For the first time in nearly seventy issues, this month’s editorial presents an interview with a distinguished foreign political figure. To keep you guessing, we will only reveal his name after the final answer; for now, the only clue we will give you is that he is a non-European leader.
What is your view of current international affairs?
In my opinion, we are living in an era of intensified rivalry among the great powers, and this is shaking the international order we have known until now, an order based on rules, yet also on the freedom of stronger states to assert themselves over weaker ones. In this context, the clear prevailing collective tendency is to adapt to the new situation, seeking compromises that avoid conflict and placing trust in the stability offered by an attitude of uncritical conformity.
Does this phenomenon you describe, which could be summed up as a ‘search for a new order’, represent a transitional phase, destined to eventually restore the old system, or something deeper and more serious?
As I mentioned, from the end of World War II until today, that is, for 80 years, international order based on compliance has prevailed. We have all engaged with its institutions, praised its principles, and benefited from its predictability. We have done so although we know that, at least to some extent, it was a precarious balancing act: the "strong" states would inevitably step away when they judged the system no longer convenient. Consequently, even in recent decades, international law has, in fact, been applied unevenly, depending on the identity of the perpetrator and the victim.
We have long participated in certain rituals, avoiding exposing the discrepancies that exist between rhetorical statements and the reality of facts. At this point we must recognise that the system has stopped working and that, to answer your question frankly, we are facing a real rupture and not just a transitional phase.
Let us return to the attitude of the big powers. How has this changed, and what are the major factors driving this shift?
The big powers have begun to weaponise economic integration, wield tariffs as leverage, use financial infrastructure as coercion, and see supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.
Multilateral institutions, such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization or the Conference of the Parties on Climate Change, are under threat of obsolescence, and many members of the international community are now tempted to solve their problems by pursuing greater national strategic autonomy.
Yet a world of isolated fortresses would be poorer, weaker, and less sustainable. Collective investments are not only more effective and resilient, they are also far cheaper than individual ones. Synergies always lead to gains for all parties involved.
What has become of the "values" on which we had built our system of international relations from the end of the Second World War until, we must now admit, just yesterday? In the face of the dramatically changing situation we are observing, who has an interest in defending them and sustaining their relevance for the future too?
I assume you are referring to such principles as national sovereignty, territorial integrity, prohibition of the use of force (except in limited cases where the UN Charter makes it possible), and respect for human rights. In short, what I call "value-based realism". Personally, I believe it is crucial for, above all, the "middle powers" to remain loyal to these principles, maintaining a strong network of cooperation across economic and financial spheres, in trade, culture, and — of course — when addressing the major dossiers of current international affairs. If these states acted in isolation, perhaps driven by a misplaced sense of sovereignty, they would risk finding themselves totally subordinate to the big powers, who are more than capable of acting alone, outside any coordinated framework. By acting together, however, the combined power of legitimacy, integrity, and respect for rights, the supremacy of the rules will remain strong and also able to defend itself from external threats.
What, then, could be the priorities to navigate this tunnel of uncertainty and look to the future with more optimism?
Some possible directions might include: No longer invoking an international order based on outdated rules. beginning to apply the same standards to allies and rivals to protect our credibility. Showing creativity when establishing agreements and institutions, by focusing on formulas that can work in practice. Not regretting the "old order," both because it is doomed never to be restored anyway and because nostalgia for the past has never been an effective alternative strategy. Recognising that it is precisely from a “rupture” — as I defined at the beginning of this discussion — that a better, even stronger and fairer system can emerge.
At this point we can reveal the author of these reflections: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who has been leading the government in Ottawa for under a year. Of course, this is not an actual interview — although your columnist would have been very flattered...) Instead it is a faithful, though abbreviated and adapted, reproduction of the question and answer session he participated in at the World Economic Forum in Davos in early February. The address drew wide attention and near-universal praise from governments and public opinion, particularly in Europe, for delivering a message that was markedly different, and in many ways antithetical, to those emerging, in parallel, from another North American capital. The positivity of Carney's message is not lost on us either, which is the reason why we have in a certain sense "taken hold" of it here. In short, it highlights the quest to balance the "old and the new world", the role the middle powers can play while upholding the rule of law, and finally, the need for them to confront contemporary authoritarian and anti-democratic trends through strengthened cooperative mechanisms.
The operational mandate thus outlined for Europe and other like-minded countries is, on closer inspection, both a call to remain vigilant and a source of optimism — qualities that are not only welcome but essential in today’s historical context.
Reggente Marco Marsilli, Foundation President
