The Current - Carney got a standing ovation for his Davos speech. Now what?

Episode Date: January 22, 2026

Prime Minister Mark Carney's speech warning middle powers that "if you are not on the table, you are on the menu," drew a rebuke from U.S. President Donald Trump. If, as Carney predicted, the old order is not coming back, what's next for Canada, Europe and the rest of the world?

All right, picture this as your childhood. You live in New York. Your dad is a famous jazz musician and you have your own TV show. That was the life of Nat and Alex Wolfe. They grew up starring in a show called The Naked Brothers Band. On Q with Tom Power, Nat and Alex Wolf will tell you how the fame they experienced wasn't always pretty and how they're reflecting on this unusual life for their new record. I'm Tali O'SLenger, guest hosting while Tom is away. You can hear that conversation with Nat and Alex Wolf on cue with Tom Power wherever you get your podcast. Podcasts. This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Matt Galloway, and this is the current podcast. 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. Well, it won't. That blunt warning is just part of the speech Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He said the world order that we have known for decades is gone.

It's not coming back. And he called on middle powers, like Canada, to stand together in the face of countries weaponizing their economic might against them. He did not single out the United States or Donald Trump by name, but the message was clear. And yesterday, Trump fired back. We're building the Golden Dome that's going to, just by its very nature,

going to be defending Canada. Canada gets a lot of freebies from us. by the way, they should be grateful also, but then not. I watch your Prime Minister yesterday. He wasn't so grateful. But they should be grateful to us. Canada. Canada lives because of the United States.

Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements. We have three people with us now to talk about what impact Prime Minister Mark Carney's statements might have. Roland Paris is director of the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, former foreign policy advisor to Justin Trudeau. Louise Blay is a former Canadian diplomat who served in the United Nations and at the United Nations and served in the United States. And Thorsten Benner is co-founder and director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin. Good morning, everyone.

Good morning. Roland, as I said, this was a landmark speech. Made headlines around the world, people, the BBC and others calling it the Carney doctrine. Was this the right speech for Mark Carney to make at this moment? Well, it certainly struck accord. He was able to articulate what a lot of people have been thinking, but maybe hadn't quite put together. Remember that for the last year, many countries, most countries have been scrambling to try and deal with the Trump administration to get favorable deals with the Trump administration, rushing to the Oval Office when he came into office, hoping that by striking a deal that they could stabilize that relationship, relationship going forward. And I think there's a recognition that was really reinforced by the Greenland episode that that strategy has not been producing results because Trump keeps on pushing. What stood out to you specifically from the speech? Because Mark Carney has said some of these things before.

Obviously, the venue is different. It was more pointed and the context to your point is different as well. But what stood out to you specifically in what he said. I think you're right. He has said many of these things before. One thing that stood out was his analysis of how the system used to work and why it's not working anymore, which was very sophisticated. But I think more to the point, it was really a call for resistance. You know, you played that clip. Compliance will not buy safety. That's a very, very strong statement and also a call for middle powers to work together. It's not at all clear the degree to which many middle powers or even Mark Carney himself is really willing to act upon that advice. Just the last point on this before we get to our other guests, Roland, is who do you think the speech was for?

Was it for us here in Canada or was it for the world? I think it was for both, like most foreign policy speeches that prime ministers give abroad. But I think it was partly as a way of reinforced. a kind of link between Canada and our European allies. That was, I think, the 10th visit Mark Carney has made to Europe since he became prime minister. So this is about making common cause with allies that we're seeking to deepen partnerships with.

I think it was a message to Donald Trump and to the United States. And I think it was also a message to Canadians. Like, this is how we should be thinking about the world going forward. It was a very, very bracing message. Louise, as I said, the speech did not name Donald Trump. but it didn't have to in some ways. Donald Trump responded, Canada lives because of the United States.

Are you concerned about blowback here? Well, yes. I think the real risk is no longer about confrontation, but about marginalization for Canada. We really must avoid inviting pressures and also being treated either as an annoyance, a peon by the world power or worst or risk to be minimized by other nations.

And so I agree with Roland that what the prime minister said, there was a lot of truth to it. The part that I felt sounded a dissonant to me was that it was, the prime minister seemed to say that the system was always rigged against middle powers as opposed to recently change. So it wasn't only about Donald Trump. It was really about the reality out there. But what worries me, and I think we've known this, but what worries me is there is a credibility gap between our ambitions. of what he says the future should look like for Canada and our ability to withstand pressure until we get there. We need more time.

We need more mobilization at home in order to make those ambitions real. So I think for us, for Canada, actions first, words later, would probably be a safer strategy. So I worry about that a little bit. And as you saw just in closing, the prime minister gave a speech. Then the president came in. and what I saw is a warm reception of the president in Europe. I mean, there was not a whole lot of pushback.

