Manifesto for the Rest(o)
Middle Powers Unite! It’s time to plan our own Liberation Day
The short version (if this is understandably way too long for you): 10 countries, aligned and similar in many ways, have as much economic power and natural resources as either the US or China. Working together, they could form a new Alliance to counter the superpowers both militarily and economically, to protect democracy and to work toward social and environmental sustainability. They could lead the building of a new world, safe for our children and our grandchildren. Right now, it’s the only project that matters.¹
At the end of World War II, Germany, Japan and Italy had been defeated and Europe was in shambles. In a triumph of imagination, over the decade starting in 1944 the United States led a group of allied countries in the investments and institution building that created today’s world order. It’s hard not to look back at the Marshall Plan, the UN, NATO and the like without marvelling at what was once possible.
But that world is coming apart at the seams, and the fraying started before Donald Trump. Across the Western countries that formed the post-war coalition inequality has been on the rise and faith in capitalism and democracy in decline. Most no longer believe that children will be better off than their parents and young urban workers are furious that they can’t afford housing. Authoritarian political parties are feeding off the anger and hopelessness, often blaming those very same institutions for the challenges we face.
Trump’s retreat from America’s alliances and his economic assault on friendly democracies may well be the final nail in the coffin of the world order that began eighty years ago. It means the rules built over generations to guide international cooperation and competition no longer apply. In this new world whoever holds the best cards, to use a phrase the US administration seems fond of, sets the rules.
The question for the rest of us is simple: do we spend this time on the defensive, trying to save a global structure in which so many have lost faith? Or take the initiative and imagine the next great era of democratic progress?
This article is an attempt to imagine a world where “middle powers,” like my home country of Canada, work together to check the influence of China and the US. Where countries with similar approaches to democracy, social welfare and public safety can protect their prosperity and security in a world otherwise governed by raw power. And where hope for a better future for our children can be restored. I will try to set out a “manifesto” — a purpose and a set of commitments — to outline what international cooperation among “the rest” would look like.
Doing this will require exerting new muscles for the middle powers. We can no longer wait and react to the United States, as we’ve done for eighty years. We need to develop the instincts and the initiative to be on the front foot, actively creating the “post-American world,” with the same energy and imagination that built a new world after WWII. If we don’t, that world will, once again, be created for us. And the slow, grinding decline of our democracies and economies will continue.
Confronting The American Problem
As a Canadian born in 1975, I have spent my whole life on Team America at the height of its power. We’ve been protected by the American military, knowing the US would never tolerate an attack on North American shores. We’ve invested that “peace dividend” in non-military activities, as Canada has consistently failed to meet its NATO defence spending commitment. In my teens Canada attached itself even more directly to the American economy, signing two free trade agreements, the second being NAFTA in 1994. Throughout my adult life, we have become increasingly dependent on our neighbours to the south.
While both countries’ economies have grown in that time, Canada has under performed. As our exports to the US grew from 12.6% of GDP in 1990 to 21.2% in 2022², our economy grew about 20% less than theirs, reversing previous trends. At the same time Australia, the country most similar to Canada in all respects, has outperformed the US economy since 1990.³ Canada’s military has withered, but with American protection very few Canadians have cared. Politicians who broached the subject were largely met with deaf ears; there were always other more important priorities for investment than our military or foreign aid. As a result, we are unable to protect our vast borders and are an afterthought in world affairs. It’s unclear that our dependence on the US has made us better off.
In many ways Canada represents the purest example of American dependence, but far from the only one. While most NATO countries were jolted into meeting their defence spending commitments by Trump’s threats in his first term, some still lag. The war in Ukraine has exposed how unprepared Europe is to protect itself and its allies and how militarily dependent it is on America. Economically, American companies are often seen as essential bulwarks against a Chinese dominated future, and their dollar acts as the world’s reserve currency. In every Western country except Australia, this growing economic and military dependence has coincided with economic growth that substantially trails the “indispensable country.”
It’s easy to see how we got here. With eighty years of relative peace, increasing living standards and lifespans and effective nuclear deterrence there’s been little incentive for dramatic change. The American problem is that the trade offs for relative global stability are ever-increasing military and economic dependence, with no end in sight. This problem has been building for decades, but it took Donald Trump to finally wake us up to the danger of our reliance on the US.
