EU leaders would do well to meditate on the seminal lesson that the Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, delivered at this year’s World Economic Forum.
In an incisive analysis of the new age of predatory great powers, where might is increasingly asserted as right, Carney not only accurately defined the coarsening of international relations as “a rupture, not a transition”. He also outlined how liberal democratic “middle powers” such as Canada – but also European countries – must build coalitions to counter coercion and defend as much as possible of the principles of territorial integrity, the rule of law, free trade, climate action and human rights. He spelled out a hedging strategy that Canada is already pursuing, diversifying its trade and supply chains and even opening its market to Chinese electric vehicles to counter Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canadian-made automobiles. The Guardian
Learning objectives
Students will be able to:
- Identify Carney’s major claims, assumptions, and proposed actions.
- Evaluate the strength of his reasoning (evidence, warrants, counterarguments, feasibility).
- Analyze rhetorical and literary devices and assess how they shape meaning for different audiences.
- Produce an evidence-based critique or defense of the speech that addresses at least one serious counterview.
Essential questions
- How do political leaders use narrative and metaphor to redefine what counts as “reality” in international affairs?
- When a speaker claims the old “rules-based order” is partly “fiction,” what is the persuasive purpose of saying so publicly?
- What does Carney suggest world leaders have been doing in response to coercive power politics—and why does he argue that approach fails?
- How do literary devices work in policy speeches to create legitimacy, urgency, and a sense of collective responsibility?
1) Launch: “What is the speech doing?”
Prompt (board): In one sentence, what is Carney trying to get powerful people in the room to stop doing and start doing?
Watch the speech below
First read: comprehension without alignment
Students annotate only:
- Claim (C)
- Reason (R)
- Evidence (E) — explicit or implied
- Policy proposal (P)
Literal understanding
- What does Carney mean when he says the world is in a “rupture” rather than a “transition”? What evidence does he cite to justify that distinction?
- According to Carney, why did the “rules-based international order” feel useful to countries like Canada?
- What does Carney identify as being “under threat,” and how does that change state behavior?
- Define “strategic autonomy” as the speech uses it. What domains does he list, and why those domains?
- What is the “world of fortresses,” and why does Carney argue it is a bad outcome?
- What is Carney’s proposed alternative to fortresses, in practical terms (trade, minerals, AI)?
Inferential understanding
- Why does Carney spend time acknowledging that the old order was “partially false” rather than simply praising it? What credibility does that buy him?
- When Carney argues that “compliance will not buy safety,” what prior pattern of international behavior is he critiquing?
- Identify the audience segments in Davos he is trying to influence (governments, firms, investors, publics). How does he signal each?
- What does “naming reality” require a state to do differently in its public language and its policy choices?
Critical evaluation
- Which claim is strongest, and which is most vulnerable to counterargument? Explain using the structure of claim → reason → implied evidence.
- Does Carney offer a sufficiently realistic mechanism for middle-power coordination, or is he underestimating collective action problems? Support with the speech’s own logic.
Essay questions
-
Comparative argument and interpretation
Using evidence from both Mark Carney’s Davos/WEF speech and the Guardian opinion article, analyze how each text defines the core problem in today’s international order. To what extent does the Guardian piece accurately represent Carney’s diagnosis, and where does it extend, narrow, or intensify his argument? Your response must (a) identify at least two major claims from each text, (b) explain at least one underlying assumption (warrant) in each, and (c) evaluate which text makes the more logically coherent case and why. -
Rhetorical/literary devices as political strategy
Select two rhetorical or literary devices used in Carney’s speech (for example: allusion, extended metaphor, antithesis, parallelism, aphorism, strategic pronoun use). For each device, explain (a) how it shapes the audience’s understanding of the situation, (b) what interpretation it privileges, and (c) what a reasonable skeptic might argue the device obscures or oversimplifies. Then discuss whether the Guardian author adopts similar devices or tonal strategies to move readers toward a specific policy stance for Europe. -
Policy evaluation and feasibility under coercive bargaining
Carney argues that when powerful states use economic tools and bilateral leverage, “going along to get along” does not produce safety, and he emphasizes “strategic autonomy” and coalition-based resilience. The Guardian calls for Europe to pursue a “painful emancipation” from the United States and proposes more confrontational steps. Evaluate the feasibility and risks of these approaches: What concrete constraints (security dependence, domestic politics, economic interdependence, alliance management) could limit them, and what tradeoffs might justify them? Your response must (a) outline Carney’s proposed response model, (b) outline the Guardian’s proposed response model, and (c) present and respond to at least one serious counterargument to your own conclusion.
