作者：加拿大总理卡尼

来源：财经会议圈整理

加拿大现任总理马克·卡尼（Mark Carney）（2025年上任）于周二（2026年1月20日）在瑞士达沃斯世界经济论坛上的讲话。演讲稿由其本人亲笔草拟，这并不常见。

马克·卡尼（Mark Carney）此前曾担任加拿大央行行长、英国央行行长，在国际金融领域有重要影响力。

本文包括三部分：

1.简要总结

2.演讲中文翻译版全文

3.演讲英文原文

一、简要总结

马克·卡尼的演讲直言不讳且具有挑衅性，核心观点包括：

“旧秩序不会回来了”

卡尼明确指出，过去以美国为主导、强调自由主义全球化和多边合作的“旧世界秩序”已经结束，不会再恢复。他表达了对当前全球格局深刻变化的担忧。

大国将“经济一体化”当作武器使用

他批评主要大国正在利用经济合作与贸易机制作为地缘政治工具，而非纯粹为了促进繁荣。例如，通过制裁、脱钩、技术封锁等方式，把经济手段武器化。

对美式霸权的反思

他提到，长期以来由美国主导的全球经济体系正在瓦解，这种体系不再被视为可靠或可持续。他暗示，西方国家需要重新思考其在全球治理中的角色。

呼吁建立新的全球规则

虽然没有详细说明替代方案，但他的语气表明：世界需要一种新的、更包容的全球秩序，不能依赖过去的模式。

二、演讲中文翻译版全文

（法语）：在加拿大以及世界处于这一转折点之际，与各位在一起既是一种荣幸——也是一种责任。

今天，我将谈论世界秩序的断裂，一个美好故事的终结，以及一个残酷现实的开始：在这个现实中，大国之间的地缘政治不受任何约束。

但我也想向各位提出，其他国家——尤其是像加拿大这样的中等强国——并非无能为力。它们有能力建立一种体现我们价值观的新秩序，例如：尊重人权、可持续发展、团结、主权以及国家的领土完整。

相对不那么强大的国家的力量，始于诚实。

似乎我们每天都会被提醒：我们生活在一个大国竞争的时代。以规则为基础的国际秩序正在消退。强者可以为所欲为，而弱者只能承受他们必须承受的。

修昔底德的这一格言被呈现为不可避免——仿佛国际关系的自然逻辑正在重新彰显。而面对这种逻辑，各国有一种强烈倾向：为了相安无事而随波逐流。去迁就。去避免麻烦。去希望服从能换来安全。

不会的。

那么，我们有哪些选择？

1978年，捷克异议人士瓦茨拉夫·哈维尔（后来成为总统）写了一篇题为《无权者的力量》的文章。在其中，他提出了一个简单的问题：共产主义体制是如何维系自身的？

他的回答从一位蔬菜店老板讲起。每天早晨，这位店主都会在橱窗里摆上一块牌子：“全世界无产者，联合起来！”他并不相信这句话。没有人相信。但他还是把牌子摆出来，是为了避免麻烦，是为了表明服从，是为了相安无事。正因为每一条街上的每一家店铺都在做同样的事情，这个体制才得以延续。

它并非仅仅依靠暴力维持，而是依靠普通人参与那些他们在内心深处明知是虚假的仪式。

哈维尔将这种状态称为“生活在谎言之中”。这个体制的力量并不来自其真实性，而来自每个人都愿意表现得仿佛它是真的。而它的脆弱性也正源于此：当哪怕只有一个人停止表演——当那位蔬菜店老板把牌子撤下——这种幻象便开始出现裂缝。

朋友们，现在是企业和国家把牌子取下来的时候了。

几十年来，加拿大这样的国家在我们所谓的“以规则为基础的国际秩序”下实现了繁荣。我们加入了它的制度，赞美它的原则，从它的可预期性中获益。也正因为如此，我们才能在其庇护之下推行以价值为导向的外交政策。

