build

Speaking at the annual Munich Security Conference on Saturday, United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged European countries to collaborate with the US to build a “new Western century”, describing US-Europe ties as “civilisational”.

“We are part of one civilisation – Western civilisation,” he said.

His rallying speech comes after more than a year of President Donald Trump’s rhetoric about mass immigration in Europe and his administration’s latest National Security Strategy, which warns of “civilisational erasure” in Europe.

Last year, US Vice President JD Vance also lambasted European “liberal values” in his first address at the security conference.

As European leaders grapple with the rise of far-right political parties, how will they respond to this new demand from the US, and what does it mean for the future of transatlantic relations?

What did Rubio say?

The top US diplomat focused on several key areas he views as imperative for Europe to address, which included ending “liberalist” policies the Trump administration views as responsible for Europe’s “post-war decline”, creating new supply chains to reduce reliance on countries such as China, and ending mass migration, which he said is leading to the erasure of Western “civilisation”.

“The work of this new alliance,” Rubio said, “should not be focused just on military cooperation and reclaiming the industries of the past. It should also be focused on, together, advancing our mutual interests and new frontiers, unshackling our ingenuity, our creativity, and the dynamic spirit to build a new Western century.”

Liberalism and mass migration

Rubio argued that the “euphoria” of the Western victory in the Cold War had led to a “dangerous delusion that we had entered ‘the end of history’”, where every nation would be a liberal democracy and “live in a world without borders, where everyone became a citizen of the world”.

He used this as a plank to lash out against opening “doors to an unprecedented wave of mass migration that threatens the cohesion of our societies, the continuity of our culture, and the future of our people”.

“Mass migration is not, was not, isn’t some fringe concern of little consequence. It was and continues to be a crisis which is transforming and destabilising societies all across the West,” he said.

Taking aim at liberalist policies, he added that, to “appease a climate cult, we have imposed energy policies on ourselves that are impoverishing our people”.

New supply chains

Rubio said the US and its allies should bring more industry and jobs back home, not just to build weapons but to lead in new, high‑tech fields.

He added that the West should control key minerals and supply chains, invest in space travel and artificial intelligence, and work together to win markets in the Global South.

In particular, he said, is the need for a “Western supply chain for critical minerals not vulnerable to extortion from other powers”.

Earlier this month, Trump hosted ministers from dozens of countries for a critical minerals conference in Washington. The meeting was the first of a new Critical Minerals Ministerial, a US initiative to build alliances aimed at countering China’s control over critical mineral supply chains around the world.

What does a ‘new Western century’ mean?

While the overarching message of Rubio’s speech was that the US still seeks a partnership with Europe, said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of think tank Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, his remarks revealed, “The US will entirely set the parameters of that partnership and that it will be based on ideas Europe long has abandoned: An embrace of empire and colonisation.”

Rubio’s remarks at the conference suggest that the US under Trump wants Europe to accept “a civilisational divide of the world in which the ‘West’ must restore its dominance over other civilisations”, Parsi told Al Jazeera.

“In essence, Rubio listed the criteria for how Europe can become well-behaved vassals of the United States,” he said.

How did European leaders react to Rubio’s speech?

European leaders appeared to welcome Rubio’s speech at the conference; it was followed by a standing ovation. However, while lauding his call for stronger ties with the US, they notably did not address his comments about migration and liberal values.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference: “We know that in the [Trump] administration, some have a harsher tone on these topics. But the secretary of state was very clear. He said, ‘We want [a] strong Europe in the alliance’, and this is what we are working for intensively in the European Union.”

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot responded to Rubio’s speech: “Referring to [our] common legacy can only be welcomed with applause in Europe.”

“We will deliver a strong and independent Europe,” he said. “Independent, of course, irrespective of the speeches that we hear at the Munich Security Conference, however right they may be.”

Calling Rubio a “true partner”, German Foreign Minister John Wadephul said: “[It was] a very clear message from Secretary Rubio that we have … to stay and stick to our international rules-based order, which is, of course, in [the] first line the United Nations. This is our Board of Peace. We have to make it more effective, as Rubio said this morning.”

Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen said she was “very satisfied with the tone” and the content of Rubio’s speech.

