風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
哈佛教授 Stephen Walt 馬克·卡尼的演講意義重大
哈佛大學教授：馬克·卡尼的演講意義重大
Harvard professor: Mark Carney's speech was a big deal
Stephen Walt Harvard Kennedy School Feb 5, 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62rUx6LE1_Q
哈佛大學教授：馬克·卡尼的演講意義重大
2026年1月，在瑞士達沃斯世界經濟論壇上，加拿大總理馬克·卡尼發表了一篇引人注目的演講，對國際秩序產生了巨大衝擊。卡尼稱地緣政治的最新發展是“斷裂，而非轉型”，並倡導中等強國加強合作，加大對自身國防、基礎設施和經濟的投資。
在這段視頻中，哈佛大學肯尼迪學院教授、國際關係領域權威專家斯蒂芬·沃爾特認為，卡尼的演講確實意義重大。他解釋了促使加拿大和其他中等強國尋求在國防和經濟關係方麵擁有更大自主權的國際動態，並就卡尼在演講中提出的願景是否真正可行發表了看法。
本視頻適合所有對國際關係、國際關係理論、現實主義、全球政治、達沃斯論壇和貿易感興趣的人士觀看。
文字稿
[斯蒂芬·沃爾特] 卡尼算不上激進分子。所以，他能說出這樣的話，本質上是在說過去的世界已經過去，我們必須根據這些新的現實製定不同的路線，我認為這意義重大。
[馬克·卡尼] 我們正處於斷裂之中，而非過渡時期。過去二十年來，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；並將供應鏈作為可供利用的漏洞。當一體化成為你受製於人的根源時，你就無法繼續活在通過一體化實現互利共贏的謊言之中。
[沃爾特] 我認為這確實是一個意義非凡的時刻。你知道，很明顯，在場的很多人都在思考類似的事情，而且我認為他們很高興終於有人像卡尼那樣公開、清晰地表達了這些想法。說出這些話的人也很重要。我的意思是，加拿大曾經是我們最好的朋友。你知道，當然，是任何國家都夢寐以求的鄰國。
[史蒂夫·沃爾特] 卡尼算不上激進分子。他是一位徹頭徹尾的主流政治家，一位真正的建製派人士。所以，他能說出這樣的話，本質上是在說過去的世界已經過去，它不會再回來了，我們必須根據這些新的現實製定不同的路線，我認為這意義非凡。
[卡尼] 我們的新方針基於芬蘭總統亞曆山大·斯圖布所說的“基於價值的現實主義”。或者換句話說，我們的目標是既堅持原則又務實。我們秉持原則，恪守基本價值觀：主權、領土完整、除符合《聯合國憲章》的情況外，禁止使用武力。同時，我們也務實，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的所有價值觀。
[沃爾特] 我認為卡尼並非以現實主義國際關係理論的視角來談論現實主義。他主要指的是不抱幻想的現實主義。我們必須正視世界的真實麵貌，而不是我們理想中的樣子。他提出的是一個非常現實主義的觀點是，各國必須聯合起來製衡危險或反複無常的國家，擁有相似價值觀的國家應該聯合起來保護這些利益，以及它們自身的價值觀。
我還要補充一點，認為許多人持有現實主義觀點或認為現實主義不道德，或者認為現實主義沒有道德立場，我認為這種觀點是錯誤的。現實主義的核心觀點是，這是一個充滿危險的世界。我們需要謹慎行事。你希望盡可能地珍視和平。你不想打愚蠢的戰爭等等。在某些方麵，卡尼的觀點也反映了這一點：我們需要謹慎、冷靜地判斷，而不是采取反複無常的政策，運用審慎的治國之道，並與其他國家合作，以保護加拿大和其他誌同道合國家的利益。
[卡尼] 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，以及集體解決問題的架構本身——正麵臨威脅。因此，許多國家得出了相同的結論：
它們必須在能源、糧食、關鍵礦產、金融和供應鏈方麵發展更大的戰略自主權。這種想法是可以理解的。一個無法自給自足、無法自給自足、無法自給自足的國家，選擇餘地非常有限。
[沃爾特] 我認為，一個更有能力保護自己，而無需大量依賴美國援助的歐洲，將有利於和平。或許，美國扮演負責任、謹慎、積極但克製的角色，這樣的世界或許不如這樣的世界理想；而美國完全置身事外或行為反複無常、甚至具有破壞性，這樣的世界顯然更糟糕。
我希望看到美國成為一股建設性力量。但如果我們不扮演這樣的角色，那麽我希望其他一些擁有更理性觀點的國家能夠發揮更大的作用。
[卡尼] 霸權國家不能總是將關係貨幣化。盟友會進行多元化投資以對衝不確定性。他們會購買保險，增加選擇，以重建主權。主權曾經建立在規則之上，但將越來越依賴於抵禦壓力的能力。
[沃爾特] 顯然，要讓眾多中等強國協調行動並長期持續下去，這顯然並非易事。
當然，這些國家都能做到，而且他們已經在做了，那就是開始對衝風險並實現多元化，首先從經濟聯係入手。歐盟與拉丁美洲的南方共同市場簽署了貿易協定，現在又與印度簽署了，加拿大也開始朝著這個方向發展。卡尼訪問了北京。在當今世界，大國之間固然存在競爭，但它們對小國和中等強國的掠奪性也日益增強，這些國家似乎並沒有太多選擇餘地。
卡尼的觀點也正是如此：要麽你做東，要麽你就是盤中餐，而你肯定不想成為盤中餐。
Harvard professor: Mark Carney's speech was a big deal
Harvard Kennedy School Feb 5, 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62rUx6LE1_Q
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January 2026, Canadian prime minister Mark Carney gave a striking speech that has sent shockwaves through the international order. Calling the latest developments in geopolitics "a rupture, not a transition," Carney advocated for middle powers to collaborate more closely and increase their investments in their own defense, infrastructure and economies.
In this video, Harvard Kennedy School professor Stephen Walt, one of the leading experts in international relations, argues that Carney's speech was indeed significant. He explains the international dynamics that have lead Canada and other middle powers to seek more autonomy in their own defense and economic ties. And he weighs in on whether the vision that Carney laid out in his speech is truly feasible.
This video is for anyone interested in learning about international relations, IR theory, realism, global politics, Davos, and trade.
Transcript
[Stephen Walt] Carney is hardly a radical. So for him to say something, essentially saying that the world of the past is past, and we have to chart a different course in light of these new realities, I think was quite significant.
