Middle powers rule. Or at least they should try to. That was the message of the erudite Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at Davos this week. And as he spoke there were lot of sage heads nodding in agreement.

Carney started from the premise that the old US-led rules-based world order was over, finished, kaput, dead and buried.

Without specifically naming the American president, Carney made it clear that the US president had created a “rupture” in the diplomatic fabric and that humanity was entering a darker less kind world in which might makes right.

In this world there will be two major powers—China and the United States. If Russia succeeds in Ukraine and moves on the Baltic States and possibly Moldova and Poland, it could be a third power.

In such a world the smaller countries—and what Carney called “the middle powers”, were simply there to be exploited, squeezed, trampled upon and discarded without any concern for their rights or well being. But, said the former governor of the Bank of England and Bank of Canada, there is a solution to this dark scenario: Join forces and create an economic, political, diplomatic and military bloc that protects the middle countries common values.

The middle countries need to cooperate more closely. The super powers work best by divide and conquer rule. Trump’s antipathy towards the EU is proof of that. So, to counter that policy the middle countries must not allow the US and China to divide them. They must—as much as possible—negotiate with the great powers as one bloc.

Carney’s key line at Davos was: “Middle powers must act together, because, if we are not at the table we are on the menu.”

Acting together means reduce dependence on great powers or on supply chains that can be used as leverage. It means diversifying economic, trade, energy and technology ties. Lesser dependence means lesser vulnerability.

Like-minded countries should partner with other like-minded countries to share the costs of defense, standards and resilience rather than leaving it to the great powers to set the parameters.

Mark Carney even had a name for his proposal—“variable geometry” which means countries negotiate a set of different alliances where different groups work together on specific issues based on shared values and interests.

If you want proof of the value of Carney’s words then just note Donald Trump’s reaction. He was so angry at Carney’s speech that he withdrew his offer to admit Canada to his Board of Peace. Well, if Trump doesn’t like it….

King of the World. That is effectively the job that Donald Trump is trying to create for himself with the creation of his “Board of Peace”. That is if it is successful.

The board’s charter names Trump as chairman. Not as president of the United States but as Donald J. Trump the individual person. This means he can continue in the role after his term at the White House ends. In addition, he cannot be removed except by “death or incapacitation” and he personally names his successor. This probably ensures a future job for Don Jr or Jared Kushner.

The charter also gives Trump the power to veto any decisions of the board and decide which countries should be members.

When first mooted, the “Board of Peace” was meant to assume responsibility for rebuilding Gaza. But its charter is now a bit wider in scope: “To promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.”

Let’s be clear. Trump’s Board of Peace is a naked attempt to supplant the UN from which Trump is gradually withdrawing (this week he pulled the US out of the World Health Organisation). The UN charter also aims to promote peace. In addition it aims to promote human rights, economic and social development and uphold international law— aims which are of no interest to Donald Trump.

Trump’s Board of Peace makes not even the slightest nod towards human rights, development or international law. It is more like a global club of Trump acolytes than a serious international body.

Permanent membership on Trump’s Board of Peace can be bought for $1 billion. Or you can sign up for a three-year membership for nothing. So far 22 countries have signed up for the three-year deal. Only three are European—Turkey, Hungary and Belarus. The two most important countries are the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. No country is yet to pay the billion dollar membership fee. I wonder why they joined and why they haven’t paid?

Icelandic diplomatic eyebrows were raised when Trump four times said “Iceland” instead of “Greenland” during his recent Davos speech.

Did the president unintentionally slip that he also has designs on another Arctic country and NATO member? This one with ten times the population of Greenland. Or was this an example of the wandering mind of a tired and ageing human?

Either way, Iceland’s ambassador in Washingon, Svanhildur Holm Valsdottir, will be knocking on the door of the State Department in pursuit of a clarification and reassurance.

Icelanders will be particularly concerned because recently Trump’s nominee for US ambassador to Reykjavik, former Republican congressman Billy Long, joked to Capitol Hill friends that he was going to Iceland to make it become the 52nd state (presumably after Canada or Greenland) and that he would be its first governor.

The comment was picked up and published by “Politico” and within a few days several thousand Icelanders signed a petition demanding that Long’s be prevented from taking up the ambassadorial post.

The incident also led to questions being asked in the Icelandic parliament (the Althing) by Icelandic MP Sigmar Gudmundsson who described Long’s jest as “insensitive and disrespectful.” He added that Icelanders had the right to be especially concerned about such comments because Iceland’s position in the middle of the strategic Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap meant that Iceland was even more important to the defense of the Arctic region than Greenland.

Iceland’s strategic importance as gatekeeper to the North Atlantic shipping lanes was underscored in both World War Two and during the Cold War. During World War Two 14,000 US troops were based in Greenland and 45,000 in Iceland. During the Cold War thousands of US troops were based at Keflavik. They included anti-submarine warfare crews fighter squadrons and listening posts.

Today there are no permanent foreign troops in Iceland. Instead forces from a variety of NATO countries rotate out of a base near Keflavik. They include US forces. Ironically, Denmark, is one of the major contributors.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”