years.

Ok it has failed recently, but unless we have some sort of rule how on earth can the middling countries, hope to survive without forming strong coalitions like the EU?

MaizieD, you are a star. Thanks.

I have copied Carney’s speech, as if we want to debate it it is good to have it in front of us all☺️

Today, I'll talk about the rupture in the world order, the end of a nice story and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints.
But I also submit to you that other countries, particularly middle powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that embodies our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.
The power of the less powerful begins with honesty.

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.

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 to get along. To accommodate. To avoid trouble. To hope that compliance will buy safety.

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, this shopkeeper places a sign in his window: "Workers of the world, unite!" He doesn't believe 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.

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 varying 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.

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.

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 middle powers have relied — the WTO, the UN, the COP — the very architecture of collective problem solving, are under threat.

And 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. 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.

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 be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.

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 fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum.

And 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 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 has termed "values-based realism" — or, to put another way, we aim to be principled and pragmatic.

Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter and respect for human rights.”

Carney then talks about Canada and various achievments

Middle powers must act together'

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.

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 to 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 them together.

Which brings me back to Havel.

What would 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 a weapon of 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.

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. Building a strong domestic economy should always be every government's immediate priority. And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence — it is the material foundation for honest foreign policy. Because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.

GrannyGravy13

I didn’t hear Mr Carney’s entire speech, but I imagine he has the ability to read the room and tell the audience what they want to hear.

Only at the end of his tenure of office will the Canadians and the rest of us know how good he has been in his position.

This of course applies to all leaders, they are either remembered for the enormous cock-ups as opposed to quiet diplomacy and avoiding the inevitable pitfalls of office.

The speech is far more than that GG13. If you can track down the transcript it is well worth a read. It is measured, thoughtful, coherent and based on understanding of the current geopolitical situation and what is needed to help ensure political stability in the current climate.
I can see no resemblance to populism.

"I have heard clips where he acknowledges that the world could be seeing the decline of Globalisation"

That's not the same as him saying that is what he wants to pursue, this is what Trump is wanting not Carney!

I have read the speech.

To be fair I am not sure my dismissal will be that disappointing for everyone, I think people will cope.