Freshly confirmed US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has issued a fiery warning for America’s allies: the post-war global order is “not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us”, heralding a major shift as the US confronts multiple great powers, requiring a seismic shift for allies like Australia.
Following the end of World War II, the United States emerged as the primary architect of a new global order designed to prevent future conflicts and promote economic stability. Central to this order was the establishment of institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, all intended to facilitate cooperation among nations and ensure peace and prosperity.
This framework, often referred to as the “rules-based world order”, was grounded in liberal principles such as free markets, democracy and human rights. The American-led order was shaped by a mix of idealism, pragmatic geopolitics and the desire to secure America’s global leadership in the face of a weakened Europe and a Soviet threat.
Throughout the Cold War, the world was divided between the capitalist bloc, led by the United States, and the communist bloc, led by the Soviet Union. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked a key turning point, with the United States standing as the uncontested superpower.
The end of the Cold War not only shifted the global balance of power but also gave rise to the so-called “unipolar moment”, where American influence stretched across political, economic and cultural domains. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many hoped that the world would increasingly adhere to the liberal democratic model championed by Washington, and global institutions seemed to reflect this dominance.
However, the post-Cold War era has proven to be more complex and challenging than initially expected. The 21st century has seen the rise of new global powers, particularly China, whose rapid economic growth and assertive foreign policy have posed a direct challenge to the American-led order.
China’s rise is characterised by its growing military and economic influence, challenging the existing global economic system, particularly in regions such as Asia and Africa. Alongside this, Russia, under Vladimir Putin, has sought to reassert its influence on the global stage, often in opposition to American interests.
As China, Russia, India and others continue to grow in power, with their own designs and ambitions, the world has begun shifting away from the unipolarity of the 1990s towards a more multipolar order, where multiple powers compete for influence, primacy, security and prosperity.
For allies like Australia, the devolution of the post-war order into something closer to that of the 19th century presents a significant shock to many policymakers and academics alike, many of whom continue to formulate or inform policy based largely through the lens of the “End of History” theory to our major detriment as the new US administration has come to accept its limitations in this new world order.
Recognising this, the new US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has heralded a major shift in America’s view, not only of the world, but it’s place in it, using a number of platforms, including his Senate confirmation hearing to outline this new reality.
An obsolete world order
One of the central points of President Donald Trump’s election platform, both initially in 2016 and again in 2024, was the belief (whether correct or not) that the post-Second World War, “liberal rules-based global order” – established by the US in the waning days of the war and then formalised in the immediate aftermath – was no longer not only not fit for purpose, but was also not providing the American people with the value that was promised.
Rather, the preservation of the world order had cost America immensely, in terms of both “treasure” – beginning with the rapid de-industrialisation in the 1970s and then gradually accelerating through the last two decades of the 20th century, resulting in the eradication of vast swathes of the midwest and rust belt – and “blood”, as America frequently engaged in costly “forever wars” across the globe.
It is this deeply felt sense of betrayal which ultimately culminated in the election of President Trump twice and his agenda, emphatically endorsed for a second time, with an emphasis on overturning the slights felt by many across the working and middle classes of America and is best explained by Secretary Rubio who told gathered senators: “At the end of World War II, the United States was, in the words of then Secretary Acheson, tasked with creating a world order ‘a free half’ out of chaos ‘without blowing the whole to pieces in the process’.
“In the decades that followed, the global order they created served us well. For Americans, incomes rose and communities flourished. Alliances emerged in the Indo-Pacific and Europe that led to the emergence of stability, democracy and prosperity in these regions, and prevented a cataclysmic third world war. And ultimately a wall in Berlin came down and with it, an ’evil empire’.”
The ensuing collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting “End of History” theory would come to dominate much of the thinking among many Western leaders, including, and some would say, especially Australia, which also gave rise to a “triumphalist” view of history and the future, effectively overlooking the initially, secretive emergence of a parallel economic, political and strategic order spearheaded in large part by China, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa.
Secretary Rubio detailed this, saying, “Out of the triumphalism of the end of long Cold War emerged a bipartisan consensus that we had reached ’the End of History’. That all the nations of earth would become members of the democratic Western-led community. That a foreign policy that served the national interest could now be replaced by one that served the ‘liberal world order’. And that all mankind was now destined to abandon national identity, and we would become ’one human family’ and ’citizens of the world’. This wasn’t just a fantasy; it was a dangerous delusion.”
