Terry Burton is a retired veteran of Alberta’s oil and heavy construction industry, and a former member of the Alberta Apprenticeship Board.Mark Carney’s recent speech at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos has generated an avalanche of commentary. Much of it, particularly from reflexively anti-American quarters, treats the address as a requiem for United States (US) leadership and the final proof that the so-called rules-based international order is beyond repair. Such conclusions are premature, and, in many respects, analytically shallow.To borrow from Mark Twain, reports of America’s demise remain greatly exaggerated. The US continues to account for roughly a quarter of global GDP and remains the world’s most consequential economic, military, and financial actor. That reality is unlikely to change for decades. What has changed, however, is the global mood: confidence has eroded, trust is scarce, alliances are strained, and uncertainty dominates strategic decision-making..OLDCORN: If the NDP is a ‘Big Tent,’ why are radicals being shown the exit?.Countries today face a convergence of pressures — trade disruptions, immigration challenges, contested sovereignty, fraying alliances, and a noticeable decline in disciplined diplomacy. Emotionalism has replaced statecraft in too many capitals, and leaders increasingly posture for domestic or ideological audiences rather than governing for long-term national interest.Against this backdrop, Carney’s speech is less notable for its diagnosis of global fragmentation than for who is delivering it.For decades, Mark Carney was not a peripheral observer of globalization and deep integration; he was one of its most influential stewards. As a senior figure in global finance and central banking, he consistently promoted, defended, and operationalized the very system he now describes as flawed, asymmetric, and, ultimately, coercive. That is not in dispute — it is a matter of record..In Davos, Carney now argues that the international rules-based order was always partially fictitious: that powerful states exempted themselves when convenient; that trade rules were enforced unevenly, and that international law applied selectively. These are hardly new insights. Critics of globalization have been making precisely these arguments for decades, often while being dismissed by the very institutions and figures Carney represented. The Carney message is clear, “We knew the system was unfair, greatly flawed, and it took advantage of the weaker, however, we ignored that reality and, because it was to our short term advantage, turned a blind eye to this exploitation of others." The question, then, is not whether Carney is wrong now. In several respects, he is correct. Extreme global integration did create vulnerabilities. Over-reliance on distant supply chains exposed states to coercion. The weaponization of trade, finance, and infrastructure is now undeniable. Sovereignty, neglected for years — upon the advice of people like Carney — has returned to the centre of strategic thinking where it always belonged.The more difficult question is one of credibility and timing..ALBERS: Mark Carney’s WEF delusion — naming the ‘great lie’ behind the ‘New World Order’.Carney acknowledges that these weaknesses were known. He concedes that elites “participated in the rituals” of a system they privately understood to be exploitative and extremely unfair, because the arrangement was useful to them. Yet there is no meaningful reckoning with his own role in sustaining that fiction. Nor is there much humility in the implied suggestion that the system only became untenable once it ceased to serve the interests of its principal architects and beneficiaries.Countries that most enthusiastically embraced globalization and integration — particularly middle powers — were always going to face a reckoning. It was never a matter of if, but when. Integration inevitably trades resilience for efficiency and sovereignty for scale. When conditions are stable, those tradeoffs appear acceptable and manageable. When conditions deteriorate, they become liabilities.In that sense, Carney’s newfound emphasis on strategic autonomy — energy, food, critical minerals, finance, defence — is both warranted and long overdue. A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has limited freedom of action. Self-sufficiency, or at least credible self-reliance, is not autarky; it is prudent risk management..Where Carney’s argument becomes more problematic is in his proposed remedy. Having identified the dangers of over-integration, he appears to advocate a reconfigured version of the same logic: new blocs, new coalitions, new architectures that, in practice, risk replicating the very sovereignty tradeoffs he now criticizes. Middle powers combining to hedge against great powers may be tactically appealing, but it is not cost-free. Collective resilience often comes with collective constraints.There is also a strategic question of tone and timing. Publicly lecturing or challenging major powers — particularly one’s largest trading partner — may play well in elite forums, but it carries real diplomatic costs. Canada is a middle power, not a hegemon. Its influence rests on credibility, discretion, and diplomacy, not moral exhibitionism. With CUSMA renegotiations on the horizon, unnecessarily antagonistic rhetoric risks complicating already difficult discussions..BEST / RUBENSTEIN: Why indigenous rights in Canada’s Constitution must be repealed.This is not an argument against diversification. Canada should broaden its trade relationships and reduce over-dependence on any single partner. That is a sound policy. But diversification must be pursued patiently, quietly, and strategically. Nations, as the old maxim reminds us, have no permanent friends — only permanent interests. To be clear, Canada's European and Asian partners will pursue their own advantages without sentimentality, just as the US and China do.There is a deeper irony here. Carney now speaks eloquently about sovereignty returning to the centre of global politics, yet his broader institutional affiliations and policy preferences — whether through the World Economic Forum, multilateral governance structures, or pandemic-era agreements — raise legitimate questions about how he defines sovereignty in practice. Is sovereignty a principle to be defended, or a variable to be pooled when convenient?.The world is indeed entering a more fragmented, competitive, and uncertain phase. Trust has been depleted. Risk has increased. Integration without solid and firm guardrails has been exposed as dangerous. On these points, Carney is right.What remains unresolved is whether his Davos intervention represents a genuine re-evaluation, or a strategic repositioning now that the globalization project no longer delivers predictable returns for its original champions, Carney being one of those very champions..OLDCORN: Nicotine pouches belong in Canada’s nicotine harm-reduction toolbox.Canada’s future prosperity will not be secured through nostalgia for a vanished order, nor through rhetorical confrontation with stronger states. It will depend on disciplined diplomacy, reduced vulnerability, realistic assessments of power, and a renewed commitment to national resilience. Sovereignty should never have been treated as unfashionable. Its return is not a regression — it is a much-needed correction.If there is a lesson to be drawn from this moment, it is not that globalization was an unqualified mistake, but that it was pursued without sufficient regard for risk, reciprocity, and national interest. The task ahead is not to replace one grand illusion with another, but to govern with clear eyes, institutional memory, and a measure of humility — qualities that have been in short supply for far too long.Terry Burton is a retired veteran of Alberta’s oil and heavy construction industry, and a former member of the Alberta Apprenticeship Board.
