Britain's Position in the New World Order: A Davos Reality Check
The annual Davos gathering in the Swiss Alps, typically known for its predictable discussions on sustainability and inclusive growth, took a dramatic turn this year. Against the backdrop of Donald Trump's geopolitical threats, a speech by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has fundamentally challenged long-held assumptions about global governance.
The End of the Rules-Based Fiction
Carney, the former Bank of England governor, delivered a strikingly candid assessment that what we've called the "rules-based international order" is not just over—it never truly existed in the first place. According to Carney, Western nations have been operating under a useful fiction that allowed countries like Canada to prosper while pretending that international rules applied equally to all nations.
"For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order," Carney stated. "We knew the story was partially false—that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically, and that international law applied with varied rigor depending on the identity of the accused or the victim."
This frank admission followed Carney's controversial visit to Beijing, where he signed agreements with China while openly referring to "the new world order." His Davos speech outlined two possible paths forward for nations recognizing this new reality: building defensive fortresses at home or pursuing strategic strength through pragmatic alliances.
Carney's Prescription for National Strategy
The Canadian leader advocated for a middle path that combines domestic strength with selective international partnerships. "This is not naïve multilateralism, nor is it relying on their institutions," Carney explained. "It's building coalitions that work issue by issue with partners who share enough common ground to act together."
Carney emphasized several critical domestic strengths that nations should cultivate:
- Energy independence and domestic energy supplies
- Access to critical minerals and natural resources
- Sophisticated investment capital and financial systems
- Attracting and retaining top talent
- Honest assessment of global realities
Britain's Leadership Vacuum
The most pressing question arising from Carney's analysis concerns Britain's position in this transformed landscape. Where is Keir Starmer in this conversation? The Labour leader, who embodies the multilateral, rules-based approach that Carney declares obsolete, wasn't even present at Davos to engage with these ideas.
Starmer's natural comfort zone lies in multilateral summits, memoranda of understanding, and cooperative agreements—precisely the framework Carney suggests has reached its expiration date. As Britain's "Lawyer in Chief," Starmer appears to be clinging to a system that influential voices like Carney's now openly describe as fictional.
Britain's Strategic Deficiencies
Several recent British decisions raise questions about whether the UK is pursuing its own strategic interests with sufficient clarity:
- Energy policy that has drawn criticism for lacking strategic vision
- The Chagos Islands sovereignty decision, crafted primarily through legal rather than strategic frameworks
- Granting China prestigious diplomatic presence in central London without apparent strategic reciprocity
While Starmer has handled immediate challenges like Trump's tariff threats competently, Carney's analysis suggests Britain needs something more substantial—a coherent, robust, and urgent vision for the UK's future encompassing economic growth, security, borders, energy, and alliances.
The Path Forward for Britain
Carney's speech presents both a warning and an opportunity for Britain. The comfortable assumptions of the post-war order have been stripped away, revealing a world where nations must pursue their interests with clearer eyes and greater strategic purpose.
Britain now faces a critical choice: continue operating within frameworks that influential global figures declare fictional, or develop a new approach that combines domestic strength with selective, pragmatic international partnerships. The risk of inaction is becoming increasingly apparent—a nation that fails to recognize how dramatically the world is changing around it.
The question remains whether British leadership can move beyond comfortable multilateralism to articulate and pursue the nation's interests in this new, less predictable global environment. Carney has thrown down the gauntlet; Britain must now decide how to respond.
