卡尼在世界经济论坛演讲的完整文字记录

加拿大总理卡尼于周二在瑞士达沃斯举行的世界经济论坛上发表了一场措辞强硬的演讲，围绕“新的世界秩序”，以及像加拿大这样的中等强国如何通过加强合作而从中受益。

此次演讲是在地缘政治紧张局势不断加剧的背景下进行的。当前，俄罗斯、中国和美国等大国之间的竞争日益激烈；与此同时，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普一方面以关税威胁盟友，另一方面又推动从北约成员国丹麦手中收购格陵兰岛。

以下为卡尼讲话中英文部分的全文实录。

感谢你，Larry。

我将先用法语开场，然后再切换回英语。

（法语部分）

我们似乎每天都被提醒：我们正生活在一个大国竞争的时代——以规则为基础的国际秩序正在褪色，强者可以为所欲为，弱者只能承受他们必须承受的一切。

修昔底德的这句格言被描述成一种不可避免的现实，被视为国际关系“自然逻辑”的回归。面对这种逻辑，许多国家往往选择随波逐流、委曲求全、避免麻烦，寄希望于顺从能够换来安全。

但事实并非如此。那么，我们还有什么选择？

（英语部分）

1978年，捷克异议人士、后来成为总统的瓦茨拉夫·哈维尔写下了一篇文章，名为《无权者的力量》。在文中，他提出了一个简单的问题：共产主义体制是如何维系自身的？

他的答案，从一位蔬菜店老板讲起。

每天早晨，这位店主都会在橱窗里挂上一块牌子，上面写着：“全世界无产者，联合起来。”

他并不相信这句话。事实上，没有人真正相信。但他仍然把牌子摆出来，只是为了避免麻烦、表明顺从、求得相安无事。正因为每条街、每一家店的店主都在做同样的事情，这个体制才得以延续——不仅靠暴力，更靠普通人参与他们内心明知是虚假的日常仪式。

哈维尔将这种状态称为“活在谎言之中”。

这个体制的力量，并不来自它的真实性，而来自所有人愿意假装它是真实的这种集体行为。而它的脆弱性，也恰恰源于同一点：当哪怕只有一个人停止表演，当那位菜贩把标语从橱窗里撤下，整个幻象就开始出现裂缝。

各位朋友，现在，是企业和国家把那块牌子摘下来的时候了。

几十年来，加拿大这样的国家，在我们所谓的“以规则为基础的国际秩序”中实现了繁荣。我们加入这些国际机构，赞美其原则，受益于它所提供的可预测性。正是在这种庇护之下，我们得以推行以价值为导向的外交政策。

但我们心里一直很清楚，这个关于国际秩序的故事并不完全真实。

我们知道，最强大的国家会在方便的时候为自己开例外；我们知道，贸易规则的执行是高度不对称的；我们也知道，国际法的适用力度，往往取决于被告或受害者是谁。

尽管如此，这个“虚构”在当时是有用的。尤其是，美国的霸权在相当程度上提供了全球公共产品：开放的海上航道、稳定的金融体系、集体安全，以及用于解决争端的制度框架。

于是，我们把牌子挂在橱窗里，参与这些仪式，并且大体上避免指出言辞与现实之间的落差。

但这种交易，如今已经行不通了。

恕我直言：我们正处在一次断裂之中，而不是一次平稳的过渡。

在过去二十年里，金融、公共卫生、能源和地缘政治领域的一系列危机，已经暴露出极端全球一体化所带来的风险。而近些年来，大国更开始将经济一体化本身武器化——用关税施压、用金融基础设施进行胁迫、把供应链当作可以被利用的脆弱点。

当一体化本身成为你被支配、被控制的来源时，你就不可能继续活在“互利共赢”的谎言之中。

中等强国所依赖的多边机构——世贸组织、联合国、气候大会，以及整个集体解决全球问题的制度架构——正面临严峻威胁。因此，许多国家得出相同结论：必须在能源、粮食、关键矿产、金融体系和供应链方面建立更大的战略自主性。