That danger now shows up everywhere. As the world re-arms, America is the dominant supplier of military technology, creating obvious risks when Trump admits they may supply inferior equipment because “someday maybe they’re not our allies.” Much of the western world uses American technology platforms in their work and home lives, creating data risks and making it harder to build and keep home-grown technology companies. The vast majority of new funding for AI technology is flowing to the US. And the current administration seems focused on supercharging capital flight to America, with policies like the $5M “gold” visa, slashing taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and, of course, tariffs.
It is now impossible to imagine a better future with America playing as large a role as it does today. Extraordinary effort has been put into international agreements like the Paris Accord and the Global Minimum Tax to have them rendered toothless after being abandoned by the US. As long as we depend on American leadership for action, it will be hard to face other threats that require collective action, like climate change, inequality, and the increasing influence of the tech billionaires on elections around the world.
This is not about one man or one regime. The MAGA movement in the US is likely to long outlast the man himself. J.D. Vance is only 40, and is backed by several of the world’s richest men in a country where money plays a central role in politics. Waiting for a new administration would be an extraordinarily risky and naïve strategy.
More hopefully, it is also suddenly more possible than ever to imagine a world where the US plays a less dominant role. Europe is gearing up to defend Ukraine — with or without the US. Canadian patriotism has reached a level that this Canadian did not think possible. Many Global South regional alliances are asserting greater influence and a desire for autonomy. Leaders across the world are expressing deep anger and betrayal at the actions of this administration. Some have declared the old world to be at an end. If there ever was a time to act and change our current course, it’s now.
Confronting the American problem will require building a new Alliance, as it means taking power back from the US. There will be a response, and only a strong and united group of middle powers could stand up to it.
It is clear that Donald Trump fears this kind of cooperation:
His threat should not create fear, but rather embolden countries around the world. Trump and his team know that the only chance his plan has to “work” is if these remain bilateral negotiations between the US and its much weaker allies, as the US will always have “the cards” with their dominant military and economy. Middle powers must deliver a clear message right away that they are working together to improve their hand.
Embracing the Power in Middle Power
The last time the world faced a crossroads like this, after World War II, many countries were still colonies of European powers, the United States represented almost 30% of the global economy and China barely 5%. Countries lay in tatters after years of war and required urgent rebuilding. In addition, most of the building blocks of today’s developed democracies, like social security, public health and progressive taxation barely existed.
Today, a set of wealthy countries with similar approaches to taxation, social welfare and public safety collectively rival the resources of both the United States and China. The five largest EU economies (Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands) plus Japan, the UK, Canada, South Korea and Australia (we’ll call it the “Core 10”) represent about a quarter of the global economy, compared to about 26% for the US and 17% for China, and almost 600 million people. They all have relatively strong democracies⁴ and generally low levels of corruption.⁵ They are good places to live and do business. Collectively, they possess significant reserves of natural resources, a strong manufacturing base, several global centres of finance, some of the world’s best universities and access to critical shipping lines.
While these countries have all had strong economies for a while, it’s critical to understand how unusual this is. The world tends to be dominated by a few major powers: think the Soviet Union and the US, the colonial powers, Persia, Rome. There has rarely been as many rich and independent countries with similar approaches to governance as there are today, controlling this much territory and wealth. There’s almost a default to see the world through a “superpower” lens, with the current version as the US vs. China. The rest of us sit on the sidelines, exerting influence where possible, but knowing the outcome is not in our hands.
In a way, that’s what could make this such an exciting time. An alliance of the Core 10 or something like it, working collectively and aggressively, could stand against both military and economic threats. It could offer a world shaped by rules rather than raw power, exercising as much soft and hard power on global affairs as the US and China. It could build a unified standing army to protect themselves and their allies, coordinate investment on development and refining of critical resources and build deep relationships by filling the gap left by the US retreat from international aid. They could be a force for building a fairer and more sustainable world.
But before getting to some specifics of what a “manifesto for the rest(o)” might look like, it’s important to think through which countries to include.
