[Lee Byung-jong] Canada’s message for Korea

In the snowy Swiss resort town of Davos last week, a middle-power country punched above its weight against a superpower neighbor. Inviting a rare standing ovation from the audience, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a powerful speech at the World Economic Forum, blasting the US for causing “a rupture in the world order” through its predatory America First policy. Arguing that the rules-based international order the US has championed for decades is fracturing, Carney called for a coalition of middle powers based on “value-based realism.” Regardless of its viability, his message should resonate in South Korea, where similar geopolitical uncertainties and anxieties exist as a fellow middle power.

Carney’s message is clear. Having witnessed the Trump administration’s rough treatment of allies — often bordering on bullying — over trade, security and other issues, middle powers like Canada can no longer rely on the old order. Instead, they must find a new path to hedge against America’s unpredictability. They also need to work together rather than negotiate bilaterally with the hegemon, a process that would almost certainly weaken their positions.

Carney’s combative speech against his country’s closest ally is understandable. President Trump berated Canada as an insignificant, weak neighbor that should become the 51st state of the US. Adding insult to injury, Trump even referred to Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau, as a governor. Trump has also accused America’s European allies of taking advantage of the US in trade and security, threatened to undermine NATO, and imposed massive tariffs not only on rivals but also on allies like Canada, in blatant disregard of the multilateral trade system that has bound the world together for decades.

Trump’s latest provocation, of course, is his demand to take control of Greenland, which is part of Denmark. Like most European countries, Canada opposes Trump’s imperial idea. As part of his plan to cement US influence in the Western Hemisphere, Trump has threatened to retaliate against any countries that stand in the way of US acquisition of Greenland. Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Carney lamented that “great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, and supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.”

For understandable reasons, the Korean government has remained silent. Dependent on the US for both security and trade, Seoul cannot afford to criticize Washington openly -- especially at a time when key trade and tariff negotiations are still ongoing. In the security realm as well, the two sides face unresolved issues, including defense cost-sharing and the future role of US troops stationed in Korea. Since President Lee Jae Myung’s inauguration in June, Seoul has worked relentlessly to curry favor in its dealings with Washington. This is clearly not the moment to irritate Trump.

More importantly, aligning with the “third path” suggested by Carney could be interpreted as leaning toward China. In Washington, suspicions already linger about Korea’s new leader, who in the past has advocated closer ties with Beijing. The fact that recent high-level trade talks between China and Canada prompted Trump to threaten 100 percent tariffs on Canadian products only heightens Seoul’s caution about appearing to deviate from Washington.

Carney’s idea of building coalitions of middle powers against great powers sounds fair and appealing, but it will not be easy. Such groupings can quickly be perceived as anti-US or anti-China, drawing participants into great-power rivalry. For countries like Korea, this could invite US suspicion or Chinese retaliation, harming trade or security interests. Moreover, while middle powers are easy to define in terms of wealth or population, they differ widely in political, economic, social and cultural structures, making cohesive action difficult.

Still, although Carney’s speech lacked concrete policy steps, it offered promising ideas for Seoul to consider. Under the banner of “value-based realism,” Canada aims to form different coalitions for different issues, guided by shared values and interests. It will seek to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the European Union — potentially creating a new trading bloc of 1.5 billion people. In short, Canada is pursuing deeper global engagement through geographic diversification.

Geographic diversification is something Korea has pursued for years, though with limited success. Its location among powerful neighbors has always been a constraint. But cooperation with like-minded middle powers such as Canada, Japan, and Australia could improve the odds. A coalition of market-based democracies would be an asset, and European and Nordic middle powers could also play a role.

Carney’s proposal to link the Trans-Pacific Partnership — now renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership after the US withdrawal — with the EU has particularly significant implications for Korea. Korea is currently seeking CPTPP membership, led by Japan and Australia. If Seoul were to join a CPTPP closely aligned with the EU, as Carney envisions, it would open a new window of opportunity and offer Korea a path less exposed to dangerous great-power rivalry. With that in mind, Korean delegates at Davos may well have nodded silently — but firmly — in agreement with Carney’s speech, even if they could not applaud openly in front of US delegates.

Lee Byung-jong

Lee Byung-jong is a former Seoul correspondent for Newsweek, The Associated Press and Bloomberg News. He is a professor at the School of Global Service at Sookmyung Women’s University in Seoul. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. -- Ed.