The Davos contrast: Precision vs. Provocation

In the 1920s and ’30s, the unthinkable was put in writing in the form of “War Plan Red,” America’s plans for an invasion of Canada, and “Defence Scheme No. 1,” Canada’s plans for a preventive war with America. The former allies had secretly been planning their mutual annihilation. One hundred years later, with Mark Carney standing at the podium in Davos, declaring the end of the Western world, it’s hard not to think that those plans weren’t so much quaint relics of a bygone era as previews of a conflict in its early stages.

Last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Canadian Prime Minister declared to the world, “the old order is not coming back,” in what many have deemed the strongest speech of the conference. In his remarks, he essentially said that the rules-based global order has broken down, and that the choice is to adapt as a middle power to avoid becoming collateral damage in the age of great-power coercion.

Carnney’s action is a bet, a calculation, on the value of predictability over principle. Just recently, the government he is part of reached a deal with the Chinese government on electric vehicles and agricultural products, ending a period of tension in their relations. Symbolism aside, when Washington is unpredictable, even authoritarian regimes look attractive.

The high-visibility pivot to the East comes at a time when Trump is consistently driving a wedge between America’s strongest allies. His latest remarks on NATO forces’ contributions to the conflict in Afghanistan are a perfect example. Trump falsely accused NATO forces of “staying a little back, a little off the front lines.” He ignores the fact that 457 British soldiers died, 158 Canadians, 44 Danes—all to a per capita death rate second only to that of American forces.

The only question is, is it a pragmatic realism or a dangerous naïveté about China’s own aggressive designs? Either way, the world’s friendliest border is looking decidedly cold – and unfriendly.

The question is, can Canada really afford to divorce its northern neighbour?

READ: Germany, Italy say cannot join Board of Peace in current form

The quick response, of course, is that we can, but it would hurt. The numbers are staggering: Each vehicle assembled in Canada contains 50 to 60 percent U.S.-made parts, and vice versa, as automotive parts are imported back and forth across the shared border 6 to 8 times during assembly. In fact, 80 percent of automobiles assembled in Canada are sold in the U.S., and 50 percent of vehicle parts are made in U.S. assembly plants.

In 2023, Canada exported 49.4 terawatt-hours of electricity, valued at $4.3 billion, enough to power over 5.6 million homes in the United States.

Regarding oil, it accounted for 60 per cent of U.S. crude oil imports in 2023, with 4 million barrels per day transported by pipeline. But wait, it gets even better, as the pipelines carry crude oil to Canadian provinces on the east coast, passing through the U.S.

Will Canada suffer in silence?

Not really. The IMF says U.S. tariffs “have disrupted closely integrated North American supply chains, lifted input costs, and weighed most heavily on those industries most exposed to trade.” Exports to the U.S. fell by 18.3 per cent in the first two quarters of 2025. The result was a loss of approximately 24,000 manufacturing-sector jobs in Ontario.

Instead of bearing the brunt in silence, Canada is moving ahead with its drive to diversify trade. Shipments of crude oil from Canada to China have overtaken those to the U.S. for the first time in April 2025, thanks to the expanded capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline. The venture is not an easy process and will take years due to its highly integrated nature.

In point of fact, both economies would suffer greatly from any decoupling, and that is why Carney’s rhetoric on China being a “predictable partner” is so surprising, and so risky.

READ: Trump withdraws invitation for Canada to join Gaza ‘Board of Peace’

The contrast between the Davos crowd and the broader population

The contrast at Davos could hardly have been more striking. Mark Carney’s speech was a measured analysis of the decaying international order, using the vocabulary that any former central banker would know: ‘variable geometry,’ ‘hedging strategies,’ ‘middle power coalitions.’ It was a speech that, for any audience that shared his assumptions, was a masterclass in precise, technical expression, each sentence building on the last to create an overarching picture of how smaller countries might manoeuvre between rival hegemonies. The assembled global elite nodded approvingly: here was a man who shared their language.

Where Carney has provided detailed architecture for complex policy, Trump has made his name with simple declarations of action – tariffs, threats, “America First.” His appearance in Davos was his usual belligerent self, marked by dismissals of his allies and historical inaccuracies that infuriated his coalition partners. There is an essential difference between them – one of approach, one of world view, one of understanding of international relations in general.

Carney views international relations as a complex system that requires cooperative action – working with allies to achieve an end goal. Trump, by contrast, views it as a series of individual deals in which strength is required to achieve an end goal – in short, where, in the case of Canada, this divergence represents both a threat and an opportunity. By placing himself on the world stage as the articulate voice of forsaken allies, Carney has inadvertently granted Ottawa a position of relative moral authority. 

The difficulty, however, is that a position of relative moral authority will not pay the bills when 75 per cent of one’s gross domestic product depends on a neighbour to the south, and when the occupant of the White House regards treaty obligations as merely advisory rather than binding. Carney can score all the debating points at a Swiss ski resort, but Trump holds the key to the largest market on the planet. The question is whether eloquence can replace economic leverage—or whether Canada is just making the best of an impossible situation.

OPINION: In 1953, the CIA walked the streets of Tehran; today, they walk with Mossad and MI6

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.