Carneyval

The Twilight of the World Order?

On January 20 Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada, made a widely reported speech at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland. He accused great powers of recently ramping up the use of economic integration, tariffs, and supply chains to force lesser ones to their bidding. The world, he said, is thus experiencing a “rupture” of the old order which is not coming back and should not be mourned, since “nostalgia is not a strategy.”

It seems that by “the old order” whose demise he announced, Carney means the rule-based world order established after WW II. In its stead, Carney recommends that middle-power nations act in a pragmatic way to build informal, issue-centered coalitions which would pursue common interests and counter great-power dominance.

Carney’s address at Davos garnered praise as a brave push-back against Trump’s contemptuous and insulting behavior toward the United Nations and long-time U.S. allies, particularly his witless remarks about Canada. To me, however, it sounds like a concession speech by a losing candidate, one made before the votes are counted.

To be sure, Trump has done his best both at Davos and previously to alienate allies and to undermine the world order which, however imperfect, has kept us safe from major wars and possible nuclear disaster. But why should that spell the end of that world order, and why should it be replaced rather than repaired? Trump’s expiration date, both literal and figurative, approaches. Americans overwhelmingly back the present international system and the institutions that maintain it; and it is hard to conceive that any Trump successor of either party who is in possession of ordinary sense would continue Trump’s demolition work.

To say that Trump’s noxious legacy requires the replacement of the world order which has worked for 80 years is to concede victory to the wrongdoer. It is like saying that we must reform our penal code because a habitual offender is now engaged in a crime spree.

Moreover, Carney’s proposal would apply to foreign relations the same transactional approach that characterizes all of Trump’s dealings. Whereas the United Nations is based on certain core moral principles of international law and NATO is the main guardian of those principles, Carney proposes ad hoc, shifting coalitions based solely on national interest.

To be fair, Carney was talking of coalitions relating to trade, but it is hard to see how any coalition so based would not impinge on core principles. Say, for example, that China invades Taiwan. Carney has just concluded a trade treaty with China – one, by the way, condemned by some experts on purely economic grounds since China, a mercantilist power, will not confer benefits on its trading partners. Under such conditions, should Canada oppose China’s actions and perhaps impose sanctions? Given the fact that China’s reaction would not be gentle, Canada might well decide to put expediency over principle. Other coalition members would engage in the same “pragmatic” calculation and might come to a similar conclusion, with the result that the ascendency of great powers like China might overshadow even that claimed by Trump.

I ended an earlier Substack (in a different context) by saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” In regard to a system which, though imperfect, has stood us in good stead, I would urge the converse: “If it is broke, don’t trash it, fix it.”