You know, he did say that he was not going to use force on Greenland. He did. The Europeans are still looking for a way to make things work with them. And as of today, they seem to have found a path forward. Where does that leave Canada? Thorsten, you said on X, this was the best speech in terms of what the present moment means for middle powers. and what it means to stop living a lie. What is the lie that you're referring to?

I mean, the lie is this narrative about the liberal or so-called rules-based international order that it has always been fair for everyone. And I think unlike what you said, Louise, I don't think Mr. Carney meant to imply it wasn't good for middle powers like Canada. Actually, middle powers like Canada or Germany, we thrived in that order. and we were fine with the inbuilt hypocrisy. It was for countries of the non-west of the so-called global south, who always felt that this was an order of double standards.

We lived with it quite well. And so where are we at now? I mean, I talked about this speech getting headlines around the world. The other headlines are that apparently there is some sort of deal coming together, a framework of a deal over Greenland. Donald Trump has dropped his threat to impose these terrorists. on a number of European countries because they opposed what he wanted to do with Greenland. As you understand, Thorstein, what is this deal about?

It's a non-deal. It's a fiction of a deal. I mean, actually, the results of Davos on that front are pretty uplifting. I mean, Carney's speech is a call to arms for middle powers to not just give in to bullies. And those bullies are not just the U.S., but also China. And here's the credibility gap in Carney's. speech and we can come to that later. I think it's a fundamental problem of his approach,

but it is a roaring success of the opponents of the Greenland invasion in the US, the markets and Europeans that actually said like this is a red line. We will not give up our solidarity with Greenland and Denmark.

And what Trump did is climb down that tree and he invented he said like a concept of a plan. And I don't think it's anything more in effect than what the U.S. was always able to do in Greenland under the agreement they had since the 50s. Roland, what does that concept of a plan mean for Canada?

It's interesting that Mark Carney gave his speech on the same day that Donald Trump shares on social media, this doctored up image of Canada, the United States, Venezuela, and Greenland under the U.S. flag. Well, I agree with Torsin. I think that, you know, nobody knows what's in this point. plan, but the broader context here is that Trump has backed down for now. And it is, I think, an indication, a lesson, a reminder that he does bend when facing mounting resistance. And there's no question there was, this was a tipping point within a European discussion, as Torsten knows better

than I do. And there was mounting resistance. And just as Trump seems to become emboldened when he sense is weakness. And that is part of the message for Mark Carney that, you know, the importance of compliance, not buying safety, but the question remains to what degree are individual middle powers willing to resist the United States and how are they going to coordinate their efforts? Those are two huge questions. The PWHL is back for the third season of heart-stopping women's hockey. And this season, there are two new teams looking to make their mark on the island. The Seattle Torrent and Vancouver Golden Eyes.

When the world's best women's hockey players face off, anything can happen. Will the Minnesota Frost achieve a three-beat? Will a new team take home the trophy? There's only one way to find out. Watch the PWH for free on CBCJ. Let me come back to that. Louise, how much good, and I mean whether Donald Trump bent on resistance or on the market's tanking, How much good does diplomacy do if so much seems to depend on the whims of one person?

Well, this is why diplomacy is so important and why you have to keep communications line open. You've got to keep a good relationship with Donald Trump as much as possible because you've got to be able to have those conversations. So it does matter. And I think antagonizing him, especially publicly, has a price. and we have to be willing to pay it. Are we willing to pay it? And we have USMCA on the table this year, and we must avoid it becoming an al-a-carqueh menu.

We've got to be able to get that deal renewed and across the line. It is the core of our economic prosperity is based on that. That has to be priority number one. And in order to do that, we've got to keep them at the table. And we have shown exactly, as we've just been discussing, we can affect his thinking.

There are ways in which he, and he has maintained very good relationships with a lot of European leader. I think with Emmanuel Macron, the relationship has gotten a little tenser. But there's a lot of leaders there that are able to resist, yes, but gently resist and talk to him

and bring him to give him a win, some sort of a win at another level. So we've got to keep the ability to do that. That has to be our priority number one. Thornton, is there an appetite for resistance in Europe right now? I mean, again, the speech made a lot of headlines and people said, this is a doctrine. This perhaps is a way forward. But practically, within the leadership of European unions, is there that appetite for resistance?

Not appetite for resistance in a kind of escalatory, reckless type of way. But for building counterpower, I think that really resonated to bullies. And I think we're at the mercy of both, you know, the U.S. president and the Chinese chairman Xi, who both use economic coercion to us. And there's a real resonance in our debates what we need to do in order to counter that. And that middle powers can and should cooperate. But I think maybe it's less of them. And I think that's an important point.

I mean, the prime minister Carney invoked Czech dissident Havel and said, like, you know, as if it were some moral act. But I think it's a lot less moral than he made it seem because he took the sign of the liberal international order that Trump had burned long ago out of the window in the speech. But a few days before, he put that sign of a strategic partnership with China into the window in Beijing. That's the credibility gap that you were talking about.

