Tag: cooperation

An Era Defining Speech

Click on image for photo credit.

Mark Carney’s Davos speech argues that the familiar story of a stable, rules-based international order has broken down, replaced by an era of intensified great power rivalry where economic interdependence is increasingly used as a tool of coercion. He warns that middle powers can no longer rely on comforting fictions, symbolic commitments, or inherited institutions for protection, and instead must adopt honesty about the world as it is. Drawing on Václav Havel’s idea of “living in truth”, he challenges countries and companies to stop performing compliance with systems they know are failing, and to act consistently with their stated values.

Carney proposes a path he calls values-based realism, combining principled commitment to sovereignty, human rights, and the rule of law with pragmatic engagement across a fragmented world. He argues that strategic autonomy is necessary, but that isolated national fortresses would leave everyone poorer and less secure. Instead, middle powers should cooperate through flexible coalitions, shared standards, and collective investment in resilience, creating practical alternatives to weakened global institutions.

He presents Canada as an example of this approach, outlining domestic reforms to strengthen economic capacity, major investments in defence, infrastructure, energy, AI, and critical minerals, and a deliberate strategy of diversifying international partnerships across regions and issues. Through variable coalitions on security, trade, technology, and climate, Canada seeks to increase its influence without subordination to any hegemon.

Carney’s core message is that middle powers still have agency. By naming reality, strengthening themselves at home, and acting together with integrity, they can help build a more honest, cooperative, and just international order rather than retreating into fear or nostalgia.

The Fragile World Order

The world order is changing at an alarming pace, and what’s at stake reaches far beyond any single conflict or crisis. The credibility of international law itself is under pressure, tested by actions that appear selective, self-serving, or indifferent to agreed norms. When rules are applied inconsistently, or bent to suit the interests of the powerful, law begins to look less like a shared framework for justice and more like a tool of convenience. That erosion doesn’t happen overnight, but once trust is weakened, it’s painfully hard to restore.

Alongside this, the authority of the United Nations is being steadily undermined when its resolutions are ignored, bypassed, or treated as optional. The UN was never perfect, but it was built on the conviction that dialogue, restraint, and collective decision-making were preferable to unilateral force. When states act as though multilateral institutions matter only when they deliver convenient outcomes, they hollow those institutions out from within, leaving little more than symbolism where substance once stood.

At the heart of the matter lies a vital principle, that no state, however powerful, can appoint itself as judge, jury, and enforcer of the world order. Power without accountability breeds resentment, instability, and, ultimately, resistance. If might replaces right as the organising logic of global affairs, smaller nations are left exposed, alliances fray, and cooperation gives way to fear and calculation.

If that principle collapses, so too does the fragile trust on which global cooperation depends. Climate action, humanitarian protection, arms control, and peace itself all rely on the belief that rules mean something, and that no one is above them. Once that belief is lost, the consequences will be felt everywhere, and for generations.

Bent Bananas and Broken Truths

For decades before the Brexit referendum, much of the right-wing UK tabloid press presented the EU as a hostile, meddling force, not by accident but because it suited their politics, profits, and power. The EU represented shared rules, social protections, and limits on deregulation, all of which clashed with a free-market, low-regulation worldview. Brussels was distant, complex, and unfamiliar, making it an ideal target for caricature and distortion.

Sensational stories about “bent bananas”, bans on British traditions, or faceless bureaucrats dictating daily life were easy to understand and emotionally charged. They sold newspapers, drove outrage, and encouraged loyalty by framing readers as victims of an external enemy. The truth, that EU regulations were often co-designed by UK ministers and benefited consumers and workers, was far less clickable.

There were also clear political incentives. Successive governments found it convenient to blame the EU for unpopular decisions while quietly supporting those same policies in Brussels. Tabloid owners, some with global business interests, often favoured weakening EU rules and cultivated close relationships with politicians who shared that goal. Over time, myth became narrative, and narrative became identity.

Crucially, accountability was weak. Inaccurate stories were rarely corrected with equal prominence, and the EU itself was poor at explaining its role in plain, human terms. Journalists who challenged the myths were dismissed as elitist or unpatriotic. By the time of the referendum, decades of repetition had embedded a sense of grievance and mistrust so deeply that facts alone struggled to compete with emotion, nostalgia, and a carefully nurtured story of lost sovereignty.