What does this mean for Europe?

European leaders have been facing a dilemma – particularly over migration and defence – for some time, for a number of reasons. The mass migration crisis prompted by unrest in other parts of the world has already caused far-right parties to surge in popularity. Now, the Trump administration has voiced support for many of these parties and is also urging Europe to take stronger action on migration and defence.

Therefore, many European leaders have already started taking action in these areas.

For instance, most European countries are already working on boosting their defences and cracking down on migration.

Last year, the United Kingdom announced plans for a big boost in defence spending in advance of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s meeting with Trump early last year amid fears the US would withdraw support for Ukraine in its war with Russia. Notably, Rubio skipped a meeting about Ukraine with European leaders at the Munich conference.

Many countries have also tightened controls over immigration. Denmark has led the way in implementing increasingly restrictive policies in its immigration and asylum system, with top leaders aiming for “zero asylum seekers” arriving in the country. Recently, the UK said it was studying the Danish model as well.

Europe is also working to make its energy and technology supply chains more sovereign, reducing dependence on foreign suppliers, particularly in the face of Trump’s trade war, which has seen him impose reciprocal trade tariffs on many countries around the world.

Many European leaders have come under increasing pressure from the rise in popularity of far-right parties calling for greater restrictions on immigration, as well.

In recent years, far-right, anti-immigration sentiment has been increasing in countries like the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and France. In 2023, the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), led by Geert Wilders, won the election in the Netherlands. France’s National Rally (RN), led by Marine Le Pen, won the snap election in 2024. The same year, Nigel Farage’s right-wing Reform UK party made significant inroads in the general elections and, last year, a YouGov poll placed Reform as the UK’s most popular political party.

Besides this, ideas which were once far-right fringe notions, such as remigration – the notion of forcibly expelling non-white European citizens – are gaining traction among far-right conservatives in Europe. The idea has been promoted by Herbert Kickl, the leader of Austria’s far-right anti-immigration Freedom Party (FPO) and Alice Weidel, the leader of the AfD in Germany.

While some European leaders have geared up to resist the rise of far-right politics – partly by appeasing them with new, more restrictive migration policies – Trump has, however, embraced it.

What does this mean for US-Europe relations?

All this ultimately means that “Europe has a choice to make”, said Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the think tank Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “It can pursue strategic autonomy and seek to find a balance between the great powers, and within that seek a dignified partnership with America in which it is not subjugated into vassalage.”

“[Or] Europe can continue on its current path in which it subordinates itself slowly but surely fully to Washington’s interests, priorities, impulses, and ideas about civilisational empire,” he told Al Jazeera.

Parsi pointed to the standing ovation at the conference that followed Rubio’s speech, simply for offering to remain partners with Europe.

“Whether they disregarded Rubio’s parameters, did not understand them, or simply found it unimportant because Europe desires to be a junior partner to the United States regardless of the parameters, remains to be seen,” he said.

For their part, European leaders appeared to place the greatest importance on repairing US-Europe relations above all else at the Munich Security Conference.

During his address at the conference on Friday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called on the US and Europe to “repair and revive transatlantic trust together”. “Let me begin with the uncomfortable truth: A rift, a deep divide has opened between Europe and the United States,” he said.

“Vice President JD Vance said this a year ago here in Munich. He was right in his description,” Merz said, as he called for a “new transatlantic partnership”.

Over the past year, United States President Donald Trump has pursued “peace-making” all across the world. A prominent feature of his efforts has been the belief that economic threats or rewards can resolve conflicts. Most recently, his administration has put forward economic development plans as part of peace mediation for Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, the war in Ukraine and the conflict between Israel and Syria.

While some may see Trump’s “business” approach to “peace-making” as unique, it is not. The flawed conviction that economic development can resolve conflicts has been a regular feature of Western neoliberal peace initiatives in the Global South for the past few decades.

Occupied Palestine is a good example.

In the early 1990s, when the “peace process” was initiated, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres started advocating for “economic peace” as part of it. He sold his vision of the “New Middle East” as a new regional order that would guarantee security and economic development for all.

The project aimed to place Israel at the economic centre of the Arab world through regional infrastructure — transport, energy and industrial zones. Peres’s solution for the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” was Palestinian economic integration. The Palestinians were promised jobs, investment, and improved living standards.