这种冲动是可以理解的。

一个无法自给粮食、无法保障能源、无法自我防卫的国家，选择极其有限。当规则不再保护你时，你就必须保护自己。

但我们也必须清醒地认识到，这条路通向何方：一个由“堡垒国家”组成的世界，将更加贫穷、更脆弱，也更不可持续。

还有一个事实必须正视：如果大国连规则和价值的表象都不再维持，而是毫无约束地追逐自身权力和利益，那么以交易主义为基础的收益将越来越难以维系。

霸权国家无法永远将其关系货币化。盟友会为了对冲不确定性而分散布局，购买“保险”，增加选择，以重新建立主权——这种主权曾经建立在规则之上，但今后将越来越建立在承受压力的能力之上。

在座各位都明白，这是典型的风险管理。风险管理是有成本的，但战略自主和主权的成本是可以分担的。集体投资于韧性，比各自修建堡垒更便宜；共同标准能减少碎片化；互补合作是正和博弈。

对加拿大这样的中等强国而言，问题不在于是否适应新现实——我们必须适应。

问题在于：我们是只会筑起更高的墙，还是能做得更有雄心。

事实上，加拿大是最早听到警钟的国家之一，这促使我们从根本上调整了战略姿态。加拿大人已经清楚地认识到：我们过去那种认为地理位置和联盟成员身份天然带来繁荣与安全的假设，已经不再成立。

我们的新路径，正如芬兰总统亚历山大·斯图布所说，是一种“基于价值的现实主义”。

换句话说，我们既讲原则，也讲务实。

在原则上，我们坚持基本价值观、主权与领土完整，坚持只有在符合《联合国宪章》的情况下才能使用武力，并尊重人权。

在务实上，我们认识到进步往往是渐进的，各国利益并不总是一致，也并非所有伙伴都共享我们的全部价值。

因此，我们以开放而清醒的态度，广泛而有策略地参与国际事务。我们直面真实的世界，而不是等待一个理想中的世界。

我们正在校准双边与多边关系的深度，使其反映我们的价值观；在当前高度流动、风险加剧、关乎未来走向的世界中，我们优先扩大参与，以最大化自身影响力。

我们不再只依赖价值的力量，也开始重视力量本身的价值。

我们正在国内建设这种力量。自本届政府上任以来，我们降低了个人收入税、资本利得税和企业投资税；取消了所有联邦层面的省际贸易壁垒；正在加速推进高达1万亿美元的投资，涵盖能源、人工智能、关键矿产和新贸易通道等领域；到本十年末，我们将国防开支翻倍，并以发展本国产业的方式来实现；同时，我们也在迅速推进对外多元化。

我们已与欧盟达成全面战略伙伴关系，包括加入欧洲防务采购机制 SAFE；在短短六个月内，我们在四大洲签署了12项贸易与安全协议。

过去几天里，我们又与中国和卡塔尔达成新的战略伙伴关系，并正在与印度、东盟、泰国、菲律宾以及南方共同市场谈判自由贸易协定。

此外，我们正在通过“可变几何”的方式参与全球治理——也就是针对不同议题，组建基于共同价值和利益的不同联盟。例如在乌克兰问题上，我们是“志愿联盟”的核心成员之一，也是人均防务和安全援助投入最大的国家之一。

在北极主权问题上，我们坚定站在格陵兰和丹麦一边，完全支持他们决定格陵兰未来的独特权利。

我们对北约《第五条》的承诺坚定不移，因此正与包括“北欧—波罗的海八国”在内的盟友合作，加强联盟北翼和西翼的安全，包括加拿大前所未有的超视距雷达、潜艇、飞机投入，以及地面部队——冰上的靴子。

加拿大坚决反对围绕格陵兰问题征收关税，并呼吁通过聚焦谈判，实现我们在北极地区安全与繁荣的共同目标。

在多边贸易方面，我们推动搭建《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》与欧盟之间的桥梁，打造一个涵盖15亿人口、以关键矿产为核心的新贸易集团。

我们在七国集团框架下组建“买方联盟”，帮助全球摆脱对高度集中的供应依赖；在人工智能领域，我们与志同道合的民主国家合作，确保未来不会被迫在霸权国家和超级科技公司之间二选一。

这不是天真的多边主义，也不是对旧机构的依赖，而是基于议题、与具备足够共同基础的伙伴建立有效联盟。这将形成一张密集的贸易、投资与文化联系网络，为未来的挑战和机遇提供支撑。

