0
0
Davos Context
The 56th World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, held on January 20, 2026, will likely be regarded as a turning point for Canada foreign policy scholars. In his address, PM Mark Carney mapped out a vision that directly reconsidered the nation’s long-standing reliance on American hegemony. PM Mark Carney’s reading of the situation was clear: Canada must choose to either continue as a subordinate participant in a failing system or lead a coalition of middle powers to reclaim strategic autonomy. Whether Canada can afford to forge these new alliances is not just a question of fiscal capacity, but one of national survival in a world increasingly defined by the Thucydidean adage: where the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
PM Carney delivered his address in the wake of unprecedented tensions with the United States. Following the return of Donald Trump to the office of the presidency, Canada found itself targeted by aggressive trade wars, threats of 100% tariffs, and rhetoric suggesting Canada was effectively destined to be the 51st state. The new American administration has demonstrably assessed its dominant posture , viewing the international community as a freeloader within the global order buttressed by U.S. power. Invoking the Czech dissident Václav Havel, Mr. Carney argued that middle powers have long been “living within a lie,” engaging in the rituals of a rules-based order they privately knew was asymmetrically enforced. He continued stating that while American hegemony once meant predictability, it now presents a threat to the middle powers.
Risks and Domestic Challenges
It has long been argued that avoiding dependency is costly. In the 1960s, George Grant’s Lament for a Nation posited that a country subordinating its economy and defense to a “monster state” neighbor inevitably loses its political independence. Today, Canada’s trade reality is a cause for worry since 70–75% of Canadian exports are absorbed by the United States.
Perhaps the most perilous risk involved in attempting to balance the U.S.’s power may lie in the potential backlash that middle powers may receive from the U.S. if they forge alliances. Indeed this fear is made tangible as shortly after PM Carney’s speech, President Trump claimed that “Canada live[d] because of the United States,” threatening immediate economic reprisal for this demonstration of geopolitical defiance.
In separate but equally relevant consideration, Canada’s moral position to lead such an alliance of middle powers has been questioned domestically. Indigenous voices have highlighted the contrast between PM Carney’s remarks on Canadian sovereignty with a long-standing failure to address the asymmetrical relationship that has adversely affected Indigenous sovereignty. These interests argue that Canada sits on unceded indigenous territory and that the state cannot advocate for international law while violating indigenous rights at home.
Viability of PM Carney’s Strategy
In view of a historic redirection of Canadian foreign policy, the Prime Minister believes Canada possesses the unique fiscal capacity and resource wealth to actualize this strategic shift. The potential success of this shift may allow the state to establish a strategic indispensability. This would entail building value in niche areas such as critical minerals processing, making the state essential to global supply chains,thus gaining the leverage needed to resist hegemonic coercion.
Indeed, Canada is an energy superpower with vast reserves of critical minerals, and it boasts one of the world’s most educated populations. The Carney government has already made the commitment to double defense spending by the end of the decade and to earmark $1 trillion in investments in AI, energy, and critical minerals to build strength at home. Galium, in particular, is a critical mineral found in Canada that has superpowered the technology revolution. Thus, Canada presents attractive advantages that can be used as bargaining chips when building alliances with middle powers.
Middle power integration as a means to challenge hegemony is also a matter of sharing costs. Canadian success as a middle power entails a monumental collective action problem; this approach hinges on the state’s ability to build several separate bilateral relationships regarding each of the economic interests formerly shared with their southern neighbor. To that end the state has seen recent success diversifying trade, signing twelve separate deals across four continents in the span of just six months. Most notably, through ascension to the Security Action for Europe (commonly known as SAFE), Canada has forged a novel defence alliance with EU member states. Moves like these provide a strategic buffer to increasing U.S. volatility by providing defense assurances tied to more reliable partner states. In short, collective investments in resilience is a less expensive proposition than letting each nation build its own walls. Moreover, according to the balance of power theory, collectivity is not just more viable, it is solely viable.
The Way Forward
Canada’s path forward is defined by a distancing of a nostalgic adherence to a once amicable bilateral relationship with the United States. In view of increasingly aggressive American foreign policy, Prime Minister Carney seems certain that Canadian sovereignty and economic advancement turns on the development of a “new world order.” By building domestic strength and weaving a vast network of connections among middle powers, Canada seeks to foster integration within that group of states. We shall see if the pursuit of middle-power alliances is a viable strategy to ensure that Canada remains a participant at the table and not a course on the imperial menu.
Edited by Catriona Hayes Morris
The argument defended in this article is solely that of the author and does not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science, the Political Science Students’ Association, or the McGill Department of Political Science.
Featured Image by World Economic Forum