The Specific List of Allies Isn’t Important: The Ability to Wield Power Is
The critical thing in building the right starting set of Allies is defining criteria that allows the group to do the thing it needs to do: effectively counter the power of the US and China. This isn’t the OECD or the G7 — it’s a strategic alliance designed to respond to the immediate threats and the longer-term dangers of a world shaped by the two superpowers. That means a small enough group to be able to act decisively, but with the financial, military and natural resources to be a credible counter to the power of China and the US and sufficiently similar social structures to make agreement likely.
The Core 10 is the smallest group that meets both the resource and the alignment criteria. Alignment is incredibly important in facing economic threats. For example, a US strategy of low corporate taxes and low taxes on the wealthy would affect these countries directly, as their robust systems of social welfare, education and health care rely on current levels of tax revenue. A new round of tax competition led by the world’s biggest economy, driving global companies and wealthy taxpayers to move to America, is an existential threat to the way of life chosen democratically over decades in every Core 10 country. The group would be very motivated to push back, and small enough to act decisively.
But the Core 10 is obviously not a definitive list. In fact, when I started work on this, I imagined the “EU + 5” — the European Union plus the same list of five non-EU countries. The EU + 5 has about 6% more GDP and 175 million more people than the Core 10, with significant additional resources from countries like Denmark and Norway. However, the EU has 27 member countries that must unanimously agree on issues of foreign policy, which creates bureaucracy that makes it a non-starter. Without reform to decision making, the EU as an entity would struggle to be the base of an effective new Alliance.
Adding countries is certainly possible in a “coalition of the willing.” With every new country, the challenge of coordination — already likely to be significant — would go up. One approach would be for a core group to define the principles and mandate, with others able to join if they accept the approach to decision-making, similar to how NATO was formed and grew.
Countries with strong socio-economic alignment, like Denmark and New Zealand, would make sense. Other countries with significant resources and who are exposed to the US’ retreat from its alliances — like Mexico, Vietnam, South Africa and Singapore — may also fit well. The key to the new Alliance’s ability to wield power will be balancing the speed of decision making with the additional resources and heft that comes with more members.
Both the Core 10 and EU + 5 concepts exclude countries in the Global South and exclude members of BRICS. In writing, I struggled with this quite a bit as it made me uncomfortable to propose an alliance of only rich countries. It is entirely valid to criticize this approach. I did prioritize countries with similar socio-economic structures, assuming this would make the group quicker to act. I also excluded countries aligned with China. Those may be entirely wrong answers, and a different formation of core countries may make more sense. For me, whatever set of countries that could meet the requirement of balancing American and Chinese power, and come together quickly, is the right group.
A Manifesto for the Rest(o) — The Alliance to Save Liberal Democracy
The purpose of the Alliance is to save and protect democracy and multilateralism for generations to come and to ensure that superpowers no longer control global affairs. Free from the dominance of the United States and China, the Alliance will imagine new possibilities, with the collective influence and capacity to convince others. The more independent and resilient this Alliance of like-minded countries is, the more stable and safe the world will be.
In the short term, a new Alliance would be necessarily defensive in nature, building the capacity to exercise power. But it’s also critical to imagine what a group like this could do over the long-term, as garnering support for something as big as this is only possible if people are convinced it could lead to a better world. I will lay out a set of commitments for the Alliance, and then a set of short-term actions and a long-term vision that fits with those commitments. This will obviously be both wrong and spectacularly incomplete — the objective here is to widen the lens for what is possible, not to define the right answer. Criticism and commentary are both expected and appreciated.
Three commitments that could help a new alliance to ensure an independent future are to collectively be responsible for ensuring the security and prosperity of its members against both military and economic aggression, to cooperate in efficiently and judiciously developing, transporting and refining natural resources and to work and invest collaboratively in technology, governance and scientific discovery to support the resilience of its economies, enhance its security and improve the lives of its citizens.
Each of these commitments are necessary in the face of American economic aggression. The first could mean building a standing army, with commitments from all member states, to ensure military independence from the United States and ensure access to critical shipping corridors. It could also mean collective action to counter aggressive trade or tax policy. The second could mean new refineries and improved supply chains allowing members to increase resource independence. And the third could mean robust AI governance rules designed to restrain American AI firms, cooperation on anti-trust actions against dominant technology platforms and investment in technology to counter cyber attacks and disinformation.
