Mark Carney, a Non-Aligned Movement and The Middle Power Conundrum – Is There a Third Way?

PHOTO: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney addressing the World Economic Forum at Davos (2026), World Economic Forum on Wikimedia Commons

On January 19, 2026, the World Economic Forum (WEF) began its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Despite its importance to international policy, the WEF has not traditionally dominated the news cycle. However, with a resurgent, seemingly neo-imperialist US foreign policy posing an imminent military threat to the Kingdom of Denmark, and by extension NATO and Europe, it seemed as if all eyes were focused on the conference.

With commentators speculating anything from a collapse of NATO to a potential war, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered an address on the second day of the WEF that seemingly challenged the fundamental principles of the post-war order.

“This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.”

– Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada (at the World Economic Forum, 2026)

In a speech that may be considered one of the great speeches of history, Carney stated a need to stop operating under the pretence that the international order is working ‘as intended’ and that alignment with the great powers protects member states of the world.

This speech, a clear rebuke of the new aggressive policies great powers like the USA and Russia have adopted, is also leveled as a criticism of the policy of middle powers. Carney further said that states championing the international order and its values while simultaneously excusing great power allies who breach these values is the great “fiction” of the age.

Carney finishes this monumental challenge to the world order with a proposal that middle powers must instead collaborate and work together, to find strength in numbers when approaching this world stage of great power rivalries. This declaration amounts to a unifying cry to a world that finds itself increasingly unable to trust the preconceptions modern international politics is built on. The prime audience of such a cry are of course the European states who have seen the foundations of NATO and their national security threatened and the Americas who find themselves once again the focus of American hegemonic policy. 

What is perhaps most notable about Carney’s statement however is not its unique challenge to the world order, but its replication and parallels to a challenge issued more than 60 years ago. This challenge issued by a coalition of states not often unified represented another push against the dynamics of great power rivalry and played a defining role in the Cold War.

The Non-Aligned Movement

PHOTO: Konferencija Pokreta nesvrstanih u Beogradu (Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement at Belgrade) (1961), Museum of Yugoslavia on Wikimedia Commons

“Our movement does not visualise the future of the world as resting on the balance of bloc power, or on the supremacy of one bloc over another”

– Josip Broz Tito, President of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (At the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, 1978)

In 1961, leadership from a collection of member states – including the then Yugoslav republic, India and Egypt – met in Belgrade to discuss the potential development of a ‘third-world’ approach to the international political situation of the day. This conference was driven by two core forces. 

Firstly, the age of decolonisation had led to an explosion of formerly colonised states entering the global community as independent sovereign powers. By 1961, United Nations (UN) membership had more than doubled from its original 51 to 104 member states. Most of these states had been former colonies of the European powers primarily in Africa and Asia and found themselves often on the front lines of new Cold War politics. Proxy diplomatic and military conflicts had already begun to emerge across the globe. The ongoing Congo Independence Crisis, which involved armed and diplomatic conflict between forces aligned with the Soviet and Western blocs, was particularly prevalent in the minds of the incoming delegates. 

Secondly, the states pushing most strongly for this conference had themselves had diplomatic fallouts with both of the major blocs, finding themselves at least partially at odds with the existing international powers. Yugoslavia, despite being a communist state, had diplomatically split from the Soviet Union and the communist bloc in 1948.  Egypt, while heavily aligned with the Soviet Union, at the time also regularly explored funding and political arrangements with the USA. India post-colonisation had always prioritised its strategic autonomy and therefore became one of the earliest voices pushing for a third independent option in the Cold War.

Many other states like Ethiopia, Ghana and Myanmar (then called Burma) emerging from decolonisation had found themselves facing either their own direct foreign interference or seeing their region destabilised in pursuit of cold war objectives. This is not to say these states never aligned with the great powers, in fact great power alignment and outright alliance was a common trend for many of these states, particularly in Africa. They did however position themselves as more neutral or independent then the global East and West blocs. 

The Non-Aligned Movement’s objectives were ambitious; it called upon its members to outwardly embrace the third-world approach to the Cold War, including ‘nonmembership in any military or ideological bloc dominated by one of the Great Powers’, the support of state sovereignty and nonviolent means of conflict resolution, a condemnation of colonisation and a general opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons by most member states. 

