Sunday January 25th 2026 by SocraticDev
Im gonna start in french and then I'll switch back to english.
Merci Larry. C'est un plaisir, c'est un devoir d'être parmi vous en ce point tournant pour le Canada et pour le monde. Et je parlerai aujourd'hui de la rupture de l'ordre mondial. De la fin d'une fiction agréable et du début d'une réalité brutale où la géopolitique des grandes puissances n'est soumise à aucune contrainte.
Mais je vous soumets par ailleurs que les autres pays, en particulier les puissances moyennes comme le Canada, ne sont pas impuissantes.
Ils possèdent la capacité de construire un nouvel ordre qui intègre nos valeurs comme le respect des droits humains, le développement durable, la solidarité, la souveraineté et l'intégrité territoriale des États. La puissance des moins puissants commence par l'honnêteté.
[socdev's translation: Thank you Larry. It is a pleasure and a duty to be with
you for this turning point for Canada and for the world. Today I'm gonna be
talking about the rupture of the world order. About the end of a comfortable
fiction and about the beginning of a brutal reality where the geopolitics of
the great powers is bounded by any constraints. But I'll propose
nevertheless that other countries, specifically the middle powers like Canada,
are not powerless. They are capable of building a new order interwoven by our
values like the respect of human rights, sustainable development, solidarity,
sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the States. The power of the less
powerful begins with honesty.]
switching back to english
It seems like every day we are reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules-based order is fading. That
"the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must"
[note: The Melian Dialogue by the Greek historian Thucydides recounts how Athens, the European hegemonic power at the time, took possession of a small island in the Cyclades. It is a classic of ancient literature often studied in political philosophy, argumentation theory, and philosophical anthropology. Though the Melians had ancestral ties to Sparta, they were neutral in the war. Athens invaded Melos in the summer of 416 BC and demanded that the Melians surrender and pay tribute to Athens or face annihilation. The Melians refused, so the Athenians laid siege to their city. Melos surrendered in the winter, and the Athenians executed the men of Melos and enslaved the women and children.(Wikipedia)]
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. In it, he asked a simple question: how did the communist system sustain itself? 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 believes it. 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. For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, praised its principles, and 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 began 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 relied, the WTO — 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. 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 us be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable. And there is another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretence 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. This rebuilds sovereignty—sovereignty which was once grounded in rules—but which 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 fortress. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum. The question for middle powers, like Canada, is not whether to adapt to this new reality. We must. The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls — or whether we can do something more ambitious.
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 is no longer valid. Our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb has termed ‘values-based realism’ — or, to put it another way, we aim to be both 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, the respect for human rights.
Pragmatic in recognising that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner will share all of our values. So we are engaging broadly, strategically, with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait around for the world as we wish it to be. Canada is calibrating our relationships, so their depth reflects our values. And we are prioritising broad engagement to maximise 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 on the value of our strength. 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, and we are fast-tracking a trillion dollars of investments in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors, and beyond. We are doubling our defence spending by the end of this decade [2020-2030] and we are doing so in ways that build our domestic industries. And we are rapidly diversifying abroad. We have agreed a comprehensive strategic partnership with the EU [European Union], including joining SAFE [PESCO?], the European’s defence procurement arrangements. We have signed twelve other trade and security deals on four continents in six months.
In the past few days, we have concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar. We are negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines, and Mercosur. We are doing something else. To help solve global problems, we are pursuing variable geometry, in other words, different coalitions for different issues, based on common values and interests.
So on Ukraine, we are a core member of the Coalition of the Willing and one of the largest per-capita contributors to its defence and security.
On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland’s future [applause]. Our commitment to Article 5 is unwavering. So we are 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 are championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the European Union, which would create a new trading block of 1.5 billion people.
On critical minerals, we are forming buyer’s clubs anchored in the G7 so that the world can diversify away from concentrated supply. And on AI, we are cooperating with like-minded democracies to ensure we will not ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyperscalers.
This is not naive multilateralism. Nor is it relying on their institutions. It is building the 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 it is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities.
[I ]Argue [that] the middle powers must act together because if we are not at the table, we are on the menu [laughs]. 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 is offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating. This is not sovereignty. It is the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.
In a world of great powers rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: to compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact. We should not 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.
Which brings me back to Havel.
What does it mean for middle powers to “live the truth”?
First it means naming reality. 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 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. That is building a strong domestic economy should always be every government’s 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 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 the 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. And we have something else: a recognition of what is happening and a 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 should not mourn it.
Nostalgia is not a strategy. But we believe that from the fracture, we can build something bigger, better, stronger, and 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 cooperation.
The powerful have their power. But we have something too — the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, 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.
sources
Canada ‘strongly opposes’ tariffs over Greenland, won’t waver on Article 5: Carney
