Canada has long prided itself on having a multilateral foreign policy grounded in sovereignty and the rule of law.

Yet Canadians, like many others in the international community, have often remained silent about a persistent contradiction at the heart of the global order: the routine tolerance many nations show for U.S. interventions abroad.

That silence is now being challenged. Economists, policy institutes and international leaders are more openly questioning U.S. intrusions as they begin to affect allies, not just adversaries.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, Mark Carney challenged long-standing euphemisms about global power and urged the international community to stop “living within a lie,” as the costs of looking away from interventionism become indefensible.

The international community should take that warning seriously, ensuring that its own laws are more than symbolic and speaking out when U.S. policy relies on strong-arming weaker nations.

Breaking the silence on global disorder

There is a shifting international consensus that the world is beyond hegemony and Carney’s warning was clear: A rules-based international order cannot endure when authoritarian states or those increasingly behaving that way can act with impunity.

Carney used his speech to argue that world leaders have repeatedly turned a blind eye to bullying U.S. foreign-policy practices, including sanctions, support for compliant regimes and selective enforcement of international norms.

This reflects a growing recognition that the post-Second World War order has been unevenly enforced, with rules applied selectively and accountability deferred when they conflict with the interests of the powerful.

That assessment is illustrated in a recent article by the Australian Institute of International Affairs, which examines U.S. foreign policy in the context of its long history of interventionism and economic pressure.

The article highlights the 1962 embargo against Cuba, along with U.S. actions in Vietnam and other Cold War and post–Cold War theatres. They are framed not as diplomatic initiatives but as instruments of punishment and destabilization.

Cuba: a case study in U.S. coercion

Cuba exemplifies this pattern clearly. Since the late 19th........

© IRPP - Policy Options