When the Rules Stop Pretending: What Mark Carney’s Davos Speech Really Signals About the Global Order
January 25, 2026
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a speech that stood out not for sweeping promises, but for its unusual frankness. Speaking from the heart of the Western establishment, Carney acknowledged a reality long denied in official discourse: the so-called “rules-based international order” has often operated selectively, benefiting the powerful while claiming universal legitimacy.
While much commentary focused on the rhetorical boldness of this admission, its deeper meaning lies elsewhere. The speech raises a more consequential question: does recognizing the limits of the current system open the door to genuine reform, or does it simply prepare the ground for a more resilient version of the same unequal order?
From shared rules to strategic instruments
For decades, Western governments promoted an international framework grounded in common rules, multilateral institutions, and legal norms. In theory, this model promised stability and fairness. In practice, enforcement has been uneven, and compliance often conditional.
Carney openly described how trade, finance, and supply chains have increasingly become tools of leverage rather than neutral mechanisms of cooperation. This diagnosis reflects an undeniable shift in global politics, where economic integration is no longer viewed solely as a path to shared prosperity but also as a means of pressure and deterrence.
Managing risk instead of reforming the system
Yet Carney’s conclusions stop short of a structural challenge. Rather than calling for a moral reckoning or a redesign of global governance, his speech emphasizes resilience: strategic autonomy, reduced vulnerability to coercion, and the ability to absorb external shocks.
This approach mirrors a broader trend across advanced economies. The objective is not to dismantle flawed mechanisms, but to manage their risks more effectively. In this framing, acknowledging reality becomes a tool for adaptation, not transformation.
The ambiguity of “values-based realism”
One of the most striking concepts introduced by Carney is what he termed “values-based realism.” The phrase suggests a balance between principles and pragmatism, but it also reveals a fundamental tension.
When the defense of values depends on economic and military strength, those values lose their role as universal standards. They become conditional, applied when power allows and sidelined when interests prevail. The speech offers no clear answer to the central dilemma this creates: what happens when values and strategic interests collide?
Middle powers and the limits of a third path
Carney urged middle powers to cooperate, presenting them as potential builders of a stabilizing “third path” between major blocs. In theory, such coordination could reinforce multilateralism and reduce dependency on dominant actors.
In practice, however, most of the partnerships highlighted remain firmly embedded within the Western strategic orbit. The goal appears less about redefining global rules and more about strengthening negotiating leverage within an existing system.
A familiar experience for the Global South
Perhaps the most revealing omission in the Davos narrative is the limited agency attributed to developing nations. Too often, they are treated as arenas for crisis management rather than as equal participants in shaping international norms.
For many countries in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia, the gap between formal sovereignty and real autonomy has been evident since decolonization. Political independence did not translate into influence over trade regimes, financial systems, or security frameworks. Selective enforcement of international norms has been a long-standing reality, not a recent discovery.
After the admission, what comes next?
The importance of Carney’s Davos speech lies not in the solutions it proposes, but in the illusions it abandons. Acknowledging that old narratives no longer hold is necessary — but insufficient.
If recognition does not lead to accountability, and adaptation replaces transformation, the global order may become more honest without becoming more just. The real challenge is not merely to navigate a harsher world, but to confront whether its underlying power relations can be meaningfully rebalanced.
Until that question is addressed directly, the end of comforting pretenses risks becoming little more than a polite adjustment to an unequal reality.
Hashtags: #GlobalPolitics #Davos2026 #WorldOrder #ForeignPolicy #GlobalSouth