風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
2026年達沃斯世界經濟論壇：加拿大總理馬克·卡尼的特別致辭
2026年1月20日
馬克·卡尼在達沃斯舉行的第56屆世界經濟論壇年會第二天發表了講話。
加拿大總理馬克·卡尼在2026年達沃斯世界經濟論壇年會的特別致辭中，讚揚了中等強國的優勢。
加拿大總理馬克·卡尼強調了以規則為基礎的國際秩序的終結，並概述了加拿大如何通過構建戰略自主性來適應這一變化，同時維護人權和主權等價值觀。
這位加拿大總理呼籲包括加拿大在內的中等強國攜手合作，共同應對硬實力的崛起和大國競爭，以構建一個更加合作、更具韌性的世界。
非常感謝，拉裏。我將先用法語發言，然後再切換回英語。
[以下內容由法語翻譯]
謝謝你，拉裏。今晚能與你共聚一堂，共同見證加拿大和世界正經曆的關鍵時刻，我既感到榮幸，也深感責任重大。
今天，我將談到世界秩序的斷裂，一個美好幻想的終結和一個殘酷現實的開端。在這個現實中，地緣政治，尤其是大國主導的地緣政治，將不再受到任何限製和約束。
另一方麵，我想告訴大家，其他國家，特別是像加拿大這樣的中等強國，並非無能為力。它們有能力構建一個涵蓋我們價值觀的新秩序，例如尊重人權、可持續發展、團結、主權以及各國的領土完整。
弱國的力量始於誠實。
[卡尼恢複英語發言]
似乎我們每天都被提醒，我們生活在一個大國競爭的時代，基於規則的秩序正在消逝，強者為所欲為，弱者隻能承受。
修昔底德的這句格言被視為必然，被視為國際關係自然邏輯的再次體現。
麵對這種邏輯，各國往往傾向於隨波逐流，相互妥協，避免麻煩，寄希望於順從能夠換取安全。
然而，事實並非如此。
那麽，我們還有哪些選擇？
1978年，捷克持不同政見者瓦茨拉夫·哈維爾（後來的捷克總統）寫了一篇題為《無權者的力量》的文章，文中他提出了一個簡單的問題：共產主義製度是如何維係的？
他的答案始於一位蔬菜水果商。
每天早上，這位店主都會在櫥窗上貼一張告示：“全世界無產者，聯合起來！”他自己並不相信這句話，事實上，沒有人相信，但他還是貼上了告示，以避免麻煩，表示順從，為了與人相處融洽。正因為每條街上的每個店主都這樣做，這個製度才得以維係——並非僅僅依靠暴力，而是依靠普通民眾參與他們私下裏明知是虛假的儀式。
哈維爾稱之為“生活在謊言之中”。
這個製度的力量並非源於其真實性，而是源於每個人都願意假裝它是真的；而它的脆弱也源於此。一旦哪怕隻有一個人停止這種表演，一旦蔬菜水果商撤下他的告示，這個幻象就開始瓦解。朋友們，是時候讓企業和國家撤下他們的標語了。
幾十年來，像加拿大這樣的國家在我們所謂的“基於規則的國際秩序”下繁榮發展。我們加入了它的機構，我們讚揚它的原則，我們受益於它的可預測性。正因如此，我們才能在其庇護下推行基於價值觀的外交政策。
我們知道，所謂“基於規則的國際秩序”的故事並非全然真實，強者會在方便的時候淩駕於規則之上，貿易規則的執行也並非對等。我們也知道，國際法的適用力度會因被告或受害者的身份而有所不同。
這種虛構的秩序曾經很有用，尤其是美國的霸權，它幫助提供了公共產品、暢通的海上航道、穩定的金融體係、集體安全以及爭端解決框架??的支持。
所以，我們掛上了標語。我們參與了各種儀式，並且大多避免指出言辭與現實之間的差距。
這種妥協已經行不通了。讓我直言不諱。我們正處於斷裂之中，而非轉型之中。
過去二十年間，金融、衛生、能源和地緣政治領域的一係列危機暴露了極端全球一體化的風險。但最近，大國開始將經濟一體化作為武器，將關稅作為籌碼，將金融基礎設施作為脅迫手段，將供應鏈作為可供利用的漏洞。
你不能
在一體化互利共贏的謊言中，一體化反而成為你受製於人的根源。
中等強國賴以生存的多邊機構——世貿組織、聯合國、締約方大會——其集體解決問題的架構正麵臨威脅。因此，許多國家得出同樣的結論：它們必須在能源、糧食、關鍵礦產、金融和供應鏈等領域發展更大的戰略自主權。
這種衝動是可以理解的。一個無法自給自足、無法自給自足、無法自給自足的國家，選擇寥寥無幾。當規則不再保護你時，你必須自保。
但我們必須清醒地認識到，這最終會導致什麽。
一個由堡壘構成的世界將會更加貧窮、脆弱，也更不可持續。還有另一個真相：如果大國為了肆無忌憚地追求自身權力和利益而放棄規則和價值觀的偽裝，那麽交易主義帶來的收益將難以複製。
霸權國家無法持續地將自身關係貨幣化。
盟友將進行多元化布局以對衝不確定性。
他們將購買保險，增加選擇，以重建主權——這種主權曾經根植於規則，但如今將越來越依賴於抵禦壓力的能力。
在座各位都明白，這是典型的風險管理。風險管理需要付出代價，但這種戰略自主和主權的代價也可以分擔。
您讀過嗎？
圖片：世界各國領導人和頂級首席執行官齊聚2026年達沃斯論壇
集體投資於韌性建設比各自建造堡壘更經濟。共享標準可以減少碎片化。互補性是正和博弈。對於像加拿大這樣的中等強國來說，問題不在於是否要適應新的現實——我們必須適應。問題在於，我們是簡單地築起更高的圍牆來適應，還是可以采取更具雄心的行動。
加拿大是最早聽到警鍾的國家之一，這促使我們從根本上轉變了戰略姿態。
加拿大人深知，我們過去那種認為地理位置和聯盟成員身份就能自動帶來繁榮與安全的固有觀念已不再成立。我們新的方針基於芬蘭總統亞曆山大·斯圖布所稱的“基於價值的現實主義”。
換句話說，我們力求兼顧原則與務實——原則體現在我們恪守基本價值觀、維護主權、領土完整、除《聯合國憲章》另有規定外禁止使用武力以及尊重人權；務實則認識到進步往往是漸進的，利益存在分歧，並非所有夥伴都會認同我們所有的價值觀。
因此，我們以開放的心態，廣泛而戰略性地參與其中。我們積極應對現實世界，而不是坐等理想世界到來。
我們正在調整我們的關係，使其深度體現我們的價值觀，並優先考慮廣泛的參與，以最大限度地發揮我們的影響力。鑒於當前世界的瞬息萬變、由此帶來的風險以及未來發展的重要性，我們更應如此。
我們不再僅僅依靠價值觀的力量，也依靠我們自身的實力。
我們正在國內增強這種實力。
自本屆政府執政以來，我們降低了所得稅、資本利得稅和商業投資稅。我們取消了所有省際貿易的聯邦壁壘。我們正在加快推進對能源、人工智能、關鍵礦產、新貿易走廊及其他領域的萬億美元投資。我們將在本十年末之前將國防開支翻一番，並且我們正以促進國內產業發展的方式來實現這一目標。