His argument was that economic development and cooperation would foster stability and mutual interest between Israelis and Palestinians. But that did not happen. Instead, as the occupation continued to entrench itself after the US-brokered Oslo Accords and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA), anger in the Palestinian streets grew and eventually led to the outbreak of the second Intifada.

This neoliberal approach was tested again by the Quartet – consisting of the United Nations, the European Union, the US and Russia – and its envoy Tony Blair in 2007. By then, the Palestinian economy had collapsed, losing 40 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) in eight years and plunging 65 percent of the population into poverty.

Blair’s “solution” was to propose 10 “quick impact” economic projects and fundraise for them in the West. This went hand-in-hand with the policies of then-Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, in what came to be known as “Fayyadism”.

Fayyadism was sold to Palestinians as a pathway to statehood through institution-building and economic growth. Fayyad focused on generating short-term economic gains in the occupied West Bank while simultaneously rebuilding the Palestinian security apparatus to meet Israeli security demands.

This model of economic peace never addressed the root cause of Palestinian economic stagnation: the Israeli occupation. Even the World Bank warned that investment without a political settlement ending Israeli control would fail in the medium and long term. Yet the approach persisted.

There were Palestinians who benefitted from it, but they were not common Palestinians. They were a narrow elite: security officials who gained privileged access to financial institutions, contractors tied to Israeli markets, and a handful of large investors. For the wider population, living standards remained precarious.

Rather than preparing Palestinians for statehood, Fayyadism replaced liberation with management, sovereignty with security coordination, and collective rights with individual consumption.

This economic approach to conflict resolution merely gave Israel time to entrench its colonial enterprise by expanding its settlements on Palestinian land.

The latest economic plan for Gaza, presented by Trump’s adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, is unlikely to bring economic prosperity to the Palestinians either. The project reflects two deeply contradictory dynamics: it foregrounds opportunities for investment and profit for global and regional oligarchies while systematically ignoring the fundamental national and human rights of the Palestinian people.

Security is framed exclusively around the needs of the occupying power, while Palestinians are compartmentalised, securitised, and surveilled — reduced to a depoliticised labour force stripped of social and national identity.

This approach views people as individuals rather than as nations or historically established communities. Under this logic, individuals are expected to acquiesce to oppression and dispossession once they obtain jobs and improve their living standards.

These strategies are failing to build peace not just in Palestine.

In the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, the US has proposed expanding the demilitarised zone and converting it into a joint economic zone, featuring a ski resort. The US approach seems designed not only to pressure Syria to relinquish its sovereign rights over the territory, but also to recast it as a security project in ways that primarily benefit Israel. Under this framework, the US would act as the security guarantor. Its close alliance with Israel, however, puts its impartiality and true intentions in doubt.

In Ukraine, the US has proposed a free economic zone in parts of the Donbas region, from which the Ukrainian army would have to withdraw. This would allow Moscow to expand its influence without direct military confrontation, creating a buffer zone favourable to Russian security interests.

The Donbas has historically been one of Ukraine’s industrial bases, and transforming it into a free economic zone would deprive Ukraine of a critical economic resource. There are also no guarantees that the Russian army would not simply advance after the Ukrainian withdrawal and take the whole region.

These neoliberal “solutions” to the conflicts in Gaza, the Donbas and the Golan Heights are doomed to fail just like the economically-driven peace initiatives of the 1990s and 2000s in occupied Palestine.

The main problem is that the US cannot really provide credible guarantees that the areas would remain stable, so investors can secure returns on their investments. That is because no solid political settlement would be in place, given the fact that these proposals ignore the political, cultural and most importantly, national interests of the people living in these regions. As a result, no serious or independent investor would commit capital to such an arrangement.

Nations are not made up of consumers or labourers; they are made up of people with a common identity and national aspirations.

Economic incentives should follow, not precede, a political resolution that secures the self-determination of indigenous peoples. Any conflict-resolution framework that ignores collective rights and international law is therefore bound to fail. Political settlements must prioritise these rights, a requirement that stands in direct opposition to the logic of neoliberalism.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.