Who Benefits From a New World Order?

Photo via the New York Times by Markus Schreiber of Associated Press

***

During the 2026 World Economic Forum (WEF), Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called for a coalition of middle-powers who, rather than waiting for the rules-based order to be restored, create new agreements that facilitate the international community and mutual development as opposed to submission. The WEF, an institution dedicated to “private-public cooperation,” allowed Carney to indirectly respond to Trump’s claim over Greenland, as well as retaliatory tariffs which have effectively pushed some of America’s greatest allies (such as Canada) to the side. According to Carney, the era of middle-power sacrifice to sustain an American unipolar-led era of peace has effectively come to an end under the Trump administration. 

In his speech, Carney addresses the rules-based international order, which he describes as the United States “recruiting followers” over the past eighty years to cultivate “an unprecedented preponderance” of economic, political, and military power.  Following WWII, the Great Powers (including the U.S.) facilitated an international framework that promised to cultivate international peace, security, and cooperation under their guidance. International leadership became even more concentrated on the U.S. throughout the Cold War, as the U.S.’s economic and military dominance (largely untouched by WWII) allowed it to usher in an era of peace and stability for its allies on its terms.

Middle powers, such as Canada, were key components in maintaining and facilitating this rules-based order. Their subscription to international law and obedience to the U.S. and the UN Charter, although not without compromise, did offer stability and prosperity. Following D.C.’s lead fostered trade and mutual security agreements (e.g., the Marshall Plan and NATO) after a prolonged period of instability and global conflict in the twentieth century. However, the rules-based system within international relations that is intended to usher in peace crumbles when 1) Great Powers weaponize their dominance against their own allies to achieve their political goals, and/or 2) when nations criticize the lawless behavior of rival powers while ignoring the behavior of themselves and their allies, effectively diminishing the rule of law. 

As beneficial globalization has been in the past, when vast amounts of power are concentrated in the hands of a hegemon, it leaves room for said nation to pursue its interests using economic integration as coercion. This has been made abundantly clear following the Trump administration’s tariff war on the European Union and Canada. This escalation of the EU’s affirmation of Greenland’s sovereignty and the Trump administration’s use of retaliatory tariffs to push its proposed national security strategy has rapidly isolated the U.S. from its former European allies. In the western hemisphere, accused of endangering American interests, Canada has also faced significant tariffs, which have soured the long-term relationship between the two nations. These policies damage the American economy through diminishing trade volumes while simultaneously dwindling trust and support in the United States, forcing our greatest allies to form relationships with our competitors.

To emphasize this emerging coalition not just as an economic realignment but as a moral response to the current instability in the West, Carney refers to the former President of the Czech Republic, Václav Havel’s essay, The Power of the Powerless.

In the essay, Havel attempts to answer the question of how communism in Eastern Europe, riddled with oppression, sustained itself. He describes a shop owner routinely placing a sign in his window which reads “workers of the world unite.” Although the shop owner’s personal beliefs conflicted with the message and the policies supported by the sign, he and the rest of the shopkeepers continued to place it in the window every morning in persistent compliance so there could be peace; therefore, the system, which they neither agree with nor benefit from, persists. However, as both Havel and Carney make abundantly clear, obedience in a system that exploits you does not bring long-term peace nor calm—it only advances stagnation, fragility, and submission. 

Carney calls on nations to “take their signs down,” confront the illusion of peace under a greater power, and strive for honesty rather than waiting for countries such as the U.S. to uphold the rules-based order. Collectively, he claims, “the power of the less powerful” begins with “not naive multilateralism, nor relying on their institutions, it’s building coalitions that work. Issue by issue with partners who share enough common ground to act together.” 

Without a doubt, the current Trump administration’s foreign policy has made waves throughout the international system, challenging peace, relationships, and stability. Does this mean Carney’s plan for a coalition of middle-powers grounded in sovereignty, accountability, and collaboration rather than subordination can effectively replace the stability once provided by a hegemon? Or is it possible that the world needs a leader to sustain peace among the middle-powers? 

***

This article was edited by Simon Shalett and Cynthia Duchitanga.