Canada has long championed the international rules-based order, but its divergent responses to the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza have sparked intense debate. By comparing its robust support for Ukraine with its more restrained approach toward Israel, critics argue that Ottawa’s foreign policy often prioritizes geopolitical alignment over universal human rights.
International law has never been self‑enforcing. It works only when states collectively treat violations as intolerable. Once powerful actors discover that coercive territorial change carries minimal cost, the system shifts from rule‑based restraint to power‑based ordering. For states whose security depends on law rather than force, this shift is existential.
Middle powers are accelerating diversification and flexible coalitions as U.S. unilateralism erodes old alliances, pushing Brazil, Canada, and South Korea to pursue cooperative multipolarity and institutional reform to preserve autonomy in a rapidly shifting global order.
Carney’s Davos speech exposed the collapse of the Western-led order, urging middle powers to diversify beyond Washington as global power shifts toward a polycentric system that Europe seems unwilling to confront.
This analysis examines the growing disconnect between Prime Minister Mark Carney’s “middle power” rhetoric and Canada’s policy on Gaza as of early 2026. While Carney utilized the Davos 2026 platform to signal a new era of diplomatic “honesty,” critics argue that Canada’s continued use of arms-export loopholes and its response to the current nominal ceasefire highlight a systemic failure to apply international law consistently.
A heated debate in Toronto on America’s future—Is this populist uprising the birth of a new era or a retreat into the past?
