Marco Rubio in Munich: Civilisational and Colonial Politics Back on the Agenda, Strategic Courtesies, and Geopolitical Implications |
Marco Rubio in Munich: Civilisational and Colonial Politics Back on the Agenda, Strategic Courtesies, and Geopolitical Implications
At the Munich Security Conference, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered a seemingly conciliatory speech that masked a profound ideological project: the normalisation of MAGA-inspired civilisational politics in transatlantic relations.
At the 2026 Munich Security Conference, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered a speech that was widely framed as conciliatory, particularly when contrasted with the confrontational tone adopted by Vice President J.D. Vance at the previous year’s conference. Yet beneath the courteous rhetoric and symbolic gestures of reassurance lay a deeply ideological vision of global order—one that sought to normalise MAGA-inspired civilisational politics within European strategic debates.
Rubio’s address represented an attempt to translate Trumpian ideological premises into a coherent foreign policy narrative for a transatlantic audience. This involved three interlinked discursive moves: a nostalgic reconstruction of Western colonial expansion as a civilisational “golden age”, a securitised understanding of migration and identity politics, and a sceptical rejection of climate governance as a strategic priority. Together, these elements signal a broader effort to reposition the United States as the ideological anchor of a conservative civilisational bloc, with Europe invited—implicitly pressured—to align accordingly.
Colonial Nostalgia and the Rearticulation of Western Civilisation
Rubio’s evocation of five centuries of Western expansion, framed as a period of civilisational ascent, represents a striking rehabilitation of colonial modernity in contemporary diplomatic discourse. By portraying missionaries, explorers, and imperial administrators as vectors of civilisation, he echoed a classic colonial narrative that treats imperialism as a benevolent historical force rather than a system of domination, extraction, extermination of peoples, and racial hierarchy.
Such rhetoric is not merely symbolic. It signals an ideological reorientation in US foreign policy discourse towards a civilisational frame in which geopolitical competition is cast as a struggle between cultural orders rather than political-economic systems. Within this frame, the Global South appears less as a partner in global governance and more as a terrain of ideological contestation, implicitly open to renewed Western colonisation under conservative ideological leadership.
While Rubio did not explicitly call for recolonisation, the discursive logic of his speech—celebrating imperial expansion and lamenting its decline—invites a reassertion of hierarchical global governance. This aligns with broader MAGA narratives that reject multilateralism and postcolonial critiques, instead advocating a return to Western unilateralism and civilisational assertiveness.
Migration, Identity, and the Civilisational State
A central undercurrent of Rubio’s speech was the securitisation of migration and cultural pluralism. His emphasis on defending Western, Christian civilisation resonates with the ideological architecture of contemporary far-right movements, which conceptualise migration as a civilisational threat rather than a socio-economic-climatic phenomenon.
By encouraging Europe to pursue stricter migration policies as part of a broader civilisational revival, Rubio attempted to insert MAGA’s domestic culture wars into the transatlantic strategic agenda. This framing reflects the diffusion of the “civilisational state” concept into Western conservative discourse, where identity, demography, and cultural homogeneity are increasingly treated as strategic assets.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s statement that “the MAGA movement in the USA is not ours” underscores the tension between this vision and Europe’s pluralistic political traditions. Nevertheless, Rubio’s speech sought to test the permeability of European strategic discourse to such ideas, particularly amid anxieties about US disengagement and European strategic autonomy.
Climate Governance and the Politics of Strategic Denial
Rubio’s dismissal of the green transition as an “illusion” reflects a broader MAGA scepticism towards climate governance, multilateral environmental agreements, and regulatory frameworks. In geopolitical terms, this position signals a prioritisation of short-term economic competitiveness and energy sovereignty over long-term planetary governance.
For Europe, which has invested heavily in green industrial policy and climate diplomacy, Rubio’s stance implies a potential decoupling of transatlantic climate agendas. If translated into policy, this divergence could weaken global climate governance architectures and exacerbate North–South inequalities, particularly as climate impacts disproportionately affect the Global South.
The Politics of Courtesy: Why the Standing Ovation?
Despite the ideological radicalism embedded in Rubio’s narrative, his speech received a standing ovation. This paradox can be understood through three factors.
First, tone matters in diplomacy. Rubio’s courteous and conciliatory style contrasted sharply with the antagonistic rhetoric of D. Trump or J.D. Vance, enabling European elites to interpret his speech as an olive branch rather than an ideological ultimatum.
Second, Europe’s strategic anxiety regarding US disengagement creates a structural incentive to applaud any rhetorical reassurance of transatlantic unity, even when accompanied by ideological conditionalities.
Third, Rubio’s framing of ideological alignment as a partnership rather than coercion allowed his message to be received as an invitation rather than a demand. This performative diplomacy masked the asymmetrical power dynamics underlying the proposed ideological convergence.
Rubio, Vance, and the Intra-MAGA Succession Struggle
Rubio’s speech can also be interpreted through the lens of domestic US political competition. By delivering a MAGA-consistent yet diplomatically palatable address, Rubio positioned himself as a potential successor figure capable of bridging Trumpism with international legitimacy.
In contrast to J.D. Vance’s confrontational populism, Rubio’s approach suggests a strategy of ideological continuity coupled with diplomatic professionalisation. This positioning could be read as an attempt to secure Trump’s endorsement in a future Republican primary contest, signalling loyalty to MAGA principles while demonstrating governability to international partners.
His emphasis on Spanish and Italian ancestry, alongside the omission of his Cuban, Latino immigrant background, further reflects the complex racial and identity politics within MAGA discourse, where assimilation into a Eurocentric civilisational narrative is accepted and Latino or multicultural self-identification is denied.
Geopolitical Implications for Europe and the Global Order
Rubio’s Munich speech carries several geopolitical implications:
Transatlantic Conditionality: US support for Europe is increasingly framed as contingent on ideological convergence, particularly on migration, identity politics, and climate policy.
Civilisational Bloc Formation: The speech signals an attempt to consolidate a conservative civilisational bloc, potentially intensifying global ideological polarisation and undermining liberal multilateralism.
Global South Marginalisation: The nostalgic rehabilitation of colonialism risks legitimising hierarchical global governance structures, exacerbating North–South tensions, and undermining postcolonial claims to epistemic and political autonomy.
Strategic Fragmentation of Climate Governance: Diverging transatlantic climate agendas could weaken global climate regimes and increase geopolitical competition over energy and technology.
Conclusion: Courtesy as Ideological Strategy
Rubio’s Munich address exemplifies a strategic evolution of MAGA foreign policy discourse: from overt confrontation to civilisational persuasion. The speech was not merely diplomatic reassurance but an ideological proposition to Europe—join a conservative civilisational revival or risk strategic marginalisation.
The enthusiastic reception in Munich reveals not ideological agreement but strategic vulnerability: Europe’s dependence on US security guarantees makes it susceptible to ideological conditionality, even when such conditionality challenges its normative foundations — its values.
In this sense, Rubio’s speech was less about reconciliation and more about ideological alignment—courteously delivered but geopolitically consequential. Ultimately, it deepens transatlantic doubts.
Ricardo Martins, Doctor in Sociology with specialisation in geopolitics and international relations
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel