加拿大总理马克·卡尼在达沃斯世界经济论坛上的讲话（中文机器翻译）

非常感谢你，拉里。我将先用法语开始，然后再切换回英语。

我们似乎每天都在被提醒：我们生活在一个大国竞争的时代——基于规则的秩序正在衰退，强者可以为所欲为，而弱者只能承受必须承受的一切。

修昔底德的这句名言被描述为不可避免，是国际关系自然逻辑的重新显现。面对这种逻辑，各国往往倾向于随波逐流、委曲求全、回避麻烦，希望顺从可以换来安全。

然而，这不会。那么，我们的选择是什么？

1978年，捷克持不同政见者、后来的总统瓦茨拉夫·哈维尔写了一篇题为《无权者的权力》的文章，在文中他提出了一个简单的问题：共产主义制度是如何维持自身的？

他的回答从一名蔬果店主开始。

每天早晨，这位店主都会在橱窗里放置一个标语牌：“全世界工人团结起来。”他并不相信这句话，也没有人相信。但他还是把牌子放上，以避开麻烦、表示顺从、随大流。由于每条街上的每个店主都做着同样的事，这个制度得以持续——不仅仅是通过暴力，更是通过普通人对这些他们内心明知虚假的仪式的参与。

哈维尔称之为“活在谎言中”。制度的权力并非来自其真实性，而是来自每个人都愿意表现得仿佛它是真实的。而制度的脆弱性也源于此。当哪怕一个人停止表演，当蔬果店主摘下他的标语牌，幻觉便开始破裂。

朋友们，现在是企业和国家摘下他们标语牌的时候了。

几十年来，加拿大等国家在所谓的“基于规则的国际秩序”下繁荣发展。我们加入其机构，赞扬其原则，受益于其可预测性。正因如此，我们得以在其庇护下推行基于价值观的外交政策。

我们知道关于国际规则秩序的故事是部分虚假的，最强者会在方便时自我豁免，贸易规则的执行是不对称的，我们也知道国际法的适用严苛程度不一，取决于被告或受害者的身份。

这种虚构曾经是有用的，特别是美国的霸权有助于提供公共产品：开放的航道、稳定的金融体系、集体安全以及对争端解决框架的支持。

所以我们把标语牌放进了橱窗。我们参与了这些仪式，并且大多避免指出言辞与现实之间的差距。

但这种交易现已不再有效。

让我直说吧。我们正处在一场断裂之中，而非过渡。

过去二十年间，金融、卫生、能源和地缘政治的一系列危机暴露了极端全球一体化的风险。但最近，大国开始将经济一体化用作武器，将关税用作杠杆，将金融基础设施用作胁迫工具，将供应链用作可被利用的脆弱点。

当一体化成为你从属地位的根源时，你无法继续活在“一体化带来互利”的谎言中。

中等国家所依赖的多边机构——世贸组织、联合国、气候变化大会，乃至集体解决问题的整个架构——正受到威胁。因此，许多国家得出了相同的结论：它们必须在能源、粮食、关键矿物、金融和供应链方面发展更大的战略自主权。这种冲动是可以理解的。

一个不能养活自己、不能为自己提供能源或自卫的国家选择寥寥无几。当规则不再保护你时，你必须保护自己。

但让我们清醒地看到这会导致什么。一个堡垒式的世界将更贫穷、更脆弱、更不可持续。

还有另一个事实：如果大国放弃甚至对规则和价值观的伪装，转而无阻碍地追求其权力和利益，那么交易主义带来的收益将更难复制。

霸权者无法持续从其关系中变现。盟友将进行多元化以对冲不确定性。他们会购买保险，增加选择，以重建主权——那种曾经基于规则，但将日益锚定于承受压力能力的主权。

在座各位都知道这是经典的风险管理。风险管理需要代价，但战略自主和主权的成本也可以分担。对韧性的集体投资比各自建造堡垒更便宜。共同的标准能减少碎片化。互补性是正和博弈。

对于像加拿大这样的中等国家，问题不在于是否要适应新现实——我们必须适应。

问题在于，我们是仅仅通过建造更高的墙来适应，还是能够做一些更有雄心的事情。

如今，加拿大是首批听到警钟的国家之一，这促使我们从根本上转变战略姿态。加拿大人明白，我们过去那种认为地理和联盟成员身份会自动带来繁荣与安全的舒适假设已不再有效。我们的新方法基于芬兰总统亚历山大·斯图布所说的“基于价值观的现实主义”。

或者换一种说法，我们的目标既是有原则的，也是务实的。有原则，体现在我们对基本价值观、主权、领土完整、除符合《联合国宪章》外禁止使用武力以及尊重人权的承诺上。

务实，体现在我们认识到进步往往是渐进的，利益存在分歧，并非每个伙伴都会分享我们所有的价值观。

因此，我们正在广泛地、战略性地、睁大眼睛地与世界接触。我们积极应对当下世界，而不是坐等一个我们希望出现的世界。

我们正在校准我们的关系，使其深度反映我们的价值观，并且我们优先考虑广泛接触以最大化我们的影响力，考虑到当今世界的流动性、由此带来的风险以及接下来面临的利害关系。

我们不再仅仅依赖我们价值观的力量，也在依赖我们力量的价值。

我们正在国内建设这种力量。自本届政府上任以来，我们降低了所得税、资本利得税和商业投资税。我们消除了所有妨碍省际贸易的联邦壁垒。我们正在加快推进在能源、人工智能、关键矿物、新贸易走廊等领域的1万亿加元投资。我们将在本十年末将国防开支翻倍，并且我们以建设国内产业的方式进行。同时，我们正在迅速实现对外关系的多元化。

