Picture from Planet Volumes from Unsplash+
As I suggested over the last several Posts, I wanted to take a quick look at Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s follow-up trips that were designed, we anticipated, to address his recent statements on Middle Power (MP) actions.
First a quick reminder of the strategic approach expressed by the Canadian PM on the necessary and possibly vital role of MPs in the face of Trump’s dramatic foreign policy moves whether over: the Gaza cease fire, the Ukraine conflict, actions in Venezuela and possibly Cuba, and most recently and dramatically in Iran in partnership with Israel. Carney’s remarks were most notably aired at the annual Davos World Economic Conference (Davos) gathering last January where they received significant favorable press and comment. As described by Matina Stevis-Gridneff and Ian Austen in the NYTimes:
“Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada, in a high-profile speech last month, described the Trump era as a rupture for countries like his, and called on global “middle powers” to band together to survive in the tumult of a changing United States.”
The Davos speech was impactful but it turns out Carney’s MP views were first aired by him in a piece in The Economist in November and these views set the ground for his later speech at Davos.
In those remarks, and even more pointedly afterwards, the PM made clear that the old world of multilateral actions and institutions were over. As he stated:
“The security, prosperity and resilience the old system delivered depended heavily on the commitment of its core, the United States of America. As that indispensable nation has adjusted its commitments to global institutions, the fragility of the post-cold-war system has been revealed.”
“To re-establish resilience, a new web of ad hoc co-operation is beginning to emerge. We are entering an era of “variable geometry” characterised by dynamic, overlapping, pragmatic coalitions, built around shared interests, and occasionally shared values, rather than shared institutions.”
Putting it another way in his remarks, the global order Carney perhaps envisions going forward:
“Or, to put another way, we aim to be both principled and pragmatic – principled in our commitment to fundamental values, sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force, except when consistent with the UN Charter, and respect for human rights, and pragmatic and recognizing that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner will share all of our values.”
“It may seem unusual to apply a hard engineering term to the soft arts of foreign policy, but each discipline is designed to build. And in the world of international affairs, a term that describes mechanisms that can adjust to changing environments is an apt description and a useful guide to action.”
“A prominent example of variable geometry is the “coalition of the willing”—the ad hoc group of nations which has come together to support Ukraine.”
“To address the risks of sudden disruptions to global trade in critical minerals, Canada is bringing together like-minded nations to form a critical-minerals strategic alliance. The goal is to secure and diversify supply chains by investing in mining, stockpiling supplies and developing standards-based markets to guard against future shortages.”
“Expect such purpose-built alliances to continue to proliferate. Even when their webs of connection are small, these groups can have outsize impacts by cutting through bureaucracy, moving fast and reinforcing shared strategic interests. Difficult times require pragmatic responses. Countries that might not normally be considered “like-minded” will increasingly co-operate where they share specific goals and values on specific issues.
One instance he suggests concerns globe trade. As he described it:
“Instead of a single, reformed rules-based trading system, a mosaic of partial agreements and creative “docking” arrangements between blocs could develop. One option would be to bring together two of the world’s largest trading blocs, the EU and the Asia-centred CPTPP. Reaching consensus to reform the WTO could take decades. But bringing together groups of countries that share a belief in free trade—grounded in basic standards for labour, the environment and data sovereignty—will be a faster way to make progress.”
Though Carney acknowledges some possible downsides to a broad multilateral structure that was envisioned following World War II, Carney nevertheless believes that the gained benefits are worth it:
“Though the growth of variable geometry risks fragmentation, duplication and potential inequities for those left outside these clubs, such concerns should be outweighed by the benefits of speed, adaptability and impact. These coalitions could ultimately prove more resilient to future shocks than the current hub-and-spoke system that is only as strong as its core. Variable geometry need not be static: successful coalitions will attract new joiners.”
He concludes with this message:
“We should focus on building something better. The twilight of multilateralism will be followed by the rise of plurilateralism. States that embrace variable geometry, weaving new networks and constructing pragmatic alliances, will be best placed to thrive in this new age.”
And can we see what that ‘better’ is in his Indo-Pacific sojourn? Again from the NYTimes:
“This week, he is building on his plan to construct a middle-power sphere of trade and deep bonds by visiting India, Australia and Japan.”
