Nostalgia is not a strategy. When Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney dropped that line at the World Economic Forum in Davos, it wasn't just typical summit rhetoric. It was a blunt declaration that the old international rules-based order is dead, and the traditional way middle powers like Canada do business has to change.
If you think those words were meant to sit in a PDF on a government server, you're wrong. Canada’s UN Ambassador, David Lametti, recently confirmed that this doctrine is actively reshaping how the country operates on the global stage.
The strategy hinges on a concept Carney calls variable geometry. It sounds academic, but it's basically a survival guide for middle-tier nations trapped between aggressive superpowers. Instead of relying on big, slow, traditional alliances that get paralyzed by vetoes, countries build rapid, overlapping, pragmatic coalitions. You don’t wait for everyone to agree on everything. You grab the partners who agree with you on one specific thing and you move.
Moving Past the Superpower Gridlock
Look at the United Nations today. It's frequently gridlocked by superpower rivalry. The old assumption was that a country like Canada could hide under the security umbrella of traditional allies while trusting international law to protect its trading interests. That assumption doesn't hold up anymore. Superpowers tear up agreements whenever it suits them.
Carney’s core argument at Davos was simple. If middle powers want to avoid being swallowed whole by the economic and geopolitical ambitions of Washington or Beijing, they have to band together.
Lametti points out that this kind of flexible diplomacy is already happening at the UN. Take the ongoing crisis in Haiti. Instead of waiting for a massive, slow-moving UN peacekeeping mandate that might get blocked by a Security Council veto, Canada and the United States co-led a highly specific coalition. They pulled in Central American governments that are directly threatened by smuggling and migration. It’s an ad-hoc, problem-specific group.
Then there’s the "Mountains Group" at the UN. It’s an informal bloc featuring Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland. Aside from having impressive elevation, these countries use their shared middle-power status to push human rights agendas and civilian protection measures in conflict zones. It’s efficient, it bypasses the usual bureaucratic bottlenecks, and it allows like-minded nations to pool their diplomatic weight.
The Real Friction of Variable Geometry
It’s easy to talk about pragmatism when you’re dealing with human rights statements, but the real world gets messy fast. Variable geometry means you will inevitably sit at tables with countries you don't like, or disagree with on fundamental values, just to get a practical deal done.
Carney himself gave a clear example of how this plays out in practice. He suggested that global climate goals might require navigating a messy web of rules. You might use trade penalties designed by the European Union, adopt green technology standards drafted by China and India, and rely on nature-based carbon solutions managed by Brazil. You aren't forming a permanent alliance with these countries. You're just aligning gears for a specific outcome.
This approach creates obvious friction back home. For instance, Canada’s finance minister, François-Philippe Champagne, noted that during a bilateral visit to India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi spent two hours talking with the Canadian delegation, even quoting Carney's Davos speech back to him. Yet, building these relationships requires a massive diplomatic tightrope walk, especially as Lametti acknowledges that re-establishing functional ties with giant economies like China and India remains a vital Canadian interest despite intense political differences.
Critics rightly point out the hypocrisy built into this realism. A few months ago, Carney warned middle powers at Davos against competing to see who could be the most accommodating to big powers, arguing that true sovereignty means resisting pressure. Yet shortly after, his government backed U.S. statements regarding Iran's nuclear program while simultaneously calling for a de-escalation of hostilities, drawing sharp criticism from foreign policy experts who argued Canada was bending to Washington's priorities anyway.
What This Means for Your Next Move
If you operate an international business, manage supply chains, or invest in global markets, you need to stop planning for a return to global stability. The fractured world order isn't a temporary phase.
- Diversify alliances early: Don't rely on a single market or a single trade agreement. Just as middle-power governments are building overlapping coalitions, businesses must build redundant supply networks across multiple geographic blocs.
- Expect shifting regulatory standards: Under variable geometry, tech and environmental standards won't be uniform. You could easily face EU carbon rules on one product line and Chinese technology mandates on another.
- Monitor middle-power coalitions: Watch groupings like the CPTPP or ad-hoc Western-European trade alignments. These are where the actual rules of modern trade are being written while the WTO remains largely stuck.
The old world isn't coming back. True sovereignty, both for countries and organizations, now belongs to those who can pivot fast enough to stay off the menu.
