OPINION – Davos 2026: A Carney v.s. Trump battleground for conflicting rhetorics on world politics

José Sales Marques – Economist

The World Economic Forum (WEF), which takes place annually, for over 50 years, at the Alpine resort of Davos, has a remarkable record of defining moments for political conciliations, diplomatic breakthroughs and policy shifts. For example, Greece and Turkey were on the brink of war when, in 1988, Prime Ministers Andreas Papandreou and Turgut Özal signed the Davos Declaration, normalising relations and averting an imminent armed conflict between the two members of NATO. It was also there, in 1992, that Nelson Mandela and F. W. de Klerk shared the stage, signalling to the world that apartheid had ended and South Africa was in a transition to democracy. However, this year’s WEF, which was held under the theme “A spirit of dialogue”, will be defined not by any historic reconciliation or worldwide cooperation, but, on the contrary, by the stark contrast opposing two primary keynote addresses, that describe the current state of world affairs: the America-first exceptionalism of U.S. President Donald Trump’s rhetoric and the clear-sighted diagnostic on the end of global order as we’ve known it for decades and the way forward, for middle powers to join hands together resisting the “hard powers”, by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Celebrating his first year of Trump 2.0, which ended with the successful “extraction” of Nicolas Maduro and his wife from Caracas to a New York jail and the establishment of the “Board of Peace” for Gaza’s control and reconstruction, Trump’s Davos speech had four main objectives, beyond self-praise: to reinstate his claims on pursuing ownership of Greenland while promising to do it without the use of force; to promote the “Board of Peace”, a kind of hybrid organisation totally led and controlled by him and his inner circle, a body totally outside any international multilateral or even U.S. institution, as a new transactional formula of conflict-ending (different from peace) for real estate businesses as paid back; to continue his campaign lambasting European politicians and Europe as a lost continent; and to further extend his demolition of the “Green New Scam” or anything that has to do with climate change. In the meantime, while glorifying tariffs as the preferential first-line instrument for threatening other countries, particularly allies, he promised not to take Greenland by force, since some kind of pre-deal—a four-points sketch—on the matter was designed with Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary-general, whose job depends entirely on U.S. firm support, cutting out Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen from any early discussion (Politico, 23/1/2026).

On a completely different note, Mark Carney’s speech was a sober yet accurate account of the state of the current world order, a show of statecraft none of his western European peers has yet managed to deliver, a direct intellectual counterpoint to Trump’s vision and strategy, proposing nations find a “third path” in a world where the U.S. no longer provides the “glue” for global alliances. His speech also had four main points. Firstly, and eventually the most significant one, he firmly stated the end of the rules-based international order, which, according to his assessment, was already “a pleasant fiction”. “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.” This new state of affairs was not a “transition” but a “rupture” with the old order.

The core takeaway of Carney’s discourse—that middle powers must unite to avoid being on the “menu” of a brutal and “Hobbesian” world—is strongly reminiscent of the group of nations described as the “second world” by that Chinese theory, announced by Deng Xiaoping at the UN General Assembly in 1974

But true leadership is not only about making the right diagnostic, but finding solutions, coming out with remedies for resilience to what seems to be a long period of uncertainties in every field, from trade to climate change, from local conflicts to the potential of a global one. And, notwithstanding that gloomy picture, Carney’s way forward is to call for “middle powers” (Canada, European nations, and others) to join forces against the rise of “hard power”. He famously warned, “if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.” Furthermore, the Canadian prime minister emphasised the need for nations to develop strategic autonomy in energy, food and critical minerals because when “the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself”, warning that a global shift towards isolationism and “fortresses” would result in a world that is poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable. Moreover, he also called for issue-centred multilateral coalitions to face worldwide transnational problems. Those coalitions, with varied geometry, will tackle issues valued by a number of nations, notwithstanding ideological and political differences, multilateral platforms that can focus entirely on problem-solving, an approach he calls “values-based realism”, quoting the academic and current president of Finland, Alexander Stubb. Carney, who went to China and Qatar just before his trip to Davos where he signed “strategic partnerships” with both governments, is a pragmatic politician who understands that governments and regimes with different cultures and values can still be reliable partners, based on shared interest.