我們也在迅速實現海外多元化。我們已與歐盟達成全麵戰略夥伴關係協議，包括加入歐洲防務采購安排（SAFE）。在過去的六個月裏，我們還在四大洲簽署了其他12項貿易和安全協議。過去幾天，我們與中國和卡塔爾達成了新的戰略夥伴關係。我們正在與印度、東盟、泰國、菲律賓和南方共同市場就自由貿易協定進行談判。
我們還在做其他事情。為了幫助解決全球性問題，我們正在推行“可變幾何”策略，也就是說，基於共同的價值觀和利益，針對不同的問題組建不同的聯盟。例如，在烏克蘭問題上，我們是“自願聯盟”的核心成員，也是該國人均國防和安全貢獻最大的國家之一。
在北極主權問題上，我們堅定地與格陵蘭和丹麥站在一起，並完全支持它們決定格陵蘭未來的獨特權利。
我們對北約第五條的承諾堅定不移，因此我們正與包括北歐波羅的海門戶在內的北約盟國合作，進一步加強聯盟北部和西部側翼的安全，包括加拿大對超視距雷達、潛艇、飛機以及地麵和冰上部隊進行前所未有的投資。
加拿大強烈反對對格陵蘭島征收關稅。
Davos 2026: Special address by Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney praised the strengths of the middle powers in his special address at Davos 2026.
Image: World Economic Forum / Ciaran McCrickard
- This blog contains the full transcript of a special address by Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, delivered at the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting 2026 in Davos.
- Carney emphasized the end of the rules-based international order and outlined how Canada was adapting by building strategic autonomy while maintaining values like human rights and sovereignty.
- The Canadian PM called for middle powers, such as his own, to work together to counter the rise of hard power and the great power rivalry, in order to build a more cooperative, resilient world.
Thank you very much, Larry. I'm going to start in French, and then I'll switch back to English.
[The following is translated from French]
Thank you, Larry. It is both a pleasure, and a duty, to be with you tonight in this pivotal moment that Canada and the world going through.
Today I will talk about a rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a harsh reality, where geopolitics, where the large, main power, geopolitics, is submitted to no limits, no constraints.
On the other hand, I would like to tell you that the other countries, especially intermediate powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that encompasses our values, such as respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the various states.
The power of the less power starts with honesty.
[Carney returns to speaking in English]
It seems that every day we're reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry, that the rules based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.
And this aphorism of Thucydides is presented as inevitable, as the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself.
And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along, to accommodate, to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety.
Well, it won't.
So, what are our options?
In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel, later president, wrote an essay called The Power of the Powerless, and in it, he asked a simple question: how did the communist system sustain itself?
And his answer began with a greengrocer.