“We are all too well aware… that the great powers, while prepared to use the United Nations when it suits their convenience, have been equally willing to ignore and by-pass it and act independently of it when their interests so dictated”

– Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia (At the 1st Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, 1961)

The Non-Aligned Movement further supported the UN and in fact often recognised it as vital for the interests of their movement and the smaller states of the world. They did however argue for significant reform, contributing to the expansion and reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The movement would also contribute to the formation of the Group of 77, a major international diplomatic bloc of developing states. These actions were taken to attempt to shape the new developing international order to be more than just a body for great power conflicts and to amplify the voice of the Global South in these new institutions.

The Non-Aligned Movement itself continues to operate and has outlived the Cold War that inspired its creation. It represents the largest collection of states outside the UN itself. It is however an organisation that is increasingly criticised for its relevance and its lack of cohesive unity on many global issues. Conflicts like the Russian invasion in Ukraine have been met with reserved condemnation or outright neutrality in contradiction to its espoused values. While the conference continues focusing on issues of Global South cooperation it faces a growing struggle to maintain its voice in global affairs.  More often than not the Conferences of the Non-Aligned Movement increasingly focus on the important but less ambitious goals of mutual aid and development in the Global South.

A Third Way and the Existing International Order

PHOTO: Rebecca Grynspan, Secretary-General of UN Trade and Development, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General of the World Trade Organization meeting at the UN COP30 summit in Brazil (2026), Kiara Worth on Flickr

The question of what a third way and third world actually is and what it can achieve in this global environment is one that the Global South has tackled for decades. It is one that much of the Global North finds itself increasingly facing for the first time in the era of Russian Expansionism, Trumpist Imperialism and Chinese economic and military resurgence. 

The Non-Aligned Movement argued for a new more peaceful independent buffer in global power politics. It fought for its member states, particularly members of the Global South emerging from colonial and neocolonial institutions, to unite in the sphere of international politics and bring about reform in the post-war global order. While it helped contribute to and achieve many notable reforms, it is clear that many of the movement’s member states find themselves divided in this modern era.

Carney’s speech argued that the middle powers need to “aim to be both principled and pragmatic” but it is unclear exactly what his speech, when translated into actual policy, may offer the international community. Carney lists his desire of “different coalitions for different issues” exploring free trade with certain partners, support of Ukraine with different states and support of Greenland with others still. The fact that the speech has gripped the global public so strongly speaks to the environment many states find themselves in agreeing with this diversified foreign policy view.  

“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.”

 – Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada (at the World Economic Forum, 2026)

Carney and fellow supporters of his vision may discover the same fact the Global South has – that unity of policy is harder to come by than unity of vision. Critics have already pointed out that past condemnation of states like China based on prior policy positions and values run in contradiction with Carney’s pursuit of free trade agreements with them in new policies. It is also worth considering the effectiveness of Canada’s position in the “coalition of the willing” with Ukraine. While Canada is ready to support Ukraine and implement sanctions, it’s questionable how this works alongside pragmatic foreign trade policies which may hinder sanctions efforts. 

Further, while Carney seemingly is not supporting a full breach with groups like the UN,  he calls the international rules based order a “fiction” and calls upon middle powers to stop invoking it. This is in contrast to groups like the Non-Aligned Movement who saw organisations like the United Nations and the values its laws establish as essential protections and sources of benefit for them. While again it is unclear what such rhetoric means from a policy standpoint, this attack comes at a time where the UN is facing an increasing crisis of legitimacy. Critics have pointed out that Carney’s rhetoric may do exactly what he seeks to avoid, harming multilateral platforms that stand as important platforms for middle powers.

Navigating these obstacles will perpetually be the challenge of states who are attempting to juggle their values, national interests and great power diplomacy. Carney, much like the Non-Aligned Movement 60 years ago, points out however that whether as a great power ally or as an unwilling subject, alignment with great powers comes at a cost. Ultimately any ‘third way’ is an attempt at independence from that cost – an attempt many member states seem likely to try in the current political climate.