It is here that Secretary Rubio conveniently brought us back to the level of disconnect and discontent felt by the American people that has continued to ferment, particularly given the rise of China and its designs and ambitions to subvert and replace the post-Second World War order, built largely on the revolutionary foundation established by the Soviet Union that has seen the rapid emergence of a parallel global order.
“We welcomed the Chinese Communist Party into this global order. And they took advantage of all its benefits. But they ignored all its obligations and responsibilities. Instead, they have lied, cheated, hacked and stolen their way to global superpower status, at our expense ... And in Moscow, Tehran and Pyongyang, dictators sow chaos and instability and align with and fund radical terror groups. Then hide behind their veto power at the United Nations and the threat of nuclear war,” Secretary Rubio said.
It is against this increasingly competitive and contested global backdrop that the United States, now a shadow of its own former glory, must compete in a number of centres of economic, political and strategic gravity and against multiple, often aligned powers, with comparatively lacklustre allies of their own.
Secretary Rubio detailed this, saying, “The post-war global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us. And all this has led us to a moment in which we must now confront the single greatest risk of geopolitical instability and generational global crisis in the lifetime of anyone alive here today.”
But this doesn’t mean that the United States is shirking its responsibilities as many an academic, journalist and others would have you believe, in fact, it would seem that it is quite the opposite.
America first or a traditional focus on ‘national interest’?
Seventeenth century English physician and author Sir Thomas Browne is attributed with coining the phrase, “Charity begins at home” and at its most basic level, the Trump-era politics is largely based upon this principle and a sound belief that America cannot be the global hegemon if it is weak, divided and frail at home.
Although many would find this hardly controversial, it is apparently controversial for many across the US and broader Western world, placing them firmly in conflict with the ambitions of the second Trump administration and its view of America’s role, responsibilities and position in the world.
It is also through this lens that Rubio has outlined the new path forward for America’s role in this new, competitive and multipolar world, with Secretary Rubio stating, “Every dollar we spend, every program we fund and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”
Unpacking this further, Rubio added, “Under President Trump, the dollars of hardworking American taxpayers will always be spent wisely and our power will always be yielded prudently, and toward what is best for America and Americans above all else.”
Critically, seeking to head off additional criticism and histrionics over perceived “American isolationism” or an abandonment of the global order by nations, particularly in Europe that have long abrogated their own responsibilities, particularly in the strategic domains because America unilaterally stepped in to foot the bill.
This is no longer the case, with the Trump administration accelerating its efforts (and the similar push by previous US administrations, including those of Biden, Obama and Bush) to get American allies to increase their defence spending and via the rather blunt instrument of tariffs and a wide-reaching reform of the US regulatory environment to establish a degree of economic competitive tension among the US and its allies.
But at the core of this is America’s national interest, which Secretary Rubio articulated, saying, “It is the commonsense understanding that while we remain the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, our wealth has never been unlimited and our power has never been infinite.
“And placing our core national interests above all else is not isolationism. It is the commonsense realisation that a foreign policy centred on our national interest is not some outdated relic. Since the emergence of the modern nation-state over two centuries ago, countries acting based on what they perceive as their core national interest has been the norm, not the exception. And for our country, placing the interest of America and Americans above all else has never been more relevant or more necessary than it is right now.”
It is this tough love approach that America’s allies need to accept, not as a petulant child begrudgingly accepting a punishment from a scalding parent, but rather as a child being challenged to live up to their potential, and Australia needs to be front and centre of this, lest we continue to slide into obscurity and doom generations of future Australians to poverty and misery.
Final thoughts
For generations, young Australians in the early to middle stages of their careers – at a time when they should be settling down and starting families – have faced a system that is inherently stacked against them.
Is it any surprise that alternative approaches to politics, policy and economics become appealing when they promise vast rewards with little effort?
At the same time, we have witnessed growing social and cultural dislocation, a sense of individual aimlessness, and the resulting impact on personal identity and mental health among younger Australians.
To reverse this stagnation and decline, policymakers must provide a unifying vision – one that is dynamic, filled with opportunity and driven by purpose. This can empower Australians to take charge of their future and build a resilient, competitive nation in an era of intensified global rivalry between autocracy and democracy.
Equally important is the need to expand and enhance opportunities while strengthening economic resilience. A strong economy acts as a deterrent against economic coercion and ensures we can safeguard our nation and interests from external threats.
If Australia is to thrive as a prosperous, secure and free nation in this era of great power competition, we must break free from short-term thinking and adopt a long-term vision – one that serves both current and future generations.
Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch at