Connect with us

Diplomacy

World leaders at Davos declare the end of the global order amid US disruption

Published

on

Leaders speaking on the first day of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos have declared the end of the “global order as we know it,” driven by the actions of the US administration under Donald Trump.

In his address to the forum, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stated that the rules-based international order is experiencing “not a transition, but a rupture,” calling on the world’s “middle powers” to unite in response.

Carney did not mention Trump by name, yet his speech received a standing ovation from attendees. The Canadian leader pointed out that the global order centered on “American hegemony” is now a “fiction,” stating that the era of multilateralism has ended with groups like the World Trade Organization and the UN having been “largely weakened.”

Carney spoke as follows:

“Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumption that our geography and alliance memberships automatically provide prosperity and security is no longer valid. Let me be clear. We are not in a period of transition; we are in the midst of a rupture.”

“You cannot live in the lie of mutual benefit through integration when that integration has become the source of your subservience,” Carney said.

Accusation of “economic coercion” against the US

Argued that major powers have recently begun weaponizing economic integration—using tariffs as tools of pressure, financial infrastructure as instruments of coercion, and supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited—Carney called on countries to begin openly condemning economic coercion even when applied by allies, a remark that served as another clear reference to the US.

The Prime Minister stated, “The old order is not coming back.”

Urging “middle powers,” including Canada, to cooperate with one another, the Canadian Prime Minister said, “If you are not at the table, you are on the menu. Nostalgia is not a strategy. But we believe we can build something bigger, better, stronger, and fairer from this rupture.”

Carney, whose Liberal Party won the election last year on a pledge to protect Canada from US tariffs, attempted to appease Trump while conducting trade agreement negotiations with him.

High-level European political figures praised Carney’s comments at the WEF. Alastair Campbell, adviser to former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, wrote on X, “The speech today was true leadership.” Carl Bildt, co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations and former Prime Minister of Sweden, called it “very significant.”

As Ottawa seeks to diversify its relationships away from US trade, Carney traveled to Beijing last week for a historic meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, the first such encounter in nearly a decade.

Speaking to reporters during the visit, he said that China is a more “predictable” partner than the US and that the Canada-China partnership is part of the emerging “new world order.”

Call from Canadian leader for “middle powers” to act together

Quoting the famous ancient Greek historian Thucydides and Václav Havel at Davos, the Canadian leader said that countries like Canada must change course to avoid further “coercion” by powerful actors:

“When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself. But let us see clearly where this leads. A world surrounded by fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable.”

Carney stated, “Canada strongly opposes the tariffs regarding Greenland and demands focused discussions to achieve our shared goals of security and prosperity in the Arctic.”

As an example of cooperation among middle powers, Carney said that Canada is strictly committed to the collective defense of Greenland within the scope of NATO. The Prime Minister said, “On the matter of Arctic sovereignty, we stand with Greenland and Denmark, and we fully support Greenland’s unique rights to determine its future.”

Carney’s fundamental argument was that middle powers should join forces rather than competing to curry favor with major powers:

“When we engage in only bilateral negotiations with a hegemonic power, we negotiate from a weak position. We accept what is offered. This is not sovereignty. This is obeying while accepting sovereignty.”

The Prime Minister said that middle powers must establish new institutions among themselves, strengthen their domestic economies, diversify international trade, and work together in coalitions—not bilaterally—in their relations with major powers:

“Instead of waiting for a great power to rebuild the order it destroyed with its own hands, create institutions and agreements that work as advertised. This is not naive multilateralism. Nor is it relying on weakened institutions. It is building coalitions that work, issue by issue, with partners who share enough common ground to act together.”

Promise of a joint response from von der Leyen

Earlier in the day, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told the World Economic Forum that the economic pressures threatened by Trump to seize Greenland were a mistake and warned that the EU’s response would be “decisive, united, and proportional.”