And shortly after that the PM headed to the Nordic countries as well, as noted above. So, what were some of the agreements concluded in these travels to these various MPs; and what do these Carney actions tell us about efforts to build these plurilateral groupings?
So just a quick look does point to agreements though Carney’s discussions were largely bilateral except in the case of the Nordic countries. Nevertheless, in Australia he concluded the following as described by Canada’s CTV News:
“Australia and Canada said on Wednesday they had signed new agreements on critical minerals as Prime Minister Mark Carney made a landmark address to the Australian parliament, a sign of the developing bond between the “middle powers”.”
“Albanese told a press conference that Australia would join Canada’s G7 critical minerals production alliance.”
As pointed out by the CBC’s Paul Tasker:
“Carney said Canada is “choosing to create a dense web of connections to build our resilience and strategic autonomy,” and he wants Australia in particular to be among those newly established partnerships whenever possible.”
“To that end, Carney and Albanese [The Australian Prime Minister] announced Thursday a joint critical minerals alliance, with a plan to collaborate on and potentially co-develop lithium, uranium and iron ore to try to block China and the U.S. from total domination in that space.”
Notwithstanding remaining Canada-India tensions over India’s alleged interference in the Sikh community in Canada, PM Carney and PM Modi of India signed a number of critical mineral and resource agreements as identified by the PM’s Office:
“To leverage our strengths as complementary economies, Canada and India announced a new Strategic Energy Partnership, including in LNG, LPG, uranium, solar, and hydrogen. As the first steps, the leaders welcomed:
“A landmark $2.6 billion agreement between the Government of India and Saskatoon-based Cameco to supply nearly 22 million pounds of uranium to India for nuclear energy generation from 2027 to 2035.
Two MOUs to intensify cooperation on critical minerals and energy sources, supporting technical and commercial engagement, and diversifying supply chains.
Strengthened collaboration on clean energy initiatives in solar, wind, biofuels, and hydropower, including announcing that Canada intends to join the International Solar Alliance and is upgrading to full membership status in the Global Biofuels Alliance.
Intensified engagement on LPG with the aim to conclude Canada’s first long-term LPG arrangement with India.”
And there were other agreements.
And with respect to Japan, there also Carney completed another set of agreements. As described by Kanako Takahara in The Japan Times:
“Japan and Canada agreed Friday to establish an economic security dialogue to reinforce supply chains for critical minerals and energy resources by the end of the year.”
“They also agreed to establish a dialogue covering cyber policy to discuss growing threats in cyberspace.”
“The agreements were made between Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney during a bilateral summit as the two countries aim to expand cooperation, from defense to food products.”
And finally, and after a brief return to Canada, PM Carney visited the Nordic countries. In a Joint Statement with Canada, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland these countries committed to:
“In support of collective defence, security and resilience, the Nordic countries and Canada will enhance defence industrial capacity to ramp up defence production, strengthen capabilities, respond to hybrid threats, build resilient infrastructure, and develop interoperable, innovative and dual-use technologies.”
“The Nordic countries and Canada are robust, open economies, and together we represent a substantial market. We are committed to upholding the rules-based system of international trade, and support efforts to reform and revitalise the World Trade Organization.”
As Iceland’s PM described the agreements:
“I think definitely there has been a void that has to be filled when it comes to global leadership,” added Iceland’s Prime Minister, Kristrun Frostadottir. “These are obviously difficult times in a way, but there are also opportunities that come from this.””
And as PM Carney described the overall effort:
“Prime Minister Mark Carney joined prime ministers from the other five countries in a summit on Sunday in Oslo. All six talked about deepening their co-operation and using their status as a group of Arctic countries to be a voice in NATO, the European Union and other multinational organizations.”
How forward leaning and impactful these agreements are, it is at the moment hard to say. Certainly, Waldie in examining the collective efforts of these Northern countries questioned their impact. As he stated:
“But it was far from clear how the six countries would work together and what positions they would take on various issues. They released a joint statement that was long on generalities about meeting more regularly and deepening co-operation in a range of areas, but short on specifics.”
These agreements show the potential for collective MP actions. They move the yardsticks but how impactful these and additional MP actions might be, we will have to see. This is the start of MP collective effort; but only the start.