“The old order is not coming back. We should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy.”
Applauded for its eloquence and timeliness, Carney’s speech at Davos may be bookmarked as a defining moment that marks the end of the liberal world order as we know it and signals a new global order looming on the horizon, with stronger emphasis on “value-based realism.”
I disagree with pessimistic accounts that dismiss such a foreign policy, that is both principled and pragmatic, as a contradiction. My research shows that transparent communication of strategic interests may pay off in the Global South countries and increase trust in the West again. Also, accounts that underestimate the leading role middle powers can play in establishing a new global order are missing the mark. It was, after all, not just the US hegemony, but middle powers like Canada that helped build the liberal institutional order brick by brick.
The liberal order worked, until it didn’t
It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to claim that liberal institutionalism delivered against staggering odds. International treaties have effectively elicited compliance: the Treaty on Non-Proliferation has restrained states from developing nuclear weapons. Imagine: even some of the most brutal authoritarian regimes in the world were compelled to sign the UN Convention against Torture, and credible evidence suggests that respect for physical integrity has increased over time thanks to such treaties. The ICC has brought war criminals to justice: ICC indictments have proven effective even without an army to enforce them.
But Carney was right when he admitted international law has been applied selectively.
Geostrategic interests dominate whether countries condemn human rights violations or not. Donor countries do not withhold economic aid from partners deemed important for national security when they commit human rights violations. The EU did not shy away from bankrolling dictators to contain irregular migration. Even international humanitarian assistance, which is supposed to be a pure form of international solidarity in the face of disasters, has been distributed with an eye to strategic value, disproportionately flowing to countries where donor governments have stakes. Such politicization of the human rights regime and international assistance eroded public perception of institutional multilateralism.
Is principled pragmatism possible?
Carney has announced a new chapter for Canadian foreign policy with “value-based realism.” In other words, a foreign policy that is based on a certain set of principles, but also in pursuit of pragmatic interests. Could it work?
At face value, such principled pragmatism may sound contradictory. It may be perceived as an oxymoron because it is based on a false dichotomy between “realist” accounts that dismiss values as naivety and “idealist” accounts that ignore power politics.
The liberal order’s credibility crisis stemmed from the gap between rhetoric and practice, as this gap bred cynicism, fueling narratives that international institutions are only tools of Western hegemony disguised in humanitarian and liberal language. However, it is possible to pursue a pragmatic yet principled foreign policy: one that communicates strategic interests with transparency, while still remaining anchored in humanitarian and global values.
Counterintuitively, such transparency can strengthen rather than undermine normative goals. For example, my research shows that transparent communication about the realpolitik behind international assistance may help counter domestic authoritarian propaganda in countries with widespread anti-Western attitudes. My findings indicate that when Western donors openly acknowledge strategic motivations, they increase trust in international institutions among conservative and nationalist voters in target partner countries, who are skeptical of the West, by reducing their conspiracism.
Canadian footprints in the liberal institutional order
I imagine it may not have been easy for Carney to admit the rupture with the liberal order. To appreciate the weight of Carney’s speech, consider that the world owes much to Canadian diplomats for their contributions to global peacekeeping and international human rights law. Global principles we take for granted today were fiercely contested not that long ago. It took diplomatic ingenuity and coalition-building, and Canadian diplomats played a huge role.
It was Lester Pearson who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for creating the United Nations’ first-ever peacekeeping operation. In response to the international community’s paralysis during atrocities in Bosnia and Rwanda, it was Lloyd Axworthy who led the commission that crafted the R2P doctrine through intense negotiations. The Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention was also a Canadian diplomatic achievement where a majority of states agreed to ban a weapon widely used for a century, with the “Ottawa Process” creating a new template for multilateral diplomacy. When the International Criminal Court was negotiated, it was Philippe Kirsch who chaired the proceedings and later served as the court’s first president. Canada became the first country in the world to incorporate the Rome Statute’s obligations into national law.
Middle powers can help establish a new global order
Could middle powers like Canada spearhead a new global order? In a new great power politics world order, one may assume that middle powers can only bandwagon with superpowers. I’d disagree. History suggests middle powers may punch above their weight with networked coalitions that aggregate their influence. States across the Global South will be seeking partners who offer cooperation without domination, and middle powers can establish such coalitions around different issues.
For example, Canada is uniquely positioned to forge a new world order, drawing on its strong reserve of international public trust. According to an Ipsos survey of 30 countries, 79% of respondents believe Canada will have a positive influence on world affairs over the next decade, a measure in which Canada consistently ranked first since 2015.
Global actors needed a wake-up call to understand the new reality we live in. That a Canadian leader delivered it made a lot of difference.
Author: Dr. Semuhi Sinanoglu is based at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
Russland - Venezuela - Taiwan - Grönland: Diese Stichworte reichen, um deutlich zu machen, dass sich die Entscheidungsgrundlagen für alle Sicherheitsstrategen fundamental ändern. Was sind die Leitlinien für eine künftige Sicherheitsstrategie? Worauf müssen wir uns geopolitisch einstellen? Und welche Rolle spielen Innovation, Industrie, Resilienz und Bündnisse dabei?