While these actions are defensive and responsive in nature, they would likely produce positive outcomes for member countries, such as more investment in industrial companies, more value added to domestic natural resources, less external pressure on government budgets and more opportunity for domestic corporate innovation. American and Chinese response to these actions would certainly create real challenges, like lower capital flow and increased global tariffs. But those challenges are happening anyway, with or without a collective response.
In writing this I read the original 1949 NATO treaty. In many ways the Alliance would be a modernized and beefed-up version of NATO. Members declared that they were “determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.” Clearly the italicized words are archaic, but the rest of the statement remains powerful today. The treaty also outlined the importance of being free from economic aggression, as Article 2 states that members would “seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.” This new Alliance would be built on similar principles, but with increased capacity in recognition that there is no superpower standing behind it this time.
While its clear that aggression against members of the Alliance from today’s superpowers is more likely to be economic and technological than military, the Alliance should not be a trade deal. Each country should be free to negotiate its own agreements, as the disparate locations of the members mean the bulk of trade will likely remain with more local countries. For example, it’s hard to imagine Canada’s largest trade partner not being America, nor Australia’s not being China. The Alliance would focus on collective action in the face of economic aggression, and specific partnerships for creative new investments and to build efficient and resilient supply chains in areas that align with the three commitments.
Putting America on the Back Foot — Actions We can Take Right Now
For the last few months, headlines around the world have been dominated by Donald Trump’s many-times-daily pronouncements. Governments have scrambled to respond, and have largely done so defensively and bilaterally, with promises of reciprocal tariffs, commitments to new negotiations and, from time to time, declarations of support for allies.
A series of creative and aggressive moves in the short term, even prior to signing any sort of treaty, would demonstrate that the middle powers were independent and intent on a coordinated response. A very public meeting could be held in the short term, ending with a signed declaration to work toward a new Alliance. Prospective members could act to coordinate their foreign aid to replace some of the work of USAID, immediately growing soft power and embarrassing the US around the world. Non-European prospective members could make firm and specific commitments to join Europe in the defense of Ukraine. Prospective members could announce a flashy partnership, like a space mission.
Other measures could demonstrate the repercussions of recent American policy. For example, a partnership to build a munitions factory to supply European countries in Quebec to take advantage of both efficient energy supply and a surplus of aluminum now subject to unilateral American tariffs. Or deals to switch suppliers of military equipment from the US to companies in prospective member states.
On “Liberation Day” Robert Reich recommended a series of actions for Canada, Mexico, Japan, the UK and the EU, including tariffs, preventing American banks from accessing their stock markets and increasing taxes and regulations on American digital platforms. Cory Doctorow has a much more fun suggestion to allow the “jail-breaking” of Teslas outside the US so its owners can access all its services for free. At SCP we crowd-sourced a pile of ideas. With creativity and coordination, the rest of us could create the same kind of chaos for America as they’re creating for us.
Long-term Ambition to Build a Better World
Several hours ago, when you started reading this (thanks for sticking with me!), I outlined how faith in capitalism and democracy have declined, while concern for the lives of future generations has increased. This isn’t a new phenomenon — attitudes have been tracking this way for over a decade. In western countries, the past several decades have seen, for a number of reasons, an increasing share of wealth go to the very wealthy and the path to a traditionally comfortable life get harder and more remote. Concern about climate change among young people continues to rise, while their faith in the ability of political leaders to confront the challenge continues to decline.
A new, ambitious Alliance can be a way to break the cycle. We spend a lot of time right now lamenting the past and documenting decline, and way too little trying to imagine a better future. We once worked together to build the International Space Station — what are the next dozen projects like that, and could they mean for science, the environment and human achievement? What if all of our technology platforms were structured to avoid corruption, like Wikipedia, Signal and Mastodon are trying to do? What if restructured patent laws and collective investment could lead to better and more efficient health outcomes?
I have a long list of things that matter to me, but my list is irrelevant. It will be different than your list and might include things you hate. The exact form of the ambition isn’t important right now — what’s important is rebuilding the ability to execute on ambition. As an Alliance of democracies, choosing where to apply that ambition is for a robust future debate.
An ambitious agenda will also affect Chinese and American policy. There is every reason to believe, given the power of the Alliance, that others will choose to join in specific initiatives rather than compete. If it worked well, the Alliance wouldn’t be a selfish actor looking to hoard the outcomes of invention, but a galvanizing force to move the world forward, cooperatively.
