Marco Rubio looked tense as he sat in front of his senatorial colleagues in the fully occupied foreign affairs committee. It was now that it would be decided whether he had their support for his appointment as foreign minister.
So he took the floor and began to describe in vivid terms the US-led world order that had prevailed after World War II: one where prosperity had increased, democracies had flourished, alliances had been formed with Europe and Southeast Asia, and the Berlin Wall had finally fallen. Then, a form of consensus emerged around the idea that a "liberal world order" for "global citizens" would replace interest-driven national foreign policy.
A dramatic pause.
It was not just a fantasy. It was a dangerous illusion.
A weapon?
The room fell completely silent. Everyone's eyes were on Rubio as he stated that the "almost religious" faith in free trade was harming the US economy, the middle and working classes.
The global world order that has prevailed after World War II is not just obsolete. It is a weapon being used against us.
The future foreign minister promised that his homeland was now his only and top priority – that all State Department initiatives would either make the US safer, stronger, or more successful. The argumentation had clear echoes of Donald Trump's campaign speeches.
A useful rhetoric, notes Björn Fägersten, senior researcher at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs' European Program and the analysis firm Politea.
Trump believes that the US cannot afford to waste money on general world improvement and act as a world police. And he does not appreciate the benefits provided by global institutions.
New "hyper-competition"
The attitude shift was clear even during Donald Trump's first term: the World Health Organization (WHO), which Trump has now withdrawn the US from, was criticized for its COVID-19 management. The global climate agreement concluded in Paris was dismissed. The International Criminal Court, whose officials the Trump administration has now imposed sanctions on, was described as a threat to the US and its ally Israel.
In reality, we have been on our way out of the liberal, global world order for some time – we are in a transition phase. The US is making a big bet on an alternative order, and the question is what to call it, reasons Fägersten.
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen seems to have put her label on it. In a speech to the EU ambassadors recently, she said that the idea of close cooperation and hyper-globalization is outdated. Instead, the world is entering an era of "hyper-competition and hyper-transactional geopolitics" where the EU must defend its values and interests, according to von der Leyen.
Threats and deals
From that perspective, it is not surprising that businessman and real estate magnate Trump has restarted his second term by backing out of international collaborations, shutting down the aid agency USAID, and threatening several countries with punitive tariffs. The President is sticking to his controversial statements about annexing Greenland and Canada, as well as claiming that the US should "take over" the Gaza Strip. And at the security conference in Munich recently, his Vice President JD Vance upset many when he – instead of discussing security threats from Russia and China – claimed that the "threat from within" was greater in Europe.
Add to that Trump's discussion of the Ukraine war with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and his plans for negotiations in Saudi Arabia. European leaders are outraged that they seem to be excluded from the talks. Kyiv's participation is also unclear, Trump has spoken with the war-torn country's president, but his administration has also made it clear that NATO membership is not on the table and that a return to Ukraine's borders from before 2014 is "unrealistic".
It's a balancing act. At the same time as one is taking care of one's own house, one wants to maintain the role as the only superpower and have world dominance, notes Fägersten.
The course change is not popular everywhere. World leaders are holding crisis meetings, and loud protests are being held back home in the US.
But Team Trump is selling the new world order with all possible means. Shortly before the President took office, his son and namesake Donald Junior visited Greenland and was photographed with enthusiasts in red caps. And as soon as Marco Rubio got the green light as foreign minister, he went to Panama, which Trump has put under heavy pressure. This with threats to take back the Panama Canal, which the US handed over to the country in 1999 and which Trump claims China has gained too much influence over. The other day, Rubio announced that American authorities' vessels can now sail through the canal for free – something Panama completely denies.
Like the Cold War?
China runs like a red thread through the new US doctrine, both militarily and economically. Trump says he is not in a hurry to talk to President Xi Jinping, despite Beijing's protests against the broad punitive tariffs of 10 percent he has announced on Chinese goods. When it comes to Beijing, the situation is now not unlike the Cold War, notes Fägersten.
Rubio and his gang are China hawks. They want to have a number of core allies that will belong to the US gang rather than China's, he says.
Trump has a well-documented fondness for authoritarian leaders, during his previous term, he met with Xi Jinping, North Korea's dictator Kim Jong-Un, and Russia's President Vladimir Putin. It is likely that the newly elected President will try to make a "deal" with one of them, agreements that will then overshadow formal politics.
Wants to be loyal
In Europe, which has long seen itself as the US's closest ally and where many countries are NATO members, one is now trying to interpret "might makes right". Trump has already hinted that Europe is buying too few cars from his homeland and that punitive tariffs are to be expected.
It's complex. On the one hand, the EU wants to be loyal to the US, on the other hand, it is preparing for trade war. And within the EU, one also wants to save parts of the institutional order. Globalization is not dead, but it will function according to new geopolitical premises, says Björn Fägersten.
The rule-based world order is sometimes called the Western, liberal world order. It is based on certain values, norms, institutions, and rules that were created to govern states' behavior globally.
Among these are the UN Charter's formulation on the equality of nations and the prohibition of violence and threats of violence between states. The principles of human rights, international humanitarian law (including the four Geneva Conventions on the laws of war), international criminal law, and treaty law are important.
The rule-based world order was developed after World War II. The US's former foreign minister Antony Blinken has described it as a "system of laws, agreements, principles, and institutions that the world built together after two world wars to govern relations between countries, prevent conflicts, and uphold all human rights".
Sources: The Royal War Academy, the Government Offices, and the British Parliament
