以下是卡尼讲话英文部分的完整文字稿——
非常感谢你，拉里。我先用法语说，然后再切换回英语。
似乎每天都在提醒我们，我们生活在大国竞争的时代——基于规则的秩序正在消亡，强者可以为所欲为，弱者只能承受苦难。
修昔底德的这句格言被视为必然，是国际关系自然逻辑的再次体现。面对这种逻辑，各国往往倾向于随波逐流，为了迁就彼此而妥协，避免麻烦，寄希望于顺从能够换取安全。
不，不会的。那么我们还有什么选择？
1978 年，捷克持不同政见者瓦茨拉夫·哈维尔（后来的总统）写了一篇题为《无权者的力量》的文章，他在文中提出了一个简单的问题：共产主义制度是如何维持自身的？
他的答案始于一位蔬菜水果商。
每天早上，店主都会在橱窗上贴一张告示：“全世界无产者联合起来。”他并不相信这句告示。事实上，没有人相信。但他还是贴上了，为了避免麻烦，为了表示顺从，为了与人相处融洽。正因为每条街上的每个店主都这样做，这个体系才得以延续——并非仅仅依靠暴力，而是依靠普通民众参与他们私下里明知是虚假的仪式。
哈维尔称之为生活在谎言之中。这个体系的力量并非源于其真相，而是源于每个人都愿意假装它是真的。而它的脆弱也源于此。一旦哪怕只有一个人停止这种表演，一旦菜贩撤下招牌，幻象便开始崩塌。
朋友们，是时候让企业和国家撤下他们的标语了。
几十年来，像加拿大这样的国家在我们所谓的“基于规则的国际秩序”下繁荣发展。我们加入其机构，我们赞扬其原则，我们受益于其可预测性。正因如此，我们才能在其保护下奉行基于价值观的外交政策。
我们知道，以规则为基础的国际秩序的故事部分是错误的，强者会在方便的时候豁免自己，贸易规则的执行是不对称的，我们也知道，国际法的适用严格程度取决于被告或受害者的身份。
这种虚构是有用的，尤其是美国的霸权，有助于提供公共产品、开放的海上航道、稳定的金融体系、集体安全以及对解决争端框架的支持。
于是我们把标语贴在了窗户上。我们参与了这些仪式，并且基本上避免指出言辞与现实之间的差距。
这种交易方式已经行不通了。
让我直言不讳。我们正处于一场断裂之中，而不是一个过渡时期。
过去二十年间，金融、卫生、能源和地缘政治领域的一系列危机暴露了全球一体化过度发展的风险。但最近，大国开始将经济一体化作为武器，将关税作为筹码，将金融基础设施作为胁迫手段，将供应链作为可供利用的漏洞。
当融合成为你受制于人的根源时，你就无法活在通过融合实现互利共赢的谎言之中。
中等强国赖以生存的多边机构——世贸组织、联合国、缔约方大会以及集体解决问题的架构本身——正面临威胁。因此，许多国家得出相同的结论：它们必须在能源、粮食、关键矿产、金融和供应链领域发展更大的战略自主权。这种想法是可以理解的。
一个无法自给自足，也无法自卫的国家，选择寥寥无几。当规则不再能保护你时，你必须自卫。
但我们必须清醒地认识到这会导致什么后果。一个到处都是堡垒的世界将会更加贫穷、脆弱，也更不可持续。
还有另一个事实：如果大国为了不受阻碍地追求权力和利益而放弃规则和价值观的伪装，那么交易主义带来的收益将越来越难以复制。
霸权国家无法持续地将关系货币化。盟友会分散投资以规避不确定性。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，但未来将越来越依赖于抵御压力的能力。
在座各位都明白，这是典型的风险管理。风险管理需要付出代价，但这种战略自主权和主权的代价也可以分担。集体投资于韧性建设比各自建造堡垒更经济。共享标准可以减少碎片化。互补性带来正和效应。
对于加拿大这样的中等强国来说，问题不在于是否要适应新的现实——而在于我们必须适应。
问题是，我们是通过建造更高的城墙来适应环境，还是可以采取更雄心勃勃的措施。
加拿大是最早意识到这一问题的国家之一，这促使我们从根本上转变了战略姿态。加拿大人明白，过去那种认为地理位置和联盟成员身份会自动带来繁荣和安全的安逸假设，如今已不再成立。而我们新的战略方针，正如芬兰总统亚历山大·斯图布所言，是基于价值的现实主义。
换句话说，我们的目标是既坚持原则又务实。坚持原则体现在我们致力于基本价值观、主权、领土完整、除符合《联合国宪章》的情况外禁止使用武力以及尊重人权。
同时，我们也务实地认识到，进步往往是渐进的，利益会存在分歧，并非每个合作伙伴都会认同我们所有的价值观。
因此，我们以开放的心态，采取广泛而有策略的方式参与其中。我们积极应对现实世界，而不是坐等我们理想中的世界到来。
我们正在调整我们的人际关系，使其深度反映我们的价值观，并且鉴于当前世界的瞬息万变、由此带来的风险以及未来发展的重要性，我们正在优先考虑广泛的参与，以最大限度地发挥我们的影响力。
我们不仅依靠价值观的力量，也依靠实力的价值。
我们正在国内增强实力。自本届政府执政以来，我们降低了所得税、资本利得税和商业投资税。我们取消了所有联邦层面的省际贸易壁垒。我们正在加快推进1万亿美元的投资，涵盖能源、人工智能、关键矿产、新的贸易走廊等领域。我们将在本十年末之前将国防开支翻一番，并且我们正通过各种方式促进国内产业发展。同时，我们也在迅速实现海外多元化。
我们已与欧盟达成全面战略伙伴关系协议，包括加入欧洲防务采购安排（SAFE）。在过去六个月里，我们还在四大洲签署了其他12项贸易和安全协议。
过去几天，我们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、菲律宾和南方共同市场谈判自由贸易协定。
我们还做另一件事：为了帮助解决全球性问题，我们采取了“可变几何”策略。换句话说，就是基于共同的价值观和利益，针对不同的问题组建不同的联盟。例如，在乌克兰问题上，我们是“自愿联盟”的核心成员，也是该国人均国防和安全贡献最大的国家之一.
在北极主权问题上，我们坚定地与格陵兰和丹麦站在一起，并完全支持他们决定格陵兰未来的独特权利。
我们对北约第五条的承诺坚定不移，因此我们正在与包括北欧-波罗的海八国在内的北约盟友合作，进一步确保联盟的北部和西部侧翼的安全，包括加拿大对超视距雷达、潜艇、飞机和地面部队（冰上部队）进行前所未有的投资。
加拿大强烈反对对格陵兰岛征收关税，并呼吁开展重点对话，以实现我们在北极地区安全与繁荣的共同目标。
在诸边贸易方面，我们正在积极推动在跨太平洋伙伴关系和欧盟之间建立桥梁，这将创建一个拥有 15 亿人口的关键矿产贸易新集团。
我们正在组建以七国集团为核心的买家俱乐部，以便全球能够摆脱对供应集中的依赖，实现供应多元化。在人工智能领域，我们正与志同道合的民主国家合作，以确保我们最终不必被迫在巨头企业和超大规模企业之间做出选择。
