Mark Carney says the liberal world order is dead, so what’s next?

Last week, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney shook the world with his speech at the 56th World Economic Forum. In outlining his nation’s direction amid political tensions, Carney laid down an indictment of the current “rules-based order” in a way scarcely seen from a western leader. Although it was quickly brushed to the side of the news cycle due to exploding tensions in Minneapolis and Iran — understandably so, that is — there exist very few recent events that as clearly illustrate the current political moment. Understanding the context and significance of this speech is key to interpreting the state of international affairs.  

The Speech: What exactly did Carney say?

The World Economic Forum is a convergence of the most powerful government, business and academic leaders meant to chart out a path forward for global capitalism. Carney’s speech was created to address the current existential crisis facing the non-U.S. western powers, who are increasingly caught up in the chaos of the President Donald Trump’s second term. Reflecting upon these tensions, specifically over ownership of Greenland and threats of Canada becoming the 51st U.S. state, he said:  

“For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order… 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 rigor depending on the identity of the accused or the victim. This fiction was useful[.]” 

He went on to condemn the so-called “great powers” (read: United States) who run this system and use their extreme economic and military powers to force others into submission. In response, he urges the “middle powers” (read: Canada and the European Union) to respond, not by falling into isolationism, but by uniting under “value-based realism.” This way forward involves moving past the current order and toward a new system of “sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter, and respect for human rights.”

Is the liberal international order really dead? 

For decades, many critics of the liberal international order (LIO) have presented these basic points. The basic idea is that what exists now is a system of international rules, norms and institutions that is supposed to govern how actors operate on the international stage, providing a basis for fairness, stability and individual sovereignty across the world. However, this system has been nothing but a mirage through which global superpowers are allowed to act however they’d like, while still maintaining legitimacy by obscuring their intentions behind superficial legalistic justifications. So long as a nation pretends to follow the rules, or at least makes an effort at convincing the public that they have, they can do anything. Iraq and the purported “weapons of mass destruction” are the clearest example of this. 

This system provides a basis for good business. It ensures security and consistency, both of which are necessary for the development of a global capitalist economy, while overlooking transgressions against its rules which serve to facilitate the extraction of wealth. As such, powerful nations and their corporate backers are free to do as they wish and impose their values across the world. Meanwhile, it localizes violence to specific parts of the global periphery, economically isolating and destroying them, if they commit the error of breaking the rules. This creates broad adherence, even among those who suffer from it, for fear of being forced back into line.

However, this system of steady and continued accumulation of wealth is not necessarily enough for all parties involved. Since the beginning of Trump’s first term, his administration has sought to remove even the superficial constraints on US capitalism in its quest for expanding power. The subsequent abandonment of certain international legal norms has led to many claims of the LIO’s death.

The truth of that statement though, is not nearly as straightforward, and largely is a question of perspective.

To explain, as the internet has created a democratization of information and “truth” as never before seen in history, this has undercut the ability of dominant narratives put forward by nations to control public understanding of recent events. This has been an ongoing process in the past two decades, but has seen sharp developments in recent history. The post Oct. 7 siege of Palestine has served as the formative event in cementing this shift, as visuals of extreme violence plastered daily across the screens of an entire generation greatly impacted an entire generation’s view of international politics. It has specifically revealed inconsistencies in messaging put forth by great powers and caused many to lose faith in the system that’s allegedly supposed to prevent such horrors. As these hypocrisies mounted, Joelle Abi-Rached writes that “by underwriting Israel’s genocidal onslaught so flagrantly, Western governments have hastened the final discrediting of the legal order the West itself developed after World War II.” 

On the other side of the aisle, the same polarizing technological influences have supported the development of a strong alt-right which also rejects the LIO. Whether this be in favor of isolationist or realist tendencies aside, their importance as a base of political support for the new Trump administration is still clear. This movement also appears to be taking on an international form, as similar political figures appear in countries from Germany to El Salvador.

Yet, Carney’s speech represents, in opposition to this, a continued faith in the establishment. It shows a significant dissonance between elite and popular views right now, because, for all its rhetorical flair, it essentially calls for a revamped, updated version of the former state of affairs. It’s romantic for a time before the U.S. began giving the rest of the West the same lack of respect for sovereignty it has typically reserved for the Global South. It shows a timid acceptance of the unequal application of international law, so long as that aggression stays focused on Iraq, Palestine and other non-NATO aligned parts of the world. So, it seems to want to recreate that equilibrium through a new LIO, something similar, but tweaked and dialed back.

If, then, this path is taken by these middle powers, the LIO (in a broad sense) could very well live on; at least, its ideas will continue to be respected by most governments, who will continue to seek to uphold them as best they can. As for whether this 2.0 version will be respected in the eyes of growing mass movements, that possibility seems to be diminishing. The future implications of this contradiction are difficult to fully predict, as growing populist sentiments could lead to the creation of more cynical governments who will not be concerned with keeping up the charade. This path, laid out by Trump right now, could win the day eventually as well. Either way, the answer currently appears to be that it’s not entirely dead… yet.

Evaluating Carney’s way forward 

If this is to be the future, that leaves the question of whether or not that’s a good thing. The answer is best revealed through some additional context to his original speech.

Although this speech has taken on a public, international audience in the days since, it was originally intended for a very specific group of people. The prime minister, who has spent his entire life in board rooms and corporate high rises, was keeping to his history; he was speaking to the political and economic elite of the World Economic Forum. This speech was not a plea to those who have faced the historical brunt of this order whose current condition he now condemns, but rather to the middle nations and companies which have benefited from it. As Matthew Remski puts it, his goal was to “[express] solidarity with fellow leaders and investors who now feel confused and dysregulated because the world’s superpower is no longer a dependable trade partner.” 

This explains the details of his suggestions for the middle powers. He rallies against isolationism not out of altruistic sentiment, but because it is bad for international business and free trade. He advocates for a return to order because that stability and security is beneficial for steady GDP growth. It’s also impossible to ignore how this speech itself functions as an advertisement for global investment in the Canadian economy, which Carney is clearly trying to position as a leader in his new world order. His suggestions are made to businessmen, and they’re all about why his way is just good business.

The point is that this represents nothing more than one side of an internal struggle between different ruling capitalist interests, which are now, in a rare instance, out of step with each other. It is a conflict between Trump’s erratic, unpredictable authoritarianism and Carney’s played out neoliberalism, with neither appearing to be a good option.

Still, in this “rupture” there is a new opportunity to push for a better answer. If mass movements can look past the false dichotomy presented to them by world leaders fighting amongst themselves, they can see the common trait to both parties that leads to their exploitative nature. In the gap between Carney’s neoliberalism and Trump’s right-wing populism, there must be a renewed push for a bold progressive internationalism which looks for an alternative to the economic base which has brought the world to this point. This will, hopefully, be what is next.