Davos, Trump, and the fragile future of multilateralism

It wasn’t just anxiety about the global economy that weighed on those gathered at the World Economic Forum. Looming larger was the fate of the much-vaunted transatlantic alliance—and whether US President Donald Trump would act on his threat to seize Greenland from Denmark by force, a move that would have effectively shattered the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The irony was hard to miss.

NATO was formed in 1949 to contain the former Soviet Union. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent breakup of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) removed that original threat.

More recently, Russia—particularly after its invasion of Ukraine—has been seen as Europe’s primary security challenge. Some even speculated that China could eventually become NATO’s central preoccupation.

However, few anticipated that the most serious threat would come from within the alliance itself, long held up as a model of intergovernmental military cohesion.

At the heart of the treaty lies the commitment that “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all", triggering collective retaliation. That principle was put to the test after 9/11, when Article 5 was invoked, and a US-led NATO force took on Al-Qaeda and its supporters in Afghanistan.

Now, Trump was openly threatening Denmark and other European nations for supporting it on Greenland. Had that threat materialized, it would have amounted to a rupture of NATO itself.

There was, therefore, a quiet collective sigh of relief after Trump’s speech on 21 January. He said he would not take Greenland by force. He made no mention of punitive tariffs on eight countries—including Denmark—that had opposed his earlier stance. He even suggested talks to resolve the impasse.

But the reassurance came with a familiar warning: “You can say ‘yes’, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say ‘no’, and we will remember."

Trump also repeated his long-standing grouse that NATO partners were grateful enough for the burden carried by the US—an assertion that glosses over the alliance’s support for Washington after 9/11. He publicly disparaged Europe and its leaders on multiple fronts, from green-energy initiatives and immigration policies to trade practices, boasting about how tariff threats had extracted concessions from French President Emmanuel Macron.

He also claimed credit for keeping the global economy buoyant, citing the US economy's strong performance following his re-election.

The result was a rambling speech that ran for more than 70 minutes—25 minutes over time—marked by disdain for peers, self-praise, and thinly veiled threats.

In stark contrast stood the address by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. His speech lasted about 20 minutes but packed in hard, uncomfortable truths, earning him a standing ovation and evident respect from the audience.

Carney offered a clear-eyed assessment of the global order and called on middle powers to act collectively. He questioned the so-called rules-based international system, arguing that it had served only a select few. The strongest nations, he said, routinely exempted themselves from rules when convenient.

Yet many countries had gone along with this “fiction" because it offered tangible benefits. American hegemony had provided global public goods—open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and mechanisms for dispute resolution.

That bargain, Carney argued, was no longer working. The world was not undergoing a transition but a rupture.

Great powers could afford to act unilaterally for now, thanks to their market size, military strength, and leverage. Middle powers, however, could not. “If we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu," he warned.

Negotiating individually with hegemons meant negotiating from weakness. Smaller countries, Carney said, were making the mistake of competing among themselves to appear the most accommodating—effectively accepting subordination.

The alternative, he argued, was collective action: Middle powers joining forces to resist economic coercion and shape an independent path forward.

It was, in many ways, a masterclass on evolving power relations between hegemons and middle powers—and one likely to have greater recall value than Trump’s bluster. It also appeared to irritate Trump, who later called Canada ungrateful and warned Carney to watch his words.

In a fit of pique, Trump reportedly withdrew Carney’s invitation to join the US-convened Board of Peace, tasked with managing the next phase of negotiations on Gaza.

Trump’s Board of Peace

The BoP is ostensibly focused on the reconstruction of Gaza as part of Trump’s 20-point peace plan. Yet it is already being viewed as a broader body for resolving international conflicts, with a reported $1 billion price tag for permanent membership.

A “founding executive council" sits at the top. The board itself votes on budgets, policy and senior appointments, while a seven-member executive board implements its mission. Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, US secretary of state Marco Rubio, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner are among its members.

Trump serves as chairman, holding veto power over key decisions, including executive board actions and membership removal. He is also the final authority on interpreting the charter.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was invited to the signing ceremony on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum, but New Delhi chose not to send a representative. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif attended, along with army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir.

The idea of the BoP first surfaced in 2025 with a specific two-year United Nations Security Council mandate to manage post-war Gaza. Critics, however, note that the BoP’s official charter makes no direct reference to Gaza. Instead, it outlines a sweeping mandate that appears to challenge existing diplomatic frameworks, advocating a move away from established institutions—read: the UN—on the premise that they have failed to maintain global peace.

India has long criticized the UN as outdated, particularly its 80-year-old Security Council structure. Yet it also strongly favours multilateralism and a multipolar world in which it seeks to be one of the key poles.

The BoP’s charter could therefore be problematic for India. It speaks of promoting stability and restoring “lawful governance" in regions affected or threatened by conflict. Could that be interpreted to include areas within India, such as Kashmir—a region Pakistan continues to label “disputed"?

Given Pakistan’s newly warm ties with Trump, India may have judged it safer to study the framework from a distance rather than participate in the signing.

India was not alone. France and Spain declined to join, while Carney left Davos before the ceremony. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Türkiye, Indonesia, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates are among the participants.

Japan’s political gamble

Meanwhile, in Japan, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi—the first woman to hold the post—has dissolved parliament and called snap elections in February, hoping to secure a majority for the Liberal Democratic Party in the powerful lower house.

With approval ratings near 70%, Takaichi is betting that her popularity will translate into electoral gains after the party’s losses in recent years.

It is a gamble—but one she appears confident will pay off.

Elizabeth Roche is an associate professor of practice at O.P. Jindal Global University, Haryana.

For more of her columns, read The International Angle.