The Dawn of a New World Order

When everyone knows that everyone knows, but no one speaks up, saying the quiet part out loud is the greatest form of defiance. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney did exactly that, addressing the “rupture” of the U.S.-led “rules-based international order.” The World Economic Forum is traditionally a convention where global leaders discuss how private-public partnership can be used to shape the world. However, it has earned a reputation for being an elite club for billionaires and world leaders. Carney, a former central banker and prime minister of a country that has deeply benefited from the U.S.-led order, seemingly has every reason to buy into the system that he spoke out against. In place since the end of World War II and marked by international institutions built on shared frameworks, this system has been on the decline. China has long predicted a “multipolar world” would come to fruition. Others, particularly in light of recent American soft power blunders, have taken to calling it the “Chinese Century.” Whatever you call it, the writing on the wall has never been clearer: the world is on the precipice of a generational shift, and the middle powers of the world—such as Canada, the U.K., and Japan—are being caught between opposing forces. But this time, neither America nor China will save them. The middle powers must swim together or sink alone. Their survival depends on coordination in trade, security, and supply chains, away from the direct influence of great powers. 

After World War II, the victors—particularly America, which emerged comparatively unscathed—created a liberal rules-based system of international cooperation. Institutions like the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) simultaneously entrenched American dominance, protected free trade, promoted collective security, and provided genuine avenues for international problem-solving. Today, there are forces causing deep stresses that the system can no longer withstand: the rise of a geopolitical rival in China, an America that is increasingly unwilling to follow the rules of its own system, and economic instability caused by globalization. America and Europe are not happy with the loss of manufacturing in the “China shock.” China’s bid for self-reliance, while good internally, leaves trading partners concerned as to what they could offer China. As a sign of that, China’s trade surplus reached an unprecedented $1.2 trillion in 2025. Countries are waking up to how the use of the U.S. dollar in all global transactions binds them to the U.S. For countries that have built up their economy within this agreement, beholden to the interests of the hegemon, a difference in opinion may mean forfeiting your values in order to survive. In today’s fraught environment, business as usual has become unsustainable.

Carney described this shift by drawing on the words of Czech president and dissident Václav Havel, who described communist rule as “living within a lie.” The system as it was is no longer real. Countries acting like it is only push it past its expiration date. Carney’s speech works within the world as it is, not the world we wish to have. The U.S. has weaponized tariffs and approached sovereignty, particularly in Venezuela and Greenland, with the law of the jungle—the strong get their way, and the weak suffer. However, the collective security of NATO rides on the back of the United States, which puts European countries in a difficult position between sovereignty and security. In one clear example, Mark Rutte, Secretary General of NATO, has taken a larger role in the negotiations over Greenland than Denmark would like him to have, all to ensure continued U.S. cooperation. Regardless of the outcome for Greenland, trust in America has been eroded. For the countries of Europe, the choice is clear: return to the U.S. and maintain the status quo, or begin the costly, uncertain, yet increasingly necessary process of developing their own solutions.

Though Carney’s target was mainly the United States, these unilateral actions go both ways. China’s new motto, “dare to fight,” is a far cry from the previous “hide your strength and bide your time.” Their increasing brazenness on the world stage has only further pushed the world towards a system of might makes right. Their recent restrictions on rare earth exports have exposed weaknesses in global supply chains. These are not one-offs; they are symptoms of a system where rules enforcement is based increasingly on the power of the offender rather than the severity of the offense. Carney himself has faced criticism for his new trade deal with China, but the fact remains that Canada warming up to great powers is a good example of a practical step the middle countries can take. By choosing to deal with Beijing on its own terms, Canada asserts its own sovereignty by reducing its reliance on America. Britain has followed in Canada’s footsteps, pursuing their own controversial China deal. The European Union (EU) as a whole has recently signed the “mother of all deals” with India, slashing tariffs on imports and exports for countries that together make up nearly two billion people and a quarter of global GDP, a prime example of middle power diplomacy that provides benefits for all. As the saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats.

Despite growing tensions and expectations in the world, China shows little interest in replacing the U.S. as a hegemon. China has benefited from the existing order, exemplified by their staggering growth after joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, which opened their markets up to the world. It is aware of the fact that its currency is not yet strong enough to hold up the world financial system like the dollar. It knows that militarily, it is not yet close to the U.S. in global power projection. And perhaps most importantly, it thinks that a world order without a clear hegemon will allow them to exert influence without added burdens. Their inclinations towards a multipolar world leave a vacuum of coordination that middle powers can fill through specific, issue-based cooperation. As a general rule, all countries pursue their own interests. When the interests of the great powers conflict, however, the world is caught in the crossfire. 

In response, it is easy to argue that countries should isolate themselves and pursue self-sufficiency. But Carney warns against this: “A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable.” The solution, he says, is for the “middle powers,” countries who exert great influence despite not being superpowers, to form alliances where there is mutual benefit in one area, even if there is not necessarily agreement in others. In practice, this could look like a free trade agreement between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the EU, sidestepping both the U.S. and China by allowing European goods easier access to one of the largest markets in the world, and allowing new manufacturing powers like Vietnam to produce for Europe. In regards to the military, it could reflect a situation-based coalition not unlike the Coalition of the Willing, a primarily French- and British-led group of countries that support Ukraine. It could also be in shared military procurement to offset costs—for example, South Korea and Japan, as the only non-Chinese big shipbuilders in the world, could provide naval production. Collectively, the middle powers are formidable economically and militarily. Divided, they enable the great power overreach that brought the world into this situation in the first place. In a world without a hegemonic ally to rely on, middle powers like Canada and the United Kingdom must be aware of their fragility alone and the strength they can wield together. What they lack in the ability to act unilaterally can be made up for with smart tactical partnerships. 

If the world is a ship, then it is currently without an anchor. The danger of the moment is not chaos; it is complacency. The most dangerous thing right now is to continue believing that the current rules-based order can survive. The middle countries have the most to lose and the most to gain. They must act together if they want to be on the winning side of the coin.