This article originally appeared in the Western Standard.
By Joe Varner, February 13, 2026
Canada’s foreign policy under Prime Minister Mark Carney is being sold as pragmatic, sophisticated, and globally minded. In reality, it is incoherent, unserious, and increasingly detached from Canada’s national interest. It reflects the same Liberal instinct that defined the Trudeau government and prioritizes moral posturing over power, symbolism over strategy, and international applause over outcomes.
The clearest failure is the government’s renewed courtship of China. Carney’s effort to reposition Canada toward Beijing under the banner of economic realism is not innovative. It is repetition. It revives a strategy that already failed under Justin Trudeau and failed publicly. That earlier experiment ended with the detention of Canadians, credible evidence of foreign interference, and the exposure of Canadian institutions to economic coercion and political influence. China demonstrated clearly that it does not engage as a neutral commercial partner. It engages as a strategic competitor and hegemon. Trade, capital, and access are instruments of leverage, and Canada paid for this lesson in lost credibility. Carney’s decision to revisit the same approach suggests either a disregard for recent history or an unwillingness to accept uncomfortable truths. Repeating a failure does not demonstrate realism — it demonstrates denial.
This denial was reinforced by the Prime Minister’s remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos. At a moment of heightened global instability, Carney chose to publicly lecture the United States (US) before a global audience. Instead of emphasizing continental security, economic integration, and alliance cohesion, Carney framed Canada as a moral corrective to American power. This was not leadership, it was emotional self-indulgence.
Canada’s national interest is not advanced by publicly antagonizing its most important ally. The US remains Canada’s primary security guarantor, its largest trading partner, and the anchor of continental defence. Treating that relationship as optional or adversarial may appeal to Liberal sensibilities and their political base, but it abandons strategic reality. Canada lacks both the capacity and the leverage to replace the US or to lecture it from a position of strength.
Presidents come and go in Washington. Donald Trump is temporary, and he has three more years left in office. Secretary General Xi Jinping and President Vladimir Putin are not temporary. They govern through coercion, repression, and plan on generational timelines. Liberal foreign policy appears unable to distinguish between short-term political theatre and long-term strategic threat. The hollowness of this approach is most visible in defence. Canada speaks forcefully about supporting Ukraine while lacking the resources to sustain meaningful assistance. Decades of underinvestment have left the Canadian Armed Forces with depleted stockpiles, limited readiness, and minimal industrial capacity. Allies measure seriousness by delivery rather than declarations, and Canada’s limitations are well known, even if Ottawa prefers not to acknowledge them.
The same unseriousness defines Canada’s posture in the Middle East. The government has renewed its focus on advancing a Palestinian state while ignoring the basic requirements of security and governance. Statehood cannot precede control of armed groups. Recognition does not dismantle terrorist organizations or prevent violence. Advancing this agenda while Hamas remains armed and entrenched does not advance peace. It rewards dysfunction and weakens deterrence. It also signals to allies confronting existential threats that Canada prefers moral signalling to security outcomes. Canada’s approach to Iran follows the same pattern. Tehran remains the primary driver of instability in the region. Iran arms proxies, fuels conflict, threatens global shipping, and advances its nuclear ambitions. Canada responds with statements and restraint. Sanctions exist on paper, but enforcement is uneven.
Adversaries do not misread this posture; in fact, they exploit it.
Taken together, Carney’s foreign policy reflects a deeper Liberal failure. Canada no longer speaks clearly about its own interests. Ottawa prefers the language of values and process to the harder language of power, risk, and trade-offs. Canada seeks influence without responsibility and credibility without capacity. Growing up as a country means accepting that the world is not waiting for Canadian approval. It means abandoning the illusion that failed strategies can be revived through better messaging. It means understanding that courting adversaries while lecturing allies is not balanced. It is incoherent.
Canada needs a foreign policy rooted in national interest, strategic clarity, and credible ‘hard power.’ Until that happens, Canada’s foreign policy will remain what it is now. Well-intentioned, poorly grounded, and increasingly dangerous.
Joe Varner is the deputy director of the Conference of Defence Associations, a senior fellow of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and the Center for North American Prosperity and Security in Washington, DC.