While both narratives have elements that are worth analysing on a deeper level, namely what is supposed to be the solution that Trump negotiated with NATO Secretary-General for Greenland and if the American president will not change his mind regarding the use of force or in applying extra tariffs to whichever country not aligning with that plan, it was Carney’s speech that attracted the highest degree of curiosity, discussions, as well as praise at the international level.

First and foremost due to its novelty, directness, the quality of the delivery and its timing. It takes courage, particularly coming from the prime minister of the country that shares thousands of kilometres of border with its southern neighbour, which is also its major trade—75% of exports and 16% of imports by or to Canada are with the United States—and security partner. Secondly, his coalitions with varied geometry are a very interesting way forward, but multilateral deals—defined in their simplest form as an arrangement with at least three partners—will be much harder to realise due to the variety of interests and different degrees of integration and dependence on the US. The EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement and the interim Trade Agreement signed on 17 January, which took 25 years to see the light and was presented at this year’s Davos some few days later with much fanfare, is a process that gives some food for thought: on the one hand, it happened in spite of the French farmers’ opposition to it—to name one of a few other forces that are still trying to derail its final approval by the European Parliament—but negotiations towards a deal would eventually take another decade or more, if not for the “Trump factor”.

Last but not least, Carney’s call for middle powers to tighten ranks and build an alternative to a world run by “hard powers”, although not a novelty in international relations, does spice up a bit the discussion around mainstream orthodoxy.

On the one hand, it sounds like a classical exercise of balance of power, bandwagoning against hegemony; on the other, it resonates with the Chinese Three Worlds Theory, where Canada, Europe and other developed economies are the “second world”.

While the two approaches to international relations and security have enormous differences historically, ideologically and politically, the core takeaway of Carney’s discourse—that middle powers must unite to avoid being on the “menu” of a brutal and “Hobbesian” world—is strongly reminiscent of the group of nations described as the “second world” by that Chinese theory, announced by Deng Xiaoping at the UN General Assembly in 1974 and later phased out due to major changes in the structure of international relations with the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. According to it, China-led Third World should be able to bring those “middle powers” to their side to resist the hegemony of the two superpowers (USA and USSR). It is interesting to note that while China Daily published an article the following day of Carney’s speech titled “Time for Western middle powers to wake up” (China Daily, 23/01/2026), praising the speech and the speaker, it also reflected on how many middle powers would have the courage to answer that call and turn it into action, since the US would react swiftly to any sign of dissent. Just as Trump is doing with Canada, threatening to impose 100% tariffs on Canadian imports if Ottawa strikes a trade deal with Beijing.

As the Year of the Snake is coming to an end, the international arena is full of conflicts and political extremism. Before it ends, on 8 February, Portuguese people will have to cast their vote to elect a new president, choosing between the extreme-right contender André Ventura and the moderate socialist António José Seguro. There is a fair amount of hope that moderation will prevail. Portugal had suffered too much with a long winter lasting fifty years under an extreme-right regime, to have to endure a president representing those ideals.

And then, the Year of the Fire Horse is just around the corner. What kind of a Fire Horse will it be? Much is expected to happen on the international arena, with several elections scheduled for Europe. For instance, Hungary will have parliamentary elections on 12 April, considered by commentators to be the most important election in the EU for 2026, and the United States’ midterm election, taking place around 3 November, will surely be the most important election worldwide, one that could eventually have a major impact on how Donald Trump conducts the remaining years of his second term as US president.

In the meantime, let us hope that the Year of the Fire Horse will bring warm and positive energy to a winter of discontent and that we will all enjoy a Happy New Year! Kung Hei Fat Choi!