Whatever specific path it takes, the Alliance could kick off decades of innovation to rival the period following WWII. Our imagination is currently shackled by the interests of superpowers and monopolists and working within a global framework that no longer seems fit for purpose. Donald Trump has removed the constraints that governed American policy. If we remove our own constraints, the rest of us can take advantage of the opportunity to work toward military, economic and technological independence, and to imagine a different world.
The hard decade ahead
Like most, I lament for the relationship with the US that I’ve grown used to all my life. But the truth is America has been diverging from its allies for a long time. Its approach to issues like health care, reproductive rights, climate change, minimum wages and gun violence would be impossible to imagine in a Core 10 country. The influence of money in politics seems insane to outside observers. In a lot of ways the US is moving one way, while the rest of us are moving another.
That doesn’t mean the US, or China, would take this new Alliance lightly. But let’s face it: “Liberation Day” made it clear that policy from this administration is not predictable or based on clear logic, but designed for the appearance of maximum aggressiveness. The current American administration is not philosophically opposed to dictators and is focused entirely on aggressively improving its “deal” with every other country in the world. The next decade is going to be hard no matter what. This is going to hurt, and it’s going to hurt us all.
Over time, however, it’s entirely possible the US may come to appreciate the existence of the Alliance. The middle powers’ ability to defend themselves militarily removes a burden the US no longer seems interested in carrying. The Alliance taking a stepped-up role in foreign aid would allow them to follow if they want, rather than lead. America would be free to pursue its independent goals, knowing that if they needed an ally to confront a threat, the Alliance would be a “one stop shop,” and will almost certainly continue to have largely shared interests.
But even if a new Alliance were to eventually fail, publicly starting discussions is a valuable signal to the American administration, its people and countries around the world. It would make clear that there are viable alternatives to a set of US dominated alliances. And it would create the space for aligned countries to build new partnerships around specific initiatives.
No path will be easy, but the easiest one will be defensive, with each country trying to do the best deal they can, crossing their fingers and hoping a new administration is different. It would look like a replay of Trump’s first term, but with a bolder administration and higher stakes. We will soon be 10 years since Trump’s first election, with almost no progress in that time on climate or inequality and with autocrats on the march. This is the wrong path.
Donald Trump is shock therapy and we are wide awake. It’s time to recognise we have been on the wrong path for a long time and to choose a new and harder path forward. Others are now suggesting versions of what I’ve laid out here. Some I’ve talked to see it as inevitable. But the truth is it’s too hard for it to be inevitable, and lots of reasons countries will fear even showing up at a meeting. It’s been a long, long time since our countries chose the harder path, or pursued ambition. I can’t imagine a more galvanizing threat than we’re facing today. The middle powers must seize the opportunity that countries like ours have almost never had in all of human history and declare our own Liberation Day, as this moment may never happen again.
Deepest gratitude to Alex Himelfarb and Michael Priddis and to several others who, for obvious reasons, did not want to be named, for reviewing this document and providing incredible feedback. Whether you like this or hate this, its much better than it was before their help.
[1] Note to Reader: I have no international relations experience. I’ve never been involved in a trade deal. I’m just a Canadian who fears for our future under threat from the United States. For the first time, I fear for the safety of my kids as they grow up. A few weeks ago, I started posting about the need for Canada to join with other middle powers in a new Alliance that could stand up to the US and to China. I was surprised at the overwhelmingly positive response.
I’ve become somewhat obsessed with the concept. It seems obvious to me, and I’ve seen versions of it in different forms over the past few weeks. But I don’t see our leaders taking any real steps toward this outcome. We continue to react to the US, rather than take the fight to them. This post is too long, but it’s my attempt to think through what a middle power Alliance would look like, and how we could get there as fast as possible. It is of course wrong in many ways. It’s designed as an exercise in imagination, and the start of a conversation.
[2] https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/CAN/Year/1990/TradeFlow/Export, https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/CAN/Year/2022/TradeFlow/Export
[3] All GDP data in the article is sourced from the World Bank on-line database
[4] https://www.idea.int/gsod/2024/countries/
[5] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-corrupt-countries