我们的判断是：中等强国必须联合行动，因为如果我们不在餐桌上，就会出现在菜单上。

当然，大国在短期内仍然有条件单打独斗——它们拥有市场规模、军事能力和施压杠杆。但中等强国没有。当我们只与霸权国家进行双边谈判时，我们是从弱势地位出发，只能接受对方给出的条件，彼此竞争，争当“最配合的一方”。

这不是真正的主权，而是在接受从属地位的同时，表演主权。

在大国竞争的世界中，夹在中间的国家有两种选择：彼此争宠，或者联合起来，开辟一条有影响力的第三条道路。我们不应让硬实力的崛起蒙蔽双眼——合法性、诚信和规则的力量，只要我们选择共同运用，依然强大。

这让我回到哈维尔的问题：中等强国“活在真相中”意味着什么？

首先，是直面现实。不再假装“以规则为基础的国际秩序”仍按宣传那样运作，而是承认现实——这是一个大国竞争加剧、强国利用经济一体化进行胁迫的体系。

其次，是一致行动。对盟友和对手适用同样标准。当我们谴责来自一个方向的经济胁迫，却对另一个方向保持沉默时，我们其实还在把那块牌子挂在窗前。

再次，是建设我们真正相信的东西，而不是等待旧秩序复归；是打造真正有效的制度与协议，削弱胁迫得以发生的杠杆。

这意味着建设强大的国内经济——这是每个政府当下最紧迫的任务。

国际多元化不仅是经济上的审慎，更是诚实外交政策的物质基础，因为只有降低自身被报复的脆弱性，国家才有资格坚持原则立场。

加拿大拥有世界所需要的一切：我们是能源超级大国，拥有丰富的关键矿产资源，拥有全球受教育程度最高的人口之一；我们的养老金基金是世界上规模最大、最成熟的投资者之一；我们拥有资本与人才，也拥有具备强大财政能力、能够果断行动的政府；同时，我们还拥有许多国家所向往的价值。

加拿大是一个行之有效的多元社会，我们的公共空间喧闹、多元而自由；加拿大人依然致力于可持续发展；在一个动荡不安的世界中，我们是稳定、可靠、着眼长远的伙伴。

更重要的是，我们清楚地认识到正在发生什么，并决心采取行动。我们明白，这场断裂要求的不只是适应，而是对现实世界的诚实面对。

我们正在把那块牌子从窗前取下来。

我们知道，旧秩序不会回来了，也不必为之哀悼。怀旧不是战略。但我们相信，从断裂之中，可以建设一个更宏大、更优越、更强大、更公正的未来。这正是中等强国的使命——那些在“堡垒世界”中损失最大、在真正合作中获益最多的国家。

强者有他们的力量，而我们也有我们的：停止假装、直言现实、在国内建设实力，并携手行动的能力。

这就是加拿大选择的道路。我们公开而自信地走在这条路上，也欢迎任何愿意与我们同行的国家加入。

非常感谢。

----------------------

Read the full transcript of Carney’s speech to World Economic Forum

Prime Minister Mark Carney gave a forceful speech Tuesday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on the “new world order” and how middle powers like Canada can benefit by working together.

The speech was delivered against a backdrop of rising geopolitical tensions between great powers like Russia, China and the United States, and as U.S. President Donald Trump threatens allies with tariffs and pushes to acquire Greenland from Denmark, a member of the NATO military alliance.

Below is the full transcript of the English parts of Carney’s remarks.

Thank you very much, Larry. I’m going to start in French, and then I’ll switch back to English.

(IN FRENCH)

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. And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along, get along to accommodate, to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety.

Well, it won’t. So what are our options?

In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel, later president, wrote an essay called “The Power of the Powerless,” and in it he asked a simple question: how did the communist system sustain itself?

And his answer began with a greengrocer.

Every morning, the shopkeeper places a sign in his window: “Workers of the world unite.” He doesn’t believe in it. No one does. But he places the sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persists — not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.

Havel called this living within a lie. The system’s power comes not from its truth, but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true. And its fragility comes from the same source. When even one person stops performing, when the greengrocer removes his sign, the illusion begins to crack.

Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.

For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We join its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically, and we knew that international law applied with varied rigor, depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was useful, and American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.

So we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.

This bargain no longer works.

Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.

You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.

