An Illiberal Tilt, Why Marco Rubio’s Munich Speech Should Alarm the Global South
The much-awaited speech by United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the Munich Security Conference on February 14 may have elicited a “collective sigh of relief” from the largely European audience. But as a former Indian foreign secretary argues in a searing critique, it should be cause for serious alarm among post-colonial and developing countries of the Global South.
Rubio’s remarks celebrated the history of conquest, exploitation, barbarity, and even ethnic cleansing that has marked the history of Western imperialism and colonial empire-building across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. He wants this history to be a source of pride and inspiration, not something to “atone for purported sins of past generations.” For nations that fought bloody struggles to free themselves from colonial yoke, this is not just offensive; it is a direct assault on the very foundations of their modern identity.
The Recasting of Anti-Colonial Struggles
What is particularly perplexing is how Rubio frames the history of the world after the Second World War. This period, often described as an American era, is instead seen as a period of Western decline. “But in 1945, for the first time since the age of Columbus, it [i.e. the West] was contracting,” Rubio stated. The great Western empires had entered into terminal decline, accelerated by “godless communist revolutions” and by “anti-colonial uprisings that would transform the world.”
Anti-colonial uprisings, which would include India’s own against British colonialism, are not celebrated as struggles for freedom and human dignity. They are presented as evidence of the abdication of the Western will to rule. This is a strange formulation coming from a representative of a country that is celebrating 250 years of its own successful war of independence against British colonialism. The hypocrisy is stark: America’s war for independence is a founding myth; other nations’ wars for independence are evidence of decline.
The Echoes of Territorial Ambition
Rubio’s speech echoes President Donald Trump’s desire to launch America once again on a path of territorial expansion. And presumably this would include Greenland, though Rubio did not mention it. The Danish Prime Minister has confirmed that the threat of US takeover of the Arctic island persists. In a world that supposedly rejected territorial conquest after 1945, this is a chilling reminder that imperial ambitions have not disappeared; they have merely been dormant.
The willingness to even contemplate the acquisition of territory from a NATO ally signals a fundamental shift in how the US views international norms. The prohibition on territorial conquest is one of the bedrock principles of the post-1945 order. If that norm is broken, what others will follow?
The Racial Underpinnings
Rubio celebrated his own origins from the Spanish conquerors of Cuba: “The man who settled and built the nation of my birth arrived on our shores carrying the memories and traditions of the Christian faith of their ancestors as sacred inheritance, an unbearable link between the old world and new.” He failed to mention the indiscriminate massacre of the indigenous population of Cuba, which was true across the Americas.
While he praised the hard work and pioneering spirit of European immigrants into the US, not a word was said about the forced labour of the black slaves imported to work on cotton plantations of the American South. Their descendants and the African American population, who now constitute over 14 per cent of the US population, are obviously not part of the European heritage that Rubio celebrates.
He condemned the “unprecedented wave of immigration that threatens the cohesion of our societies, the continuity of our culture and the future of our people.” Presumably this does not include white immigrants of European stock like himself.
In short, Rubio’s remarks are an unabashed white, racist manifesto that should be called out and condemned by the Global South. They are also an implicit legitimisation of the violence that accompanied the colonial enterprise.
The Contemporary Consequences
There are echoes of this mindset in the Western tolerance of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. The same logic that justified colonial violence—that certain peoples are less worthy, that their lives are less valuable—underpins the indifference to Palestinian suffering.
This is also the mindset behind the bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites and the abduction of the head of state of a sovereign country, Venezuela, in an act of blatant aggression. When international law is dismissed as an “abstraction” that offers no constraint on American actions, the door is opened to a world where might makes right.
This is a charter of neo-colonial ambition that has no place in our world of the 21st century. It should have been rejected and condemned by the professedly liberal Western democracies gathered in Munich. Instead, several applauded Rubio’s remarks and found them oddly “reassuring.”
Several of these countries are, like the US, plural democracies with large multiethnic populations. Some of their non-European citizens occupy senior positions in government and are indispensable as professionals in diverse fields. One wonders how reassuring they would have found Rubio’s remarks and, more ominously, the applause he received.
The Muted Response of the Global South
What has been surprising is the muted reaction so far from the Global South, several of whose representatives were present in Munich. For Rubio, the Global South is merely a market in which the US and Europe must win “market share,” not a partner in pursuing peace and development.
