By Kamel Ghribi, chairman of GKSD Holding and of ECAM Council

Global affairs are often framed as contests of power, ideology, or personality. But the reality is that influence lies with those who can translate vision into action across institutions, borders, and sectors. And that’s why Mark Carney’s recent remarks at the World Economic Forum provide a perspective that is particularly relevant today, a framework for navigating a fragmented, high-risk world.

Carney’s insight was clear: the challenges confronting the world (climate disruption, demographic shifts, fragile health systems, and fragmented economies) are risks, not abstractions. They are measurable, quantifiable, and consequential. In framing global instability this way, he shifted the conversation from rhetoric to operational clarity. Leadership, in this sense, is about managing risk effectively, not merely dominating headlines or political narratives.

This perspective resonates deeply in global healthcare. Health systems are no longer solely domestic responsibilities but a strategic infrastructure. This is because a poorly functioning system anywhere can cascade into economic, social, and geopolitical disruption everywhere else. Therefore, underinvestment in healthcare is not simply a moral concern but a measurable economic and security risk. Adopting Carney’s lens will allow us to see healthcare investment as both a stabilising force and a vehicle for resilience, emphasising action over symbolism.

This same logic also applies to energy. Energy systems, much like health systems, are no longer purely domestic concerns. They are foundational to economic stability, social cohesion, and geopolitical balance. Energy inequality, where entire regions lack reliable, affordable power, is not merely a development gap but a systemic risk. It constrains productivity, undermines industrialisation, weakens public services, and deepens global asymmetries. When viewed through Carney’s lens, energy access becomes an issue of resilience and risk mitigation, not ideology.

Failing to invest in energy equality exposes economies to cascading vulnerabilities, from fragile supply chains to heightened mass unemployment and its resultant consequences. Conversely, treating energy as strategic infrastructure allows capital to be deployed with long-term intent, aligning public needs with private investment. This approach reframes the global energy conversation away from slogans and toward execution by building systems that work, endure, and stabilise societies before crisis takes hold.

Another lesson from Carney is the value of operational credibility over noise. Influence today accrues not to those who speak the loudest, but to those who can execute effectively across complex systems. In global health, this means connecting governments, financiers, and local operators to deliver solutions that are practical, sustainable, and scalable. It is the ability to turn insight into tangible outcomes that defines modern leadership.

Carney also reframed multipolarity, often perceived as chaos, as a coordination challenge. Complex global problems such as pandemics and climate shocks cannot be addressed by any single actor. Instead, there can only be progress when capable actors align incentives, mobilise resources, and act decisively. For those of us working in global healthcare diplomacy, this is instructive: cooperation is not idealistic but strategically necessary. And it can produce measurable impact even in the most fragmented environments.

Finally, Carney’s perspective places responsibility on those who can act. Influence is exercised by those with access to capital, expertise, and decision-making power. With access comes the duty to steward systems responsibly, to prevent crises before they occur, and to create resilience that spans geographies and sectors. This is the lens through which I approach my work in healthcare and infrastructure: deliberate, systemic, and results-oriented.

Seeing global affairs from Carney’s perspective is not a call to idolise a single figure. It is an invitation to adopt a mindset. It is about framing crises as manageable risks, building bridges where fragmentation exists, and delivering tangible outcomes in an uncertain world. In adopting this approach, we move from reacting to global challenges to shaping them deliberately.

The choice before us is clear: we can continue to respond to crises as if they are unpredictable shocks, or we can learn to see them as systemic risks demanding foresight, coordination, and disciplined action. Carney’s perspective illuminates the path forward and it is a path we would all do well to follow.