我们心里清楚，关于国际规则秩序的这套叙事在一定程度上是虚假的。最强大的国家会在方便时为自己开脱。贸易规则被不对称地执行。而国际法的适用力度，会因被指控者或受害者的身份不同而有所差异。

这种虚构曾经是有用的。尤其是美国的霸权，在相当程度上提供了公共产品：开放的海上航道、稳定的金融体系、集体安全，以及支持解决争端的制度框架。

因此，我们把标语挂在了橱窗里。我们参与了这些仪式。我们在很大程度上回避了指出言辞与现实之间的落差。

但这种交易已经不再奏效。

“这是一次断裂，而非过渡”

让我直言不讳：我们正身处一次断裂之中，而不是一次过渡。

在过去二十年里，金融、公共卫生、能源和地缘政治领域接连发生的一系列危机，彻底暴露了极端全球一体化所蕴含的风险。

而在更近的时期，大国开始将经济一体化本身当作武器使用：把关税当作杠杆，把金融基础设施当作胁迫工具，把供应链当作可以被利用的脆弱点。

当一体化成为你被支配的根源时，你就无法继续“生活在互利共赢的一体化谎言之中”。

中等强国长期依赖的多边机构——世贸组织、联合国、《联合国气候变化框架公约》缔约方大会（COP）——这一整套集体解决问题的制度架构，正面临威胁。

因此，许多国家正在得出相同的结论：它们必须在能源、粮食、关键矿产、金融和供应链等领域，发展更大的战略自主性。

这种冲动是可以理解的。一个无法养活自己、无法为自己提供能源、无法自我防卫的国家，几乎没有选择。当规则不再保护你时，你就必须保护自己。

但我们必须清醒地认识到，这条道路将通向何处。一个由堡垒组成的世界，将更加贫穷、更为脆弱，也更不可持续。

还有另一个事实必须正视：如果大国连对规则和价值的表面尊重都放弃了，而转向毫无约束地追逐自身的权力和利益，那么“交易主义”所能带来的收益将越来越难以复制。霸权国家不可能持续不断地将关系货币化。

盟友将通过多元化来对冲不确定性。他们会购买“保险”，增加选择，以重建主权——这种主权曾经建立在规则之上，但未来将越来越多地锚定在抵御压力的能力之上。

在座各位都清楚，这正是经典的风险管理——而风险管理是有成本的。但战略自主、主权的成本，同样可以被分担。共同进行韧性投资，比各自修建堡垒要便宜得多。共同的标准可以减少碎片化。互补性带来的是正和结果。

而对像加拿大这样的中等强国而言，问题并不在于是否要适应这一新的现实——我们必须适应。真正的问题在于：我们是仅仅通过修建更高的壁垒来适应，还是能够采取一种更具雄心的方式。

加拿大是最早听到这记警钟的国家之一，这促使我们从根本上调整了自身的战略姿态。

加拿大人清楚地认识到，我们过去那些舒适的假设——认为我们的地理位置和盟友身份会自动带来繁荣与安全——这一假设已经不再成立。

而我们的新路径，建立在亚历山大·斯图布所称的“以价值为基础的现实主义”之上——换句话说，我们力图在原则性与务实性之间取得平衡。

在原则上，我们坚定致力于基本价值：主权与领土完整，除非符合《联合国宪章》，否则禁止使用武力，以及对人权的尊重。

在务实层面上，我们承认进步往往是渐进的，承认各方利益并不总是一致，开云也承认并非每一个伙伴都会认同我们的价值观。因此，我们以开放而清醒的态度，广泛而有策略地开展交往。我们主动直面现实世界，而不是等待一个我们希望出现的世界。

我们正在校准对外关系，使其深度能够反映我们的价值观。鉴于世界秩序的流动性、由此带来的风险，以及未来走向所涉及的重大利害关系，我们正优先推动广泛参与，以最大化我们的影响力。

