When reading Marco Rubio’ speech at the recent Munich Security Conference, it is difficult not to remember Winston Churchill. When confronted with the predictions of the end of colonial rule, he said in a speech in 1942: ‘I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire’. This is the same message from Trump that Rubio is conveying. US world hegemony is not going to disappear, and they will use all means, including military force, to make sure that it is not happening.
The speech is worth reading. It is an unapologetic defence of the Western colonial empires of the last 500 years, where a small continent on the edge of the big Asian land mass conquered the whole world: North and South America, Africa, Asia and Oceania and either eradicated or enslaved the people living there. According to Rubio, the empire’s recent decline was ‘accelerated by godless communist revolutions and by anti-colonial uprising’. We should not be ‘shackled by guilt and shame’, he says. ‘(A sane foreign policy) will restore (our) place in the world, and in so doing, it will rebuke and deter the forces of civilisational erasure that today menace both America and Europe alike’.
It is worth noting that his speech was met with standing ovations from the European politicians present. We have to interpret that as a statement of European consent with this renewed, aggressive, and violent American foreign policy aimed at restoring the Western Empire. If not simply cowardice.
Marco Rubio received standing ovations form the guests at the Munchen Security Conference. Screen shot from video on X from the conference.
The reactions from the Global South After to this white-washing of colonialism and imperialism have up to now been muted. Most seem by prudence to have chosen not to comment on it. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke of the need to ‘carefully manage the superpowers’ differences’, and India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said that ‘India remains committed to its long-standing policy of strategic autonomy’ (and did by the way not confirm Rubio’s claim that India had promised not to buy oil from Russia - ‘India would continue to make independent choices’, he said). One of the most outspoken has been South Africa President Cyril Ramaphosa who after Rubio’s praise of imperialism warned that Africa should unite and stand its ground to prevent being exploited for its ‘rock, soil and dust’ . No wonder Trump hates him (as Churchill hated Gandhi). I have seen no comments from for neither Brazil’s Lula da Silva nor Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum (who both stayed away from the conference).
Even with the limited reactions from the Global South, there is no doubt that the message was heard: 'Colonialism was a good thing that brought Christianity and civilisation to you, the savages'. The West has no remorse for slave trade and exploitation of their colonies and other subdued countries in the Global South. They are proud of it. And now the empire is back with a vengeance.
As I have discussed before, I don’t think this will work for the US and its European allies/vassals for the simple reason that an empire that is not based on economic dominance is doomed to decline, despite its impressive armed forces. And the West is gradually losing its economic dominance, not only to China, but to other countries in the Global South too.
What I find interesting here is the reaction from the EU and the EU countries. Just think about it: standing ovations to this unashamed rant! I think this is also noted in many of the countries in the Global South. It makes it clear that the EU is not a counterweight to the recent more raw version of imperialism, it is part of it. As an Indian commentator wrote: ‘I actually liked the speech. I prefer a rude and honest enemy over a smooth talking fake "friend" any day’. I agree.
The EU now wants its own army. Do we really believe it will be a force for good? Or will it be a means to restore former European colonial power and hegemony? Photo from the European Parliament
Should we then hope for EU to rearm and start constituting a counterweight to the US? I think the EU countries should be able to defend themselves, but the danger is that this very easily turns into something more aggressive and expansionist, not only against Russia and China, but against most of the Global South. Most leading EU countries have happily participated in the US’ military adventures in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and are together with the US supporting Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. They are not speaking up against the US naval blockade of Venezuela and Cuba, even if it is clearly against international law. They are fine with the kidnapping of the President of a sovereign country (they don’t like him anyway). They are not warning the US against a new war in Iran, which seem to be imminent. They are silently accepting Trump’s ruder version of the Monroe Doctrine which means that the US feels free to do whatever it wants in the Americas (just don’t touch Greenland, though). I guess the EU, if it had its own army, would try to impose its will on what it considers its ‘home turf’: Africa. That doesn’t bode well. It is worth remembering that Europe has the bad habit of starting wars that then turn into world wars. They are always sure that they are right when they start wars. Righteousness and aggression are unfortunately very common travelling mates. And is seems to be a European speciality, even if now with the US in the driver’s seat.
I think most countries in the Global South were optimistic about the perspectives of a new multi-polar world. They would be free to cooperate with whoever they want, and would have the advantage of being able to say: ‘if you don’t want to cooperate with us, others will’. That would be healthy competitions. But Trump has made clear – with deafening silence from the EU – that this is not an option. The US will decide who they can work with and not. This does not necessarily go only against China and Russia. It also applies to the EU. As a recent example: the US has just now succeeded in pressuring Peru to buy US F16 fighter jets instead of the Swedish Gripen. The Monroe doctrine in action.
It is worth remembering what happened to the Danish Prime Minister, Jens Otto Krag, who at the UN General Assembly in 1960 had presented a proposal for disarmament, which included Greenland. Without asking the US first. The US president Eisenhower then asked him: ‘Have I understood it rightly, that Denmark wants to sell Greenland?’ After which the proposal was quietly dropped.
That is what in Europe used to be called ‘Finlandisation’. A pejorative term which was used as an argument for not accepting to discuss Ukraine’s neutrality with Russia before the war started. But no reason to be surprised. Double standard is nothing new for the EU. It is rather routine. And without blushing. Next time they start talking about ‘European values’, we should ask for a time-out.
Trump has as mentioned made it clear that his job isn’t to manage the Empire’s decline. Just as Churchill. We whould recall that Churchill added to the statement cited above: ‘For that task someone else will have to be found’. This ‘someone else’ turned out to be the Labour Prime Minister Clemens Attlee who had to present the Indian independence act to Parliament in 1947. The decolonisation that Trump apparently abhors then continued in the following decades.
It is a good question, who will manage the US’ decline after three more years with Trump. If the world is still standing at that time.