The multilateral institutions on which the middle powers have relied — the WTO, the UN, the COP, the very architecture of collective problem solving — are under threat. As a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions that they must develop greater strategic autonomy in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains. And this impulse is understandable.

A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.

But let’s be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable.

And there’s another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate.

Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships. Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. They’ll buy insurance, increase options in order to rebuild sovereignty, sovereignty that was once grounded in rules but will increasingly be anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.

This room knows this is classic risk management. Risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortresses. Shared standards reduce fragmentations. Complementarities are positive sum.

The question for middle powers like Canada is not whether to adapt to the new reality — we must.

The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls, or whether we can do something more ambitious.

Now, Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture. Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumptions that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security, that assumption is no longer valid. And our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb, the president of Finland, has termed value-based realism.

Or, to put it 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 in recognizing that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner will share all of our values.

So we’re engaging broadly, strategically, with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait around for a world we wish to be.

We are calibrating our relationships so their depth reflects our values, and we’re prioritizing broad engagement to maximize our influence, given the fluidity of the world at the moment, the risks that this poses and the stakes for what comes next.

And we are no longer just relying on the strength of our values, but also the value of our strength.

We are building that strength at home. Since my government took office, we have cut taxes on incomes, on capital gains and business investment. We have removed all federal barriers to interprovincial trade. We are fast tracking $1 trillion of investments in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors and beyond. We’re doubling our defence spending by the end of this decade, and we’re doing so in ways that build our domestic industries. And we are rapidly diversifying abroad.

We’ve agreed to a comprehensive strategic partnership with the EU, including joining SAFE, the European defence procurement arrangements. We have signed 12 other trade and security deals on four continents in six months.

In the past few days, we’ve concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar. We’re negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines and Mercosur.

We’re doing something else: to help solve global problems, we’re pursuing variable geometry. In other words, different coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests. So on Ukraine, we’re a core member of the Coalition of the Willing and one of the largest per capita contributors to its defence and security.

On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland’s future.

Our commitment to NATO’s Article 5 is unwavering, so we’re working with our NATO allies, including the Nordic-Baltic Eight, to further secure the alliance’s northern and western flanks, including through Canada’s unprecedented investments in over-the-horizon radar, in submarines, in aircraft, and boots on the ground — boots on the ice.

Canada strongly opposes tariffs over Greenland and calls for focused talks to achieve our shared objectives of security and prosperity in the Arctic.

On plurilateral trade, we’re championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific partnership and the European Union, which would create a new trading bloc of 1.5 billion people on critical minerals.

We’re forming buyer’s clubs anchored in the G7 so the world can diversify away from concentrated supply. And on AI, we’re cooperating with like-minded democracies to ensure that we won’t ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyperscalers.

This is not naïve multilateralism, nor is it relying on their institutions. It’s building coalitions that work issue by issue with partners who share enough common ground to act together. In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations. What it’s doing is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities.

Our view is the middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.

But I’d also say that great powers can afford, for now, to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity, and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not. But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what’s offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.

This is not sovereignty. It’s the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.

In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in-between have a choice: compete with each other for favour, or combine to create a third path with impact. We shouldn’t allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules will remain strong if we choose to wield it together.

Which brings me back to Havel. What does it mean for middle powers to live the truth?

First, it means naming reality. Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is: a system of intensifying great power rivalry where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as coercion.

It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.

It means building what we claim to believe in, rather than waiting for the old order to be restored. It means creating institutions and agreements that function as described, and it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion.

That’s building a strong domestic economy. It should be every government’s immediate priority.

And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence; it’s a material foundation for honest foreign policy, because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.

So, Canada. Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are amongst the world’s largest and most sophisticated investors. In other words, we have capital talent. We also have a government with immense fiscal capacity to act decisively. And we have the values to which many others aspire.

Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability. We are a stable and reliable partner in a world that is anything but, a partner that builds and values relationships for the long term.

And we have something else: we have a recognition of what’s happening and determination to act accordingly. We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is.

We are taking a sign out of the window.

We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn’t mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fracture we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just. This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from genuine cooperation.

The powerful have their power. But we have something too: the capacity to stop pretending, to name realities, to build our strength at home, and to act together.

That is Canada’s path. We choose it openly and confidently, and it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.

Thank you very much.