而且，我们不再仅仅依赖价值观本身的力量，也同样依赖我们自身力量的价值。

我们正在国内建设这种力量。

自我的政府上任以来，我们下调了个人所得税、资本利得税以及企业投资相关税负。我们已经清除了所有联邦层面对省际贸易的壁垒。我们正在加速推进总额达一万亿美元的投资，涵盖能源、人工智能、关键矿产、新的贸易通道等领域。

我们将在本世纪末之前把国防开支提高一倍，并以能够促进国内产业发展的方式来实现这一目标。

同时，我们也在迅速推进对外多元化。我们已与欧盟达成一项全面战略伙伴关系，其中包括加入 SAFE，即欧洲防务采购安排。

在六个月内，我们已在四大洲签署了另外十二项贸易与安全协议。

在过去几天里，我们又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、菲律宾以及南方共同市场谈判自由贸易协定。

我们还在做另一件事。为了帮助解决全球性问题，我们正在推进“可变几何”模式——换言之，就是围绕不同议题，根据共同的价值与利益，组建不同的合作联盟。

因此，在乌克兰问题上，我们是“志愿联盟”的核心成员之一，也是其国防与安全事务中人均投入规模最大的国家之一。

在北极主权问题上，我们坚定地与格陵兰和丹麦站在一起，充分支持他们决定格陵兰未来的独特权利。

我们对《北大西洋公约》第五条的承诺坚定不移。

因此，我们正与北约盟友——包括北欧—波罗的海八国（Nordic-Baltic Eight）——一道，进一步巩固联盟的北翼和西翼安全，其中包括加拿大前所未有的投入：超视距雷达、潜艇、航空力量以及地面部队的部署。

加拿大坚决反对针对格陵兰的关税措施，并呼吁通过有针对性的对话，实现我们在北极地区共同的安全与繁荣目标。

在多边贸易方面，我们正积极推动在《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》和欧盟之间架起一座桥梁，从而打造一个覆盖15亿人口的新贸易集团。

在关键矿产领域，我们正以七国集团为核心组建“买方俱乐部”，使世界能够减少对高度集中供应来源的依赖。

在人工智能领域，我们正与志同道合的民主国家开展合作，以确保我们最终不会被迫在霸权国家与超级规模平台之间作出选择。

这并非天真的多边主义，也不是依赖既有机构的做法，而是围绕具体议题，构建切实有效的联盟，与那些拥有足够共同基础、能够采取共同行动的伙伴合作。在某些情况下，这样的联盟将涵盖世界上绝大多数国家。

其所做的，是在贸易、投资、文化等领域编织一张紧密的联系网络，使我们能够在未来的挑战与机遇中加以运用。

“中等强国必须共同行动”

中等强国必须共同行动，因为如果我们不在餐桌旁，我们就会出现在菜单上。

但我也要指出，大国在目前阶段是有条件单打独斗的。它们拥有市场规模、军事能力以及施加条件的杠杆。中等强国没有。但当我们只与一个霸权国家进行双边谈判时，我们是在弱势中谈判。我们只能接受对方给出的条件。我们彼此竞争，看谁更顺从。

这不是主权。这是在接受从属地位的同时，表演主权。

在大国竞争的世界中，夹在中间的国家面临一个选择：是为了争取青睐而彼此竞争，还是联合起来，创造一条具有实际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，而忽视合法性、诚信与规则的力量仍将保持强大——前提是我们选择共同运用它们。

{jz:field.toptypename/}

这也让我回到哈维尔。

中等强国“活在真实之中”，意味着什么？

首先，这意味着直面现实。不要再仿佛它仍按宣传那样运转似的去援引“以规则为基础的国际秩序”。要如其所是地称呼它：一个大国竞争不断加剧的体系，在其中，最强大的国家将经济一体化当作胁迫工具来追逐自身利益。