[Mark Carney] 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; and 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.
[Walt] I think it is actually quite a significant moment.You know, it's clear that a lot of people in the room,were thinking similar thoughts, and I think were glad to have someone finally state them openly and as clearly as Carney did. It's also significant who said it. I mean, Canada used to be just about our best friend. You know, certainly, the best neighbor any country could possibly ask for.
[Steve Walt] And Carney is hardly a radical.He’s an absolute mainstream politician, a real establishment person.So for him to say something,essentially saying that the world of the past is past,it's not coming back, and we have to chart a different course in light of these new realities, I think was quite significant.
[Carney] 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 pragmatic and recognizing that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge,that not every partner will share all of our values.
[Walt] I don't think Carney was talking as a realist as IR theory.He was mostly saying realism in the sense of no illusions.We have to look at the world as it really is, not how we might want it to be. He was suggesting a very realist idea, which is that states have to come together to balance against dangerous or erratic countries, and that states with similar values should join forces to protect those interests.And also, their values.
I might add that the idea that many people have the realists or realism is amoral or that it doesn't have a moral position, I think is just wrong. The whole realist take is that it's a dangerous world. You want to be prudent. You want to value peace as much as possible. You don't want to fight stupid wars, etc. and in some respects Carney was reflecting that, that we need to have careful, sober judgment and not erratic policies and use prudent statecraft and cooperation with others to protect Canadian interests and the interests of other like-minded countries.
[Carney] 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.
[Walt] To me, a Europe that was more capable of protecting itself, without enormous amounts of American help, would be conducive to peace, I think. it might not be as desirable as a world in which the United States is playing a responsible, prudent, active, but restrained role, world where the United States is either totally disengaged or behaving in an erratic, or destructive fashion is obviously worse. I would like to see the United States as a constructive force. But if we're not playing that role, then I hope other countries with, you know, sort of more sensible outlooks, take on a greater role.
[Carney] 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.
[Walt] There is clearly a collective action problem getting a lot of medium powers to coordinate their actions and continue that over time, sustain that over time is obviously not going to be easy.
Certainly what these countries can all do, and they're doing it already is begin to hedge and diversify beginning with economic ties. The European Union signing trade deals with Mercosur in Latin America, with India now as well, Canada has started to move in that direction as well. Carney made a trip to Beijing. And it's not clear that these countries have much choice in a world, where the Great Powers are contending with each other, yes, but are also increasingly predatory towards smaller states and medium powers.
And again, that was sort of Carney's point, you're either hosting the dinner or you're on the menu, and you don't want to be on the menu.