我们已同意与欧盟建立全面战略伙伴关系，包括加入欧洲国防采购安排（SAFE）。我们在六个月内于四大洲签署了另外12项贸易和安全协议。

过去几天，我们与中国和卡塔尔达成了新的战略伙伴关系。我们正在与印度、东盟、泰国、菲律宾和南方共同市场（Mercosur）谈判自由贸易协定。

我们还在做另一件事：为帮助解决全球性问题，我们正在推行“可变几何”。换句话说，针对不同问题，基于共同的价值观和利益组建不同的联盟。例如在乌克兰问题上，我们是“意愿联盟”的核心成员，并且是其国防和安全人均最大贡献国之一。

在北极主权问题上，我们坚定地站在格陵兰和丹麦一边，并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（集体防御）的承诺是坚定不移的，因此我们正与北约盟国（包括北欧-波罗的海八国）合作，进一步确保联盟的北部和西部侧翼安全，包括通过加拿大对超视距雷达、潜艇、飞机和实地部署——冰上部署——的前所未有的投资。

加拿大强烈反对因格陵兰问题加征关税，并呼吁进行聚焦的会谈，以实现我们在北极地区安全与繁荣的共同目标。

在诸边贸易方面，我们倡导努力在《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》和欧盟之间架起桥梁，这将创建一个拥有15亿人口的关键矿物贸易新集团。

我们正在建立以七国集团（G7）为锚定的“买家俱乐部”，以便世界能够从集中的供应中实现多元化。在人工智能方面，我们正在与志同道合的民主国家合作，以确保我们最终不会被迫在霸权者和超大规模公司之间做出选择。

这不是天真的多边主义，也不是依赖旧有的制度。这是在逐个问题地与有足够共同行动基础的伙伴建立联盟。在某些情况下，这将是绝大多数国家。此举正在创建一个跨越贸易、投资、文化的密集关系网络，我们可以借此应对未来的挑战和机遇。

我们的观点是，中等大国必须共同行动，因为如果我们不在餐桌上，我们就会在菜单上。

但我也要说，大国目前还有能力独行。它们有市场规模、军事能力和制定条款的杠杆。中等国家没有。但当我们只与霸权者进行双边谈判时，我们是从弱者的立场谈判。我们接受所提供的条件。我们彼此竞争，看谁最能委曲求全。

这不是主权。这是在接受从属地位的同时，表演主权。

在一个大国竞争的世界里，中间国家有一个选择：要么彼此竞争以求青睐，要么联合起来开辟具有影响力的第三条道路。我们不应让硬实力的崛起蒙蔽我们的双眼，事实是，合法性、诚信和规则的力量如果我们选择共同运用，将依然强大。

这让我回到哈维尔。对中等国家来说，活在真实中意味着什么？

首先，它意味着认清现实。停止援引“基于规则的国际秩序”，仿佛它仍像宣传的那样运作。直言不讳：这是一个大国竞争日益激烈的体系，其中最强大的国家利用经济一体化作为胁迫手段来追求自身利益。

它意味着始终如一地行动，对盟友和对手适用同样的标准。当中等国家批评来自一方的经济胁迫，却对来自另一方的胁迫保持沉默时，我们就是在把标语牌留在橱窗里。

它意味着建设我们声称相信的东西，而不是等待旧秩序的恢复。它意味着创建名实相符的机构和协议，也意味着减少能够实现胁迫的杠杆。

这就需要建设强大的国内经济。这应该是每个政府的首要任务。

而国际多元化不仅是经济上的审慎之举；它也是诚实外交政策的物质基础，因为国家通过减少遭受报复的脆弱性，才能赢得采取原则性立场的权利。

那么，加拿大呢？加拿大拥有世界所需的东西。我们是能源超级大国。我们拥有大量的关键矿物储备。我们拥有世界上受教育程度最高的人口。我们的养老基金是全球最大、最成熟的投资者之一。换句话说，我们拥有资本、人才。我们还有一个拥有巨大财政能力可以果断行动的政府。而且我们拥有许多其他国家所向往的价值观。

加拿大是一个行之有效的多元社会。我们的公共领域喧闹、多元且自由。加拿大人始终致力于可持续发展。在一个充满不确定性的世界里，我们是一个稳定可靠的伙伴，一个为长远建立并珍视关系的伙伴。

我们还有一点：我们认识到正在发生什么，并有决心采取相应行动。我们明白这场断裂需要的不仅仅是适应。它需要对世界的如实坦诚。

我们正在把标语牌从橱窗里拿下来。

我们知道旧秩序不会回来了。我们不应哀悼它。怀旧不是战略。但我们相信，从断裂中我们可以建设更宏大、更美好、更强大、更公正的东西。这是中等大国的任务，这些国家在堡垒式的世界中失去最多，在真诚的合作中收获也最多。

强者拥有他们的力量。但我们也有东西：停止伪装的能力，认清现实的能力，在国内建设我们力量的能力，以及共同行动的能力。

这就是加拿大的道路。我们公开而自信地选择它，这条道路也向任何愿意与我们同行的国家敞开。

非常感谢。

以下是讲话的原文，觉得机器翻译不好的，可以读原文！

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.

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.