Every morning, this shopkeeper places a sign in his window: ‘Workers of the world unite’. He doesn't believe it, no-one does, but he places a sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persist – not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.
Havel called this “living within a lie”.
The system's power comes not from its truth, but from everyone's willingness to perform as if it were true, and its fragility comes from the same source. When even one person stops performing, when the greengrocer removes his sign, the illusion begins to crack. Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.
For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
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 rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.
This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.
Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.
You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration, when integration becomes the source of your subordination.
The multilateral institutions on which the middle powers have relied – the WTO, the UN, the COP – the architecture, the very architecture of collective problem solving are under threat. And as a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions that they must develop greater strategic autonomy, in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains.
And this impulse is understandable. A country that can't feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself, has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.
But let's be clear eyed about where this leads.
A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable. And there is another truth. If great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate.
Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships.
Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty.
They'll buy insurance, increase options in order to rebuild sovereignty – sovereignty that was once grounded in rules, but will increasingly be anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.
This room knows this is classic risk management. Risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty can also be shared.
Have you read?
Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortresses. Shared standards reduce fragmentations. Complementarities are positive sum. And the question for middle powers like Canada is not whether to adapt to the new reality – we must. The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls, or whether we can do something more ambitious.
Now Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture.
Canadians know that our old comfortable assumptions that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security – that assumption is no longer valid. And our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb, the President of Finland, has termed “value-based realism”.
Or, to put another way, we aim to be both principled and pragmatic – principled in our commitment to fundamental values, sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force, except when consistent with the UN Charter, and respect for human rights, and pragmatic and recognizing that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner will share all of our values.
So, we're engaging broadly, strategically with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait around for a world we wish to be.
We are calibrating our relationships, so their depth reflects our values, and we're prioritizing broad engagement to maximize our influence, given and given the fluidity of the world at the moment, the risks that this poses and the stakes for what comes next.
And we are no longer just relying on the strength of our values, but also the value of our strength.
We are building that strength at home.
Since my government took office, we have cut taxes on incomes, on capital gains and business investment. We have removed all federal barriers to interprovincial trade. We are fast tracking a trillion dollars of investments in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors and beyond. We're doubling our defence spending by the end of this decade, and we're doing so in ways that build our domestic industries.
And we are rapidly diversifying abroad. We have agreed a comprehensive strategic partnership with the EU, including joining SAFE, the European defence procurement arrangements. We have signed 12 other trade and security deals on four continents in six months. The past few days, we've concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar. We're negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines and Mercosur.
We're doing something else. To help solve global problems, we're pursuing variable geometry, in other words, different coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests. So, on Ukraine, we're a core member of the Coalition of the Willing and one of the largest per capita contributors to its defence and security.
On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark, and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland's future.
Our commitment to NATO's Article 5 is unwavering, so we're working with our NATO allies, including the Nordic Baltic Gate, to further secure the alliance's northern and western flanks, including through Canada's unprecedented investments in over-the-horizon radar, in submarines, in aircraft and boots on the ground, boots on the ice.
Canada strongly opposes tariffs over Greenland and calls for focused talks to achieve our shared objectives of security and prosperity in the Arctic.
On plurilateral trade, we're championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans Pacific Partnership and the European Union, which would create a new trading bloc of 1.5 billion people. On critical minerals, we're forming buyers’ clubs anchored in the G7 so the world can diversify away from concentrated supply. And on AI, we're cooperating with like-minded democracies to ensure that we won't ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyper-scalers.
This is not naive multilateralism, nor is it relying on their institutions. It's building coalitions that work – issues by issue, with partners who share enough common ground to act together.
In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations.
What it's doing is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture, on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities.
Argue, the middle powers must act together, because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu.
But I'd also say that great powers, great powers can afford for now to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not.
But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what's offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.
This is not sovereignty. It's the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination. In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice – compete with each other for favour, or to combine to create a third path with impact.
We shouldn't allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong, if we choose to wield them together – which brings me back to Havel.
What does it mean for middle powers to live the truth?
First, it means naming reality. Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is – a system of intensifying great power rivalry, where the most powerful pursue their interests, using economic integration as coercion.
It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction, but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.
It means building what we claim to believe in, rather than waiting for the old order to be restored. It means creating institutions and agreements that function as described. And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion – that's building a strong domestic economy. It should be every government's immediate priority.
And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence, it's a material foundation for honest foreign policy, because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.
So Canada. Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are amongst the world's largest and most sophisticated investors. In other words, we have capital, talent… we also have a government with immense fiscal capacity to act decisively. And we have the values to which many others aspire.
Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability. We are a stable and reliable partner in a world that is anything but.. A partner that builds and values relationships for the long term.
And we have something else. We have a recognition of what's happening and a determination to act accordingly. We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is.
We are taking the sign out of the window. We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn't mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fracture, we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just. This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and most to gain from genuine cooperation.
The powerful have their power.
But we have something too – the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home and to act together.
That is Canada's path. We choose it openly and confidently, and it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us. Thank you very much.