Von der Leyen pushed back against Trump’s threat to impose a 10% tariff on European allies and the UK until allowed to annex Greenland, as well as the warning that tariffs would rise to 25% in June.

Von der Leyen stated that the EU shares US concerns regarding the protection of Greenland and is ready to increase spending and protective measures there.

Stating that the “sovereignty and integrity” of Danish territory is “not open for debate,” von der Leyen said Brussels is working on a “major wave of European investment” in Greenland.

The Commission President said, “Hand in hand with Greenland and Denmark, we will explore how we can further support the local economy and infrastructure. We will work for broader Arctic security with the US and all partners.”

Arguing that “geopolitical shocks” could be an opportunity for Europe, von der Leyen said, “To me, the profound change we are experiencing today is an opportunity, even a necessity, to forge a new form of European independence”:

“Trying to buy time and hoping the situation will improve soon will not eliminate our structural dependencies. My point is this: If this change is permanent, Europe must also change permanently. It is time to seize this opportunity and build a new, independent Europe.”

Arguing that this new Europe is already emerging, von der Leyen cited the recent EU-Mercosur trade agreement as a sign of this. She said she would travel to India after Davos to negotiate an agreement with that country as well. Stating that a market of 2 billion people would be created through agreements made or to be made with countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Mexico, Australia, Thailand, and the UAE, alongside Latin America and India, von der Leyen noted that these would account for one-quarter of the world’s total GDP.

Macron: A world where rules are upended

Taking the podium wearing dark glasses due to illness, French President Emmanuel Macron stated it was clear that an era of “instability and imbalance” had begun in terms of both security and defense, as well as the economy.

Noting a “shift from democracy toward autocracy,” Macron argued that there is more war, that conflicts have normalized and become more complex, spreading to new demands, space, digital information, the cyber realm, and trade.

Emphasizing that there is also a shift toward a world without rules, the French leader continued:

“A world where international law is trampled underfoot and the only valid rule is the rule of the strongest. And imperial ambitions are resurfacing. Clearly, Russia’s war against Ukraine, which will enter its fourth year next month, and the conflicts continuing in the Middle East and Africa.”

According to Macron, this also signifies a slide toward a world where there is no “effective collective governance,” where “multilateralism” is weakened by powers that obstruct it or distance themselves from it, and where “rules are upended.”

Making a direct reference to the US, Macron noted that competition conducted by Trump through trade agreements that harm export interests, demand maximum concessions, and openly aim to weaken and subjugate Europe is combined with the endless accumulation of “new tariffs that are fundamentally unacceptable and become even more unacceptable when used as a tool of pressure against territorial sovereignty.”

Search for “rebalancing” with China on the table

Touching on China as well, Macron argued that competition from there poses a threat of upending entire industrial and trade sectors due to “massive overcapacity and disruptive practices.”

Suggesting that the solution to the problem is “more cooperation,” the French leader said that establishing greater “economic sovereignty and a strategic economy,” particularly for Europeans, is the fundamental answer.

Arguing that there are two approaches today, Macron called the first the vassal and colonial approach that accepts “the law of the strong,” noting that this is unacceptable.

Stating that the second is to adopt a “purely moral stance” and “limit ourselves to commenting,” Macron said, “This too would condemn us to marginalization and powerlessness.”

Macron stated that France and Europe, facing the “brutalization of the world,” must defend “effective multilateralism,” noting that this serves the interests of both Europe and everyone who refuses to bow to the use of force.

Arguing that “rebalancing” with China is crucial, Macron noted the following:

“Our door is open to China, but what we need is for more Chinese foreign direct investment to be made in certain key European sectors to contribute to growth and transfer certain technologies. Not to export to Europe certain devices or products that sometimes do not share the same standards as those produced in Europe or are much more heavily subsidized. This is not protectionism, it is simply restoring a level playing field and protecting our industry.”