That's living in a lie. Is that living in truth that you claim to have a strategic partnership with China, that was the price for hedging and balancing. And I think what Mr. Carney is doing, and I think he's well advised to do, is a pretty ruthless hedging and balancing, and at the same time trying to defend as many principles that we as liberal democracies hold dear as possible. But there's limits to that. But I really like his idea of middle power cooperation.

Roland, one of the lines that got a lot of attention in the speech was middle powers must act together because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu. But the prime minister also said, 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. What is that more ambitious thing? Well, I think he talked about reducing the leverage that enables coercion. And I think that, you know, he illustrated that by talking about Canada's involvement in the European defense investment scheme, for example, or Canada championing efforts to link together the European Union and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

So it's about diversifying these relationships in order to minimize opportunities for leverage or pressure or coercion extortion. And that's, I think, building the capacity and building the strength that Torsten is talking about. But if I can come back to this issue, there's, you know, about confronting or resisting Trump. You know, there is a distinction between building your capacity to resist leverage and actually directly resisting Trump. And all of these countries are walking a tightrope in trying to avoid unnecessarily antagonizing Trump and also standing up for their interests. And while I agree entirely with Louise, There's no point in unnecessarily antagonizing Trump.

Silence has not been working. And so there needs to be some kind of recalibration here. Is it fair to, I mean, the accusation from some is that the prime minister himself has been going along to get along in some ways, that that resistance hasn't been there, that he's been silent in the face of some things because of the possibility of setting the U.S. president off. Is that a fair criticism? Oh, I think that's a very fair criticism. Now, he's been very active in terms of trying to diversify Canada's trade relations.

But, you know, he said nothing when the United States started killing so-called narco-terrorists on speedboats in international waters. His response to the Venezuelan invasion was very muted like other European countries. He said nothing when the U.S. put personal sanctions on a Canadian judge of the international criminal court. He apologized for Doug Ford's perhaps ill-advised tariff ads. you know, he has been being, he has been extraordinarily careful not to directly criticize Trump. And maybe the Greenland episode was, you know, the tipping point for him because of how directly important it is to Canada's vital security interest and sovereignty. We just have a few minutes left.

Let's talk about what happens next. Thurston, you said that this speech was an inspiration for what Europeans should do. So what should Europeans do? take up the invite by Canada, both in a defensive manner, like how middle powers can actually band together and devise some sort of almost like a NATO-like solidarity mechanism, if you're at the mercy of economic coercion from both the US and China, how you can work together. And then also the productive offensive, what he said, like not just building walls, but, you know, his speech was a lot about issue-based collaborations where interests are aligned

and they're more aligned, of course, with European countries or other like-minded players in Asia. And to pursue in a very pragmatic way, these issue-based alliances, you know, on a number of global challenges. You see this as a turning point, though? It's a turning. I think it's a, I mean, the turning point is always always a little exaggerated. But it's really he gave us something to work with. And that's very productive. And not just, you know, as Roland has argued, always just giving in to Trump cannot be the answer. And the same way is with the Chinese leadership, middle powers need to stand up and pursue their interests and they need to do it together. So I think that call to arms by Carney is well advised.

And European nations are really, you know, I think they should be inspired by. Louise, just briefly, the prime minister is back here in Canada now. if he has the opportunity and he will to speak with Canadians, what do you think Canadians need to hear from him? Well, I mean, I agree with all this. I just think, though, that our future is continental. It is absolutely clear. We have to anchor it where it really is. So reinforcing the relationship continentally is actually while we diversify, while we expand internationally. and what the prime minister has to say, he has to be honest with Canadians about the sacrifices and the rich

and what we need to do. So I think we have, you know, when he says abroad that we've reduced internal barriers, well, have we, I don't see it. There's a lot of talk. And we need action in Canada and he has to get Canadians on board

and we have to roll up our sleeves. Roland, just very briefly, last word to you, what should that action look like? The prime minister said nostalgia is not a strategy. Well, I agree. And I think that we can all agree that he laid out a kind of understanding of the world that is useful and that it's the gap between this diagnosis and the action that is really uncertain. But, you know, for one thing, if he's correct, and I think he is, that Canada is going to have to manage much more complicated relationships, balancing acts with countries like China and India and countries in the Gulf. and we're going to have to build new relationships. This is not the time to be cutting our foreign service, which is what's happening. You know, we're not going to be able to do this with less diplomatic capacity.

Glad to have your insights into this. As I say, a speech that made attention around the world, and it's interesting to hear what it's going to mean to that world and also what it'll mean to us here in Canada. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. Roland Paris is director of the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. Luis Blay is a former ambassador to the United Nations. Thorsten Benner is the head of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin.

You've been listening to the current podcast. My name is Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. I'll talk to you soon. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca.ca slash podcasts.