22nd January 2026
The World Economic Forum at Davos this week has been dominated by speculation about how the US president, Donald Trump, may be planning to fulfil his ambition to control Greenland. In the end he backed down from the threat of force against Denmark and its European partners while stepping up his demand to take control of the island.
However, this Davos may end up remembered for pitting Trump against the leader of another once-firm ally: his northern neighbour Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada. International affairs scholar Mark Shanahan watched them both speak and delivers his verdict here.
The meeting and venue were the same, but the style and tone of the two most anticipated keynote speeches at the World Economic Forum in the Swiss town of Davos could not have been more different. On Tuesday, January 20, Canadian prime minister Mark Carney addressed the assembled political and business leaders as one of them: a national leader with deep expertise in finance.
He spoke about a "rupture" in the world order and the duty of nations to come together through appropriate coalitions for the benefit of all. It was a paean to multilateralism, but one that recognised that the US would no longer provide the glue to hold alliances together. Carney never mentioned the US by name in his speech, instead talking of "great powers" and "hegemons".
Carney's quiet, measured and evocative case-making demonstrated his ability to be the leader France's Emmanuel Macron would like to be and the UK's Keir Starmer is too cautious to be. He was clear, unequivocal and unafraid of the bully below his southern border. In standing up to the US president, Donald Trump, he appeared every inch the statesperson.
While Carney was at pains to connect with his audience of allies, Trump exists happily in his own world where support - and sovereign territory - can be bought, and fealty trumps all. As ever, Trump played fast and loose with facts, wrapping real successes, aspirations and his unique view of the truth into a paean to himself.
He actually returned to his script to make the case for taking Greenland. The case is built on a notional need for "national and international security", underscored by pointing out the territory is "in our hemisphere". As so many commentators have said, collective security will do the job Trump insists that only the US can - and won't require Denmark to cede territory. But Trump is sounding ever-less the rational actor.
Contrasting visions
The coming year is one of inflection for Trump's presidency. His Republican party may well lose control of the House and possibly the Senate in the November midterms, which would severely curtail his ability to impose his will unfettered.
Trump is focused on his legacy and demands he's up there with former US presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, James Polk and William McKinley, expanding the American empire and its physical footprint. This may be a step too far, even for a president with such vast economic and military power.
Carney's speech played well both at home and around the world. His line, "If we're not at the table, we're on the menu," clearly resonated with his fellow western leaders. His vision for how "the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong if we choose to wield them together", also offered a positive vision in a dark time.
Trump told the audience that he would not use "excessive strength of force" to acquire Greenland. But, ever the real estate developer, he demanded "right, title and ownership" with an ominous threat: “You can say no - we will remember.”
As Trump laid out his grand vision of protecting and cherishing the rich and aligning nations to do America’s bidding, it was in stark contrast to Carney. The hyperbole and self-aggrandising, the insults and threats, and the singular vision of seeing the world only through the personal impact it has on him mark the US president out as remarkable, even exceptional.
But is this the exceptionalism the US wants? Is America about more than the strongman politics of economic and military coercion?
The immediate reaction in the US was relief, jumping on the line that Trump won’t take Greenland by force. It will be telling to look at the commentary as the country reflects on the president’s aim of lifting America up, seemingly by dragging the rest of the world down.
One leader donned the cloak of statesmanship at Davos this week. It wasn’t Donald Trump.
Author
Mark Shanahan
Associate Professor of Political Engagement, University of Surrey
Note
This article is from The Conversation web site. To read it with links to more information go HERE
HERE