Believing that Europe needs “simplification,” Macron called for the elimination of certain new regulations that prevent the EU from being “synchronized.” Stating that the deepening of the single market must also be accelerated in this context, Macron said, “In all sectors, the population and consumer market of 450 million must be the domestic market for all EU companies.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Diplomacy

FIFA abandons $4.2 billion commercial stake sale following widespread revolt

Published

33 minutes ago

on

03/08/2026

By

FIFA and Gianni Infantino have backed down from plans to sell a stake in the organization’s commercial and event operations following widespread backlash.

In a statement issued late Friday night, the embattled FIFA president said:

“After carefully listening to all views, it has become clear that this project, regardless of the level of support, causes divisions that are now contrary to the interests of the objective originally established. Our goal has always been, and will always be, to unite and improve. As a result, this proposal will not be implemented.”

Infantino’s proposal met with fierce resistance from UEFA, CONCACAF, and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC).

UEFA indicated that all 55 of its members would boycott FIFA competitions, including the World Cup, if the plans remained on the table.

In its statement, FIFA noted that “nobody is selling football,” and while asserting that it “acknowledges and respects the feedback and concerns expressed publicly,” emphasized that it would continue to implement suggestions.

It added that it “reaffirms its commitment to an open and democratic process of consultation.”

Shortly after FIFA issued its statement, the AFC released its own declaration of solidarity with UEFA and the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF).

Infantino subsequently suffered two major internal blows.

First, his adviser Carlos Cordeiro resigned from his position, sharply criticizing the plan in a statement as “a bad deal for FIFA member associations, a bad deal for football, and a bad deal for the long-term future of the game.”

Then, FIFA Chief Operating Officer Kevin Lamour told the Associated Press that staff felt “deceived” by Infantino and that after raising the issue, he would “sleep better, even at the cost of losing his job.”

Lamour said:

“This is the project of a single person. Leaving aside that this project should not proceed… it is now time for the political leaders of world football to ask themselves the right questions and make the right decisions.”

These developments left Infantino cornered, and by Friday afternoon, numerous figures within the organization—speaking to The Athletic on condition of anonymity to protect their jobs—believed it was no longer a question of “if” the cord would be cut, but “when.”

Joshua Kushner’s venture capital firm Thrive had not withdrawn from the deal as of Friday night, but that became moot when FIFA management ultimately decided to kill the project via a public statement.

Joshua Kushner is the brother of Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of Donald Trump.

On Tuesday, world football’s governing body had announced its intention to establish FIFA Forward Enterprises (FFE), a new private entity to manage its flagship events, including the World Cup and the Club World Cup, with plans to sell a 21% minority stake in FFE to external investors.

The sale was targeted to generate $4.2 billion (£3.2 billion) in revenue. FIFA stated that this amount could be immediately distributed to its 211 member associations under a new funding stream named the “FIFA Fast-Forward Program” (FFFP).

Under the plan, FIFA’s total development funding would have exceeded $10 billion over the next four years.

Despite mounting criticism in recent days, FIFA confirmed that if member associations opposed the FFE plan but the proposal was accepted, the dissenting federations would each receive $20 million (£14.9 million) for the 2027–30 cycle, regardless of whether shares in FFE were sold to private investors (to be followed by $22 million for 2031–34 and $24 million for 2035–38).

However, had a given member association accepted the FFE proposal, it would have received $40 million for the 2027–30 period, with subsequent payouts remaining the same.

The three confederations that explicitly took a stand against FIFA’s plan represent 137 of the 211 FIFA member associations.

FIFA had stated that for the proposal to move forward, it required the approval of a majority of the 211 member associations as well as the 37-member FIFA Council, which consists of Infantino and eight FIFA vice presidents.

Strategic reactions and leadership crisis

South American football confederation CONMEBOL did not reject the plans in a statement on Friday, but noted that financial and commercial decisions “must always serve the interests of football and never take precedence over the essence of the game.”