这意味着言行一致，对盟友和对手适用同样的标准。当中等强国在一个方向上批评经济胁迫，却在另一个方向上保持沉默时，我们就是还把那块牌子挂在橱窗里。

这意味着去建设我们所宣称信奉的东西。与其等待旧秩序恢复，不如去创造真正按其所述运作的制度与协议。

还意味着削弱使胁迫成为可能的杠杆。建设强大的国内经济，始终应当是每个政府的当务之急。而在国际上实现多元化，不仅是经济上的审慎之举——它更是诚实外交的物质基础。因为国家只有降低遭受报复的脆弱性，才有资格采取有原则的立场。

“诚实面对真实的世界”

因此，加拿大拥有世界所需要的东西。我们是能源超级大国。我们拥有丰富的关键矿产储备。我们拥有世界上受教育程度最高的人口。我们的养老金基金是全球规模最大、最成熟的投资者之一。换言之，我们拥有资本，拥有人才，同时也拥有具备强大财政能力、能够果断行动的政府。

而且，我们还拥有许多人所向往的价值观。

加拿大是一个行之有效的多元社会。我们的公共空间喧闹、多样而自由。加拿大人始终致力于可持续发展。

在一个极不稳定的世界中，我们是一个稳定、可靠的伙伴——一个着眼长远、重视并建设关系的伙伴。

我们还有另一种东西。我们对正在发生之事的清醒认知，以及据此采取行动的决心。

我们明白，这场断裂所要求的不仅是适应，而是对真实世界的诚实以对。

我们正在把那块牌子从橱窗里取下来。

我们知道，旧秩序不会回来了。我们不该为它哀悼。怀旧不是一种战略。

但我们相信，正是从这道裂缝中，我们能够建造出更好、更强大、更公正的东西。

这正是中等强国的使命——那些在“堡垒世界”中损失最大、却能从真正合作中获益最多的国家。

强者拥有他们的力量。但我们也拥有属于我们的东西——停止假装的能力，直面现实的能力，在国内建设实力并共同行动的能力。

这就是加拿大的道路。我们公开而自信地选择了它。

而这条道路，向任何愿意与我们同行的国家敞开。

非常感谢。

三、英文演讲原文

Below are Prime Minister Mark Carney's remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos， Switzerland， on Tuesday.

(In French): It's a pleasure — and a duty — to be with you at this turning point for Canada and for the world.

Today， I'll talk about the rupture in the world order， the end of a nice story and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints.

But I also submit to you that other countries， particularly middle powers like Canada， are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that embodies our values， like respect for human rights， sustainable development， solidarity， sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.

The power of the less powerful begins with honesty.

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.

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 to get along. To accommodate. To avoid trouble. To hope that compliance will buy safety.

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， this shopkeeper places a sign in his window: \"Workers of the world， unite!\" He doesn't believe 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 joined 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 varying rigour 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.

'A rupture， not a transition'

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 middle powers have relied — the WTO， the UN， the COP — the very architecture of collective problem solving， are under threat.

And 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 be increasingly 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 fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum.

And 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.

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 has termed \"values-based realism\" — or， to put another way， we aim to be principled and pragmatic.

Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and 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 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 order， the risks that this poses， and the stakes for what comes next.

And we are no longer relying on just the strength of our values， but also on 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 a trillion dollars of investment in energy， AI， critical minerals， new trade corridors and beyond.

We are 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 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 have 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 are 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 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.

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 block 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 co-operating with like-minded democracies to ensure we won't ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyperscalers.

This is not naive 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.

'Middle powers must act together'

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 to 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 them together.

Which brings me back to Havel.

What would 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 a weapon of 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. Building a strong domestic economy should always be every government's immediate priority. And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence — it is the material foundation for honest foreign policy. Because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.

'Honesty about the world as it is'

So 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 the 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 a 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 the 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 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 co-operation.

The powerful have their power. But we have something too — the capacity to stop pretending， to name reality， 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.

THE END

• 加拿大
• 总理
• 卡尼
• 开运
• 达沃斯