这并非天真的多边主义，也不是仅仅依赖于各国的机构。而是要与拥有足够共同立场、能够携手行动的伙伴建立联盟，逐个议题地开展合作。在某些情况下，这些伙伴将占据绝大多数。这种做法正在构建一张涵盖贸易、投资和文化的密集网络，我们可以从中汲取力量，应对未来的挑战和机遇。
我们的观点是，中等强国必须团结起来，因为如果我们不参与谈判，我们就成了别人的盘中餐。
但我认为，就目前而言，大国有能力单打独斗。它们拥有市场规模、军事实力和谈判筹码，可以左右谈判结果。中等强国则不具备这些条件。如果我们只与霸权国家进行双边谈判，我们就是在弱势地位下谈判。我们只能接受对方的提议，彼此竞争，力求成为最迁就对方的一方。
这不是主权，而是在接受臣服的同时假装拥有主权。
在大国竞争的世界里，中间国家面临选择：要么相互竞争以求获得青睐，要么联合起来开辟一条具有影响力的第三条道路。我们不应让硬实力的崛起蒙蔽双眼，而应认识到，如果我们选择携手运用合法性、正直和规则的力量，它们依然会强大有力。
这让我又想起了哈维尔。对于中等强国而言，践行真理意味着什么？
首先，这意味着要正视现实。不要再把基于规则的国际秩序当作它仍然有效的东西来吹捧了。要认清它的本质：一个大国竞争日益加剧的体系，在这个体系中，最强大的国家利用经济一体化作为胁迫手段来追求自身利益。
这意味着要言行一致，对盟友和对手都采用相同的标准。当中等强国批评来自一方的经济胁迫，却对来自另一方的经济胁迫保持沉默时，我们就是在表明立场。
这意味着要践行我们所宣称的信仰，而不是等待旧秩序的恢复。这意味着要建立能够按预期运作的制度和协议，也意味着要削弱那些助长胁迫的因素。
这就是建设强大的国内经济。这应该是历届政府的当务之急。
国际多元化不仅仅是经济上的审慎；它也是诚实外交政策的物质基础，因为各国只有降低自身遭受报复的风险，才能赢得坚持原则立场的权利。
所以，加拿大拥有世界所需要的一切。我们是能源超级大国。我们拥有丰富的关键矿产资源。我们拥有世界上受教育程度最高的人口。我们的养老基金是世界上规模最大、最成熟的投资者之一。换句话说，我们拥有资本和人才。我们还拥有一个财政实力雄厚、能够果断行动的政府。而且，我们拥有许多其他国家所向往的价值观。
加拿大是一个多元化且运转良好的社会。我们的公共领域充满活力、多元包容且自由开放。加拿大人始终致力于可持续发展。在这个充满变数的世界里，我们是一个稳定可靠的合作伙伴，一个重视并致力于建立长期合作关系的合作伙伴。
我们还有另一点：我们认识到正在发生的事情，并决心采取相应的行动。我们明白，这种断裂需要的不仅仅是适应，它需要我们诚实地面对世界的本来面目。
我们正在把一个标牌从窗户里取出来。
我们知道旧秩序一去不复返了。我们不应该为此哀悼。怀旧并非策略，但我们相信，我们可以从这种分裂中建立起更伟大、更美好、更强大、更公正的事物。这正是中等强国的使命，它们在堡垒林立的世界中损失最大，在真正的合作中获益最多。
强者拥有他们的权力。但我们也有一些东西：停止伪装、正视现实、增强国内实力以及团结行动的能力。
这就是加拿大的道路。我们公开、自信地选择这条道路，任何愿意与我们同行的国家都可以走上这条道路。
非常感谢。
文章来源：加拿大广播
Thank you very much, Larry. I’m going to start in French, and then I’ll switch back to English.
Thank you, Larry. It is both a pleasure, and a duty, to be with you tonight in this pivotal moment that Canada and the world going through.
Today I will talk about a rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a harsh reality, where geopolitics, where the large, main power, geopolitics, is submitted to no limits, no constraints.
On the other hand, I would like to tell you that the other countries, especially intermediate powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that encompasses our values, such as respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the various states.
The power of the less power starts 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.
And 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.
Well, 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 a sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persist – 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. 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 the middle powers have relied – the WTO, the UN, the COP – the architecture, 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 can’t 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 is 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 increasingly be 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 fragmentations. 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.
Now 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, the President of Finland, has termed “value-based realism”.
Or, to put another way, we aim to be both principled and pragmatic – principled in our commitment to fundamental values, sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force, except when consistent with the UN Charter, and respect for human rights, and pragmatic and recognizing that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner will share all of 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 and given the fluidity of the world at the moment, the risks that this poses and the stakes for what comes next.
And we are no longer just relying on the strength of our values, but also 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 investments in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors and beyond. We’re 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 have 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. The past few days, we’ve 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’re 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 NATO’s Article 5 is unwavering, so we’re working with our NATO allies, including the Nordic Baltic Gate, 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, boots on the ice.
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 bloc of 1.5 billion people. On critical minerals, we’re forming buyers’ clubs anchored in the G7 so the world can diversify away from concentrated supply. And on AI, we’re cooperating with like-minded democracies to ensure that we won’t ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyper-scalers.
This is not naive multilateralism, nor is it relying on their institutions. It’s building coalitions that work – issues 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.
Argue, the 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, 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 does 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 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 – that’s building a strong domestic economy. It should be every government’s immediate priority.
And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence, it’s a material foundation for honest foreign policy, because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.
So Canada. 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 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 bigger, 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 most to gain from genuine cooperation.
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.