During the much-maligned era of the non-aligned movement, there would have been universal condemnation of such neo-colonial and racist attitudes. Countries like India would have taken the lead in condemning such language and in mobilising international opinion against it. Even Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, present at the conference, ignored Rubio’s remarks. One has only seen some brief critical remarks from South Africa and Brazil.
It is evidence of how much transactionalism has come to define foreign policy in our world today that we ignore the dangerous direction in which a supremacist ideology is taking us. That the revanchist blueprint is backed by immense military power and technological superiority should be cause for deep and universal concern.
The Rejection of Multilateralism
There is another reason for disquiet: the rejection of the United Nations and multilateralism by Rubio. The “abstractions of international law” offer no constraint on American actions to serve what the US regards as its national interest. This points to an anarchic and orderless world where violence and the threat of violence, not diplomacy, are the instruments of choice.
The multilateral effort to tackle the threat of climate change is dismissed as appeasement of a “climate cult.” In a world already suffering from the effects of global warming, this dismissal of the most pressing collective action problem facing humanity is not just irresponsible; it is dangerous.
If any evidence was required that one is in an age of “disruption” described by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at the recent Davos forum, then this speech should leave no lingering doubt.
The Way Forward
India will be hosting the Brics Plus summit later this year. The grouping has major powers with significant independent agency and is certainly not a mere market to be carved up among the countries of the West. They should articulate their vision of what shape the emerging global order should take. They should reject neo-colonial pretensions and racist prejudices and reaffirm their faith in multilateralism and the principles and provisions of the UN Charter.
One hopes that, as in the past, India will take the lead in mobilising international opinion against a regressive and outdated vision of the world, the contours of which are visible in plain sight in Gaza and may soon erupt in other parts of the world.
The choice is clear: a world of rules, diplomacy, and multilateral cooperation, or a world of raw power, territorial ambition, and racial hierarchy. The Global South must choose, and it must choose wisely.
Q&A: Unpacking the Critique of Rubio’s Speech
Q1: What was the central message of Marco Rubio’s speech at the Munich Security Conference?
Rubio’s speech celebrated Western imperial history, presenting conquest and colonial expansion as sources of pride rather than shame. He framed anti-colonial uprisings as evidence of Western decline rather than legitimate struggles for freedom. He championed a vision of American power unconstrained by international law or multilateral institutions, and expressed concerns about immigration threatening Western culture. The speech was widely interpreted as a white, racist manifesto that implicitly legitimises colonial violence and neo-colonial ambition.
Q2: Why is the speech particularly alarming for countries of the Global South?
For nations that fought bloody struggles for independence from colonial rule, Rubio’s celebration of imperial history is a direct assault on their foundational narratives. His dismissal of international law and multilateralism threatens the principles that protect smaller nations from coercion by more powerful states. His racial undertones—celebrating European heritage while ignoring slavery and indigenous genocide—suggest a hierarchy of peoples that is fundamentally at odds with the equality of nations enshrined in the UN Charter. The Global South has the most to lose from a return to a world where might makes right.
Q3: How does the speech relate to contemporary US foreign policy actions?
The speech echoes and legitimises several concerning trends: the threat to acquire Greenland from NATO ally Denmark, the tolerance of Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank, the bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites, and the abduction of Venezuela’s head of state. Each of these actions reflects a disregard for international law and a willingness to use force unilaterally. The ideological framework Rubio provides—that Western power should be unconstrained and that anti-colonial movements were mistakes—supports this aggressive posture.
Q4: Why has the response from the Global South been muted, according to the analysis?
The analysis suggests that transactionalism has come to define foreign policy, with countries prioritising immediate bilateral interests over broader principles. During the non-aligned movement era, there would have been universal condemnation of such rhetoric. Today, even major powers like India and China have been largely silent. This reflects a deeper shift in international relations, where ideological and principled positions are often sacrificed for economic and strategic gains. The muted response is evidence of how much the landscape has changed.
Q5: What role can India and the Brics Plus grouping play in response to this vision?
India will host the Brics Plus summit later this year, providing a platform for major non-Western powers to articulate an alternative vision of global order. The grouping should reject neo-colonial pretensions and racist prejudices, reaffirm faith in multilateralism and the UN Charter, and advocate for a world where international law constrains the powerful. As in the past, India could take the lead in mobilising international opinion against a regressive and outdated vision of the world. The stakes could not be higher.
