The Shifting Global Order: Carney’s Call for Middle Power Resilience and BRICS’s Ascendance

The annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, has long served as a barometer of the global political and economic climate. In January 2026, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a notable address that illuminated the contested nature of the contemporary international order, even among global elites [1]. Carney’s speech highlighted the fraying of the “rules-based liberal international order” and the need for a modern approach to global governance, particularly through the strengthening of middle powers.

The End of an Illusion

Carney argued that the post-World War II order, characterized by American hegemony and the provision of global public goods, has effectively ended. He suggested that the existing order was never truly universal, but rather selectively imposed, and that maintaining the illusion of its survival is no longer tenable [2]. He called for honesty in acknowledging this shift and for building “collective investments in resilience” through concerted action.

BRICS as a Counterweight

Carney’s observations resonated with discussions surrounding the rise of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia) as a potential alternative to the Western-led international system. BRICS represents a grouping of emerging economies aiming to transform global governance through reforms to institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank [3]. The bloc seeks a more multipolar order that reflects the current distribution of global power and provides greater decision-making power to countries of the Global South.

Historical Roots of Resistance

BRICS did not emerge in a vacuum. Its origins are rooted in earlier movements and groupings of the “Third World,” such as the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77, which similarly sought to revise the international order and challenge the dominance of powerful nations [4]. These earlier efforts were driven by a recognition that the liberal international order, as it was designed, often excluded less developed countries from meaningful participation and routinely violated principles of sovereignty.

Addressing Systemic Inequality

A key critique leveled against the post-World War II order is its inherent inequality. The structures of institutions like the UN Security Council and the Bretton Woods Institutions were established in a way that privileged powerful nations, granting them veto power and disproportionate influence. This has resulted in a system where the interests of many countries, particularly those in Africa, are often marginalized or ignored. Carney’s observation that Africa is often “on the menu” rather than “at the table” encapsulates this systemic imbalance.

BRICS’s Pragmatic Approach

BRICS offers a divergent vision, emphasizing that efficiency and representativeness are not mutually exclusive. The group advocates for a rules-based international order, but one that is qualified, reformed, and democratized. This includes support for sovereignty, multilateralism, and a reformed UN Security Council. However, BRICS’s approach is also pragmatic, recognizing the need for flexibility and consensus-building among its diverse membership.

The United States and the Erosion of the Order

Ironically, the United States, a primary architect of the “liberal international order,” has been the most vocal in questioning its value. Under the second Donald Trump administration, the U.S. Withdrew from numerous international organizations, initiated trade wars, and increasingly resorted to unilateral action, including interventions in Iran and Venezuela. Trump also threatened countries within BRICS with tariffs if they pursued “de-dollarization,” highlighting the U.S.’s determination to maintain the dollar’s hegemony.

Strategies for Navigating a New Era

In response to these shifts, countries are adopting new strategies for navigating the evolving global landscape. Carney proposed a decentralized approach, forming issue-based coalitions with partners who share common ground. This echoes concepts like “non-alignment” during the Cold War and “active non-alignment” and “multi-alignment” in the post-Cold War era. These strategies emphasize diversification of partnerships and a pragmatic assessment of national interests.

Key Takeaways

• The post-World War II international order is undergoing a significant transformation.
• BRICS is emerging as a key player in challenging the existing order and advocating for a more multipolar world.
• Middle powers have a crucial role to play in building resilience and promoting a more equitable global system.
• Pragmatism, flexibility, and issue-based coalitions are essential strategies for navigating the new geopolitical landscape.

The world is witnessing a transition from an old order that is struggling to maintain its relevance. As Carney and others have pointed out, the future will likely be characterized by greater complexity, uncertainty, and the need for innovative approaches to global governance. The rise of BRICS and the call for middle power resilience signal a potential shift towards a more balanced and inclusive international system.