There’s been a lot of talk about middle powers lately. Nothing new there, perhaps, but this time there’s also been some middle-power action.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has single-handedly demonstrated that not only is it possible for leaders of middle powers to think independently, but they can also put good ideas into practice if they have the courage and imagination to do so.
Carney, a former central banker, demonstrated a hitherto unsuspected capacity for thinking the unthinkable in his widely praised speech at Davos.
One reason Carney had such an impact is that some of the most powerful and influential people on the planet seem to find it hard to recognize a profound change in the international system until someone else names it for them.
And yet it’s one thing to recognize a “rupture” in which the old order is upended by the United States, its notional bedrock. It’s quite another to decide how to respond to a predatory hegemon that treats friend and putative foe with similar disdain, if not outright threats.
Being threatened with a possible takeover by your more powerful neighbor would focus the attention of any government. However, developing a response that not only makes this less likely but also offers a credible program to reduce Canada’s economic and strategic dependency is an impressive achievement — one that ought to inspire other states similarly vulnerable to bullying.
The list of agreements Carney has already completed or is working on is impressive and growing. Canada will allow 49,000 Chinese EVs to enter the domestic market at a most-favored-nation tariff of 6.1%, in return for a deep cut in Chinese tariffs — from 85% to 15% — on canola and other agricultural products.
Canada and China also agreed to “collaborate in energy, clean technology and climate competitiveness.” These are all areas in which the US is a laggard and Donald Trump has again threatened punitive tariffs if the deal goes ahead.
Of potentially equal significance is Carney’s planned visit to India, during which both sides intend to develop a “comprehensive economic partnership agreement.” This would represent a major reset of the overall bilateral relationship, given lingering tensions over India’s alleged involvement in the assassination of a Sikh separatist leader in Canada in 2023.
Perhaps of greatest significance, however, is Carney’s effort to “build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the European Union.” Significantly, both groupings are composed exclusively of middle powers with potentially converging worldviews and interests. The US withdrew from the original Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2017 during Trump’s first term; China would like to join.
Equally noteworthy is that Japan led efforts to revive the initiative as the CPTPP. There is currently a queue of aspiring members, including key East Asian states such as Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia and South Korea.
Although Carney can’t claim credit for this, the attempt to link two of the world’s most economically consequential regions — dominated by middle powers — might provide an important counterweight to great-power pressure.
A tangible expression of this desire is Canadian participation in Security Action for Europe (SAFE), a key part of the EU’s White Paper for European Defence — Readiness 2030. Ironically, after being browbeaten and abused by the Trump administration for not pulling their strategic weight, middle powers are recognizing they cannot rely on the US any longer. Indeed, they might get more bang for their buck by cooperating with similarly positioned states.
We might expect the logic and appeal of this emerging realignment among middle powers to be seen as vindication of an approach long championed by Australia and some of its most influential foreign policy elites. After all, Australian policymakers have long considered themselves pioneers of “creative middle-power diplomacy.”
But it is still highly unlikely that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese would ever give a speech like Carney’s at Davos. True, Canada was at the sharp end of American bullying and perhaps had less to lose.
But some ideas remain unthinkable for Australia’s strategic and policymaking elites. Australia remains locked into the US alliance, no matter who is in the White House or what the cost in blood or treasure may be.
No doubt Albanese will be hoping Carney doesn’t say anything too controversial or daring during his forthcoming visit. Closer ties with Canada would seem like the proverbial no-brainer, given the two countries’ similar histories and capabilities.
But given a choice between cooperating with other middle powers and alienating a great power that has become increasingly unreliable, transactional and even adversarial, it seems clear which option any Australian government would choose.
Mark Beeson is at the Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney
