By Steven van Hoogstraten
The annual gathering of business and political leaders in Davos was, more than in other years, a spectacle not easy to forget. The larger-than-life presence of the President of the USA explained this to a high degree. His territorial claim on the coasts and the minerals of Danish Greenland, which he described as vital for US security infrastructure, provided a focus like never before. Against that background, Davos was no longer the scenery of business leaders trying to contribute to a new and sustainable world order, but rather political leaders witnessing the world legal order—the famous rules-based society—on a downward path.
From the various speeches, a few were more than a bit noteworthy in the context of tense international relations in the Western Hemisphere. Government leaders depicted the situation of the moment in a colourful and urgent way. French President Macron managed to attract considerable attention with his stern words in defence of multilateralism and European cooperation—slow, rules-based, and predictable. His plea for European economic sovereignty has, by now, become familiar. He showed deep concern about a world order based on the law of the strongest: “nous basculons vers un monde sans règles où le droit international est piétiné et où la loi du plus fort tend à s’imposer.” Macron’s presence was underscored by his typical pilote-style sunglasses, which he needed due to an eye problem and which became the talk of the town.
Most impressive, without a doubt, was Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who received a standing ovation after finishing his speech. Carney spoke of “a rupture, not a transition, of the world order,” originating with the great powers that do not play by the rules of the rules-based international society. That international legal order—in his view—no longer exists. “It is 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.” We played along, Carney said, but we knew it was not true, and even partly false. “We are a middle power; the rules no longer protect us. The great powers do whatever they like,” said the Canadian Prime Minister in a very convincing, matter-of-fact way.
He called for cooperation among middle and smaller nations: “Strategic autonomy for middle powers can be shared, starting from a value-based sovereignty.” Great powers can go it alone; middle powers should reduce their vulnerability by working together. In this connection, he stated that Canada is stable and reliable, with a strong economy and solid internal governance. “The old order is not coming back,” he emphasized. We have to take the sign out of the window; we simply do not believe it anymore.
“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 the territorial integrity of states.” It seems that every day we are reminded that we live in an era of great-power rivalry and that the rules-based order is fading. Canada encourages small and middle powers to adapt as they face a rupture in global systems. This new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb (Prime Minister of Finland) has termed “value-based realism,” or, put another way, the aim to be both principled and pragmatic. Principled is our commitment to fundamental values: the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter, and respect for human rights. “So stop invoking the 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.”
He continued: “We know the old order is not coming back; we should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy. The powerful have their power; we have something too—the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home, and to act together.”
Note: These remarks were taken from the oral presentation and the written text of this remarkable speech by Mark Carney. Of course, not all elements of what he said could find a place in this summary.
Profiles in Courage
When I made a trip to the USA at a time when I was still a civil servant for the Dutch government (mid-1980s), I came across a small booklet written by Senator John F. Kennedy, even before his presidency of the USA. This booklet, Profiles in Courage (1956), discusses several landmark speeches made by American leaders—speeches that somehow changed the prevailing perspective of their time. It includes, for instance, the call by Senator Lucius Lamar from Mississippi, which aimed at reconciliation between North and South shortly after the end of the devastating American Civil War (1865).
This speech by Mark Carney in Davos would have deserved a place in that book if it were written today, because it demands nothing less than personal courage and conviction to speak in this way about—inter alia—one’s big and powerful neighbour to the south, without citing the name of that neighbour even once.
On the particular qualification of a “rupture” of the world order itself, I would like to remind us that the UN is the depositary of some 560 international treaties, and that while the UN may be going through a difficult time, it is still functioning in many respects. “Rupture,” therefore, is a strong term, perhaps more political than juridical in meaning. Nevertheless, it was a great and impressive speech that left a significant mark. It rang a bell.
