Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney Proposed an Alternative to the Western Hemisphere

Tensions are rising not only between Washington and Ottawa but also between two competing visions for the future.

The Western Hemisphere once again faces a strategic choice. The administration of Donald Trump seeks to solidify the Americas as a sphere of U.S. influence, while Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney offers an alternative model – a coalition of middle powers capable of acting together and maintaining greater autonomy. This is discussed in an article by Christopher Sands for Americas Quarterly about Canada's role in the geopolitics of the Western Hemisphere.

President Donald Trump and Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney present two different scenarios for the future of the Western Hemisphere: the first revolves around U.S. dominance, while the second centers on a coalition of middle powers collaborating at the regional level and engaging with the global community.

Speaking at a forum in Davos, Prime Minister Carney again characterized Canada as a "middle power" and urged "such countries" to cooperate in order to preserve the remnants of the international order, as both the U.S. and China challenge its institutions. His speech was not directly about the Western Hemisphere, but its significance for the Americas is evident, given that Washington seeks to turn the region into a strategically closed space. However, Canada has made it clear that other countries should have options beyond simply lying under the American locomotive or isolating themselves from the world.

For this alternative not to remain mere rhetoric, Canada needs to demonstrate in practice what closer cooperation with countries in the Western Hemisphere means. For instance, it could expand trade ties beyond North America, enhance financial development tools, and collaborate with partners such as Brazil, Chile, and Colombia in the areas of energy transition and critical mineral supply chains. Ottawa could leverage its membership in the "G7" and connections in multilateral organizations to promote the interests of Latin American countries rather than treating the region as secondary.

For Carney's message about the role of middle powers to gain support in Latin America, he may first need to overcome skepticism about how ready Canada truly is for more active engagement. After World War II, the U.S. encouraged Canada's integration into the new global architecture – the Bretton Woods system, the United Nations, and NATO.

However, for decades, Canada's ties to Western Hemisphere institutions have remained largely formal. It joined the Organization of American States only in 1990, and other inter-American structures even later. Canadian internationalism has primarily developed along the lines of transatlantic multilateral diplomacy rather than through leadership in the Western Hemisphere.

It is in this context that Canada has begun to position itself as a middle power. Such states – most often democratic countries with developed diplomatic services – seek to enhance their influence through coalition-building, the formulation of international norms, and the development of institutions.

Tensions are rising not only between Washington and Ottawa but also between two competing visions for the future of the entire hemisphere. Trump's "Monroe Doctrine" suggests that America is a strategically closed space and that even close partners like Canada are ultimately bound by the power and priorities of the U.S. In his response, Carney rejects the idea of inevitable conflict but does not acknowledge Canada's subordinate position. Instead, the U.S. and Canada are presented as natural competitors offering different models of relations between North and South America and the rest of the world.

Canada offers an alternative to U.S. dominance in the region, and it may be appealing as it suggests a more prominent role for countries like Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, which Washington is not prepared to offer today.

This could either push the U.S. to more actively compete for support in Latin America or, conversely, lead Trump to attempt to distance Canada from regional initiatives and processes.