According to a report by The Athletic, Infantino’s future leadership of FIFA was called into question during UEFA and CONCACAF meetings held on Thursday.

Infantino assumed the FIFA presidency in February 2016, succeeding Sepp Blatter, and was expected to run unopposed in the next election scheduled for March 2027.

There is also talk among European officials of putting forward Nasser Al-Khelaifi, the Qatari CEO of beIN Media, to run against Infantino.

Lise Klaveness, President of the Norwegian Football Federation, told VG: “My clear impression right now is that he has suffered a major loss of trust. We did not vote for him last time and were skeptical about this. There are many good aspects to FIFA, but if you take a lax approach to governance principles and rules, you lose trust quickly.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Defense Priorities director warns US air strategy in Middle East faces tactical limits

Published

4 hours ago

on

03/08/2026

By

The collapse of a tentative memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran, coupled with the diminishing strategic returns of American air power, has left the United States locked in an unsustainable, low-intensity conflict with Iran, according to Benjamin Friedman, Policy Director at the Washington-based think tank Defense Priorities.

Speaking in an interview on the YouTube channel Harici with host Sarp Sinan Hacır, Friedman attributed the failure of the short-lived US-Iran memorandum primarily to the Trump administration’s diplomatic missteps, vague draft language, and unrealistic expectations regarding a comprehensive settlement.

“Both sides really deserve some blame, but the Trump administration deserves the bulk of the blame for drafting an agreement that was so vague on key terms,” Friedman said, citing ambiguities surrounding the timeline for unfreezing Iranian assets and the scope of American commitments to restrain Israeli military operations in Lebanon.

Friedman emphasized that deep-seated mistrust in Tehran, exacerbated by repeated instances where diplomatic engagement was followed by Israeli or American military strikes, led Iranian negotiators to adopt an unyielding posture. At the same time, he noted that Iran likely miscalculated by using disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz to aggressively force leverage.

“The Trump administration remained intent on this sort of grand bargain that would restrain Iran seeking weapons development… and I think they continue to misread the Iranian willingness to sign that kind of deal,” Friedman noted, adding that Tehran viewed its leverage over the Strait of Hormuz as essential despite the risk of provoking further strikes.

Expressing deep skepticism over the prospects for a lasting diplomatic breakthrough, Friedman criticized the administration’s reliance on informal envoys such as Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner over professional diplomatic channels, predicting that the baseline outcome will remain an unpredictable, episodic conflict.

“What’s more likely is a kind of on-off-again kind of war—sort of what we’re in now, where we have occasional strikes, with the United States perhaps by accident adopting the Israeli model of ‘mowing the lawn’ periodically,” Friedman said.

Addressing the efficacy of US air power, Friedman argued that military operations against Iranian targets have reached a point of diminishing returns. While early strikes successfully eliminated critical high-value assets—such as over-the-horizon radar systems that targeted anti-ship missiles—Iran’s ballistic missile and long-range drone capabilities remain largely intact and operational.

He pointed to a recent strike on a base hosting US personnel in Jordan, launched from western Iran over a distance exceeding 1,000 kilometers, as evidence of Tehran’s sustained strike precision and the tactical limits of American interdiction efforts.

“The war is a failure for air power even in a tactical sense,” Friedman stated. “Initially, we looked at it and said we had a lot of success in destroying targets, but as more information came out, it turned out they had maybe more than half of their missiles and launchers survive the initial phase of the war.”

Friedman observed that the global proliferation of low-cost, high-precision guidance technology has permanently altered the strategic landscape, neutralizing the traditional invulnerability of forward-deployed US installations. “The precise effects of air power that used to be almost a monopoly of the United States… is actually making our posture in the region less sustainable,” he said, warning that similar vulnerabilities would be vastly amplified in any potential high-intensity conflict with China.

As an alternative to open-ended military engagement, Friedman suggested that Washington consider a complete military withdrawal from the region, even if it entails accepting Iranian transit fees on commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. “The cost of preventing that through perpetual outbursts of warfare is much higher than just accepting it,” he noted.

Turning to regional dynamics, Friedman addressed Israel’s current absence from active strike operations against Iran, characterizing it as a calculated move to preserve its own air defense interceptors while relying on Washington to bear the operational and political burdens of containment.

On European security and the broader alliance structure, Friedman offered a critical assessment of the NATO summit in Ankara and the administration’s “NATO 3.0” concept. He described the white paper led by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as an effort to coerce European states into escalating defense expenditures and purchasing American hardware under the threat of reduced security guarantees, rather than executing a structured, strategic US posture adjustment.

“This is not a real US withdrawal; it’s a kind of pressure to up your loyalty in a particular way,” Friedman said, noting that major European powers such as Germany, France, and the UK lack a compelling existential incentive to construct independent, large-scale conventional war-fighting capabilities.

Regarding bilateral relations with Ankara, Friedman noted that US-Turkish tensions have eased considerably following the shift in American posture in Syria and progress toward resolving long-standing friction points, including the F-35 program and S-400 procurement. He added that while Israeli leadership under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed frustration over Washington’s constructive engagement with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the White House has maintained its strategic course despite pressure from domestic pro-Israel lobbying groups.

Addressing internal Republican Party dynamics, Friedman highlighted the evolving public stance of Vice President J.D. Vance, whose cautious criticism of Israeli influence and emphasis on divergent national interests reflects broader ideological shifts within the conservative base.

“Vance is more representative of the shift in the Republican Party,” Friedman said. “He’s criticizing them in a limited way and saying, ‘Our interests are different.’ From the perspective of those of us who would like the United States to have a more distant relationship from Israel, it’s progress.”

Looking ahead to the upcoming US midterm elections, Friedman anticipated that a loss of congressional control by the Republican Party would severely curtail the administration’s domestic executive overreach, though its structural impact on foreign policy execution and Middle Eastern operations would remain comparatively limited.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham pledges full support to Ukraine in meeting with Zelenskyy

Published

6 days ago

on

28/07/2026

By

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham has met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Portsmouth, England.

Zelenskyy is the first world leader Burnham has met in person since taking office, with the prime minister committing to building a “firm partnership” between the United Kingdom and Ukraine.

Demonstrating their support, the two leaders toured a military base in Portsmouth where 200 Ukrainian troops are currently undergoing naval training exercises.

Burnham described his meeting with the Ukrainian president as “warm” and said he plans to visit Ukraine soon.

“We will build this together and address the various issues President Zelenskyy is facing, many of which we discussed today,” Burnham said.

The meeting follows an announcement by London that it will share intellectual property rights to assist Kyiv’s war effort.

The new prime minister announced that the UK will share the “Stone Cloak” electronic warfare system—which is fitted to drones to prevent detection—and will assist Ukraine in mass-producing the technology.

Burnham has focused primarily on domestic matters since replacing Keir Starmer, who faced criticism from elements within his own party for spending too much time abroad and focusing heavily on foreign affairs.

However, Burnham sought to signal continuity in Britain’s policy toward Ukraine. In one of his first phone calls after becoming prime minister last week, Burnham invited Zelenskyy to visit the UK “as soon as possible.”

Starmer spent his final full day as prime minister in Kyiv, where he announced £255 million in funding for Ukraine.

Speaking to Sky on Monday, Zelenskyy said his telephone conversation with Burnham had been “very good.”

The Ukrainian leader noted that Starmer had previously assured him that “the new government would maintain the policy of supporting Ukraine during the war.”

The new prime minister told the Ukrainian leader it was “no coincidence” that he was his first international visitor since moving into Downing Street.

“The purpose of this is to send a very clear message. We stand 100% with Ukraine, I personally stand 100% with you, and I will fully deliver on every commitment this country has made to Ukraine,” Burnham said.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey