By HS Wong
The 2026 Munich Security Conference (MSC) offered a familiar spectacle: the United States, Europe, and other global actors convening to discuss the shifting architecture of the post-Ukraine, post-pandemic world. Amid this, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered a speech that immediately drew attention; not least for the standing ovation he received. Headlines framed it dramatically, claiming Rubio had called for a return to centuries of Western expansion and even “recolonization of the Global South.”
While many in the Western audiences cheered, many in the Global South and Middle East remained cautious. Understanding why requires reading not just the speech, but the subtext of who applauded and who did not.
Applause as Anxiety, Not Just Affirmation
Rubio’s rhetoric was framed as a lesson in history. He reminded the audience that over five centuries, the United States and Europe had “walked together” in shaping global affairs. Yet the ovation came not for historical nostalgia, but for his closing lines:
“For the United States and Europe, we belong together… our destiny will always be intertwined.”
The applause reflected collective relief among European leaders and Western delegates, but relief is not the same as confidence. Rubio’s speech was necessary precisely because transatlantic unity is under severe strain. Years of “America First” policies, trade disputes, and divergent approaches to the war in Ukraine and the rise of China have created deep fissures. When Europeans rose to their feet, they were not simply celebrating unity; they were desperately hoping the reassurance was genuine. The standing ovation, therefore, spoke as much about Western anxiety as it did about Western solidarity.
Who Didn’t Cheer—And Why Their Silence Matters
Crucially, Middle Eastern and Global South delegates did not join the ovation. Coverage from Reuters, Euronews, and Foreign Policy indicates that applause was almost exclusively from Western-aligned attendees. For delegates outside Europe and North America, references to centuries of Western expansion, even when framed historically, carry different resonances. They evoke legacies of colonialism and caution about Western-led narratives.
But the “Global South” is not a monolith, and the silence from different quarters carried distinct meanings:
- For China, the silence was likely strategic. Any reinforcement of U.S.-Europe unity represents a potential challenge to Beijing’s influence, particularly in forums where Western powers coordinate on technology, trade, and security.
- For Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the silence reflected their carefully calibrated multivector foreign policy. These nations remain security partners of the West but are deeply integrated economically with China and Russia. Cheering a speech centered on Western destiny would undermine their carefully constructed neutrality.
- For ASEAN neighbors, including Malaysia, the silence stemmed from a longstanding principle of non-alignment and a desire to avoid being seen as taking sides in great power competition. For Southeast Asian nations, the most critical relationships are often bilateral and regional, not transatlantic.
Polite silence, therefore, was itself revealing. While the standing ovation signaled reassurance for the West, it did not translate into universal endorsement. In global forums, who applauds and who remains silent often speaks louder than the speech itself.
Beyond History: The Economic Subtext
Rubio’s speech was not merely a history lesson, it carried a clear economic message aimed at countering Chinese influence and promoting a Western-led model for infrastructure, technology, and trade. For many Global South delegates, this economic pitch landed differently.
Countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America have benefited tangibly from Chinese investment through the Belt and Road Initiative, often with fewer conditionalities attached than Western development models. Malaysia itself is a prime example of a nation balancing Western investment with Chinese infrastructure projects. When Rubio spoke of a shared Western destiny, the unspoken question for many listeners was: What concrete economic partnership does this offer us, and on what terms?
The silence from the Global South may have reflected skepticism toward a narrative that offered historical reassurance to Europeans but provided little clarity on how the “shared destiny” would include, or benefit, the rest of the world.
The “Recolonization” Framing: Why It Resonates
The sensational headlines about Rubio calling for “recolonization” were, as noted, hyperbolic. Rubio was not advocating colonial expansion. Yet the fact that such interpretations gain traction warrants examination.
For many in the Global South, the language of a shared Western destiny, framed without acknowledgment of the centuries when that destiny was imposed on others, evokes not partnership but paternalism. Contemporary grievances compound this: economic coercion, conditional aid, lectures on governance, and military interventionism still characterize much of Western engagement with the developing world. When Rubio spoke of walking together for five centuries, the unspoken response from much of the Global South was: We were not walking beside you; we were the ground beneath your feet.
The silence in the hall was not just about history. It was about a present in which Global South nations continue to navigate a global order largely designed by others.
Lessons for Malaysia and the Global South
Rubio’s MSC speech underscores a persistent geopolitical reality: Western alliance-building is largely Western-centric. For Malaysia and other Global South countries, this offers a dual lesson:
Western reassurance is selective. Applause reflected reassurance for transatlantic allies grappling with their own anxieties, not global consensus.
Engagement requires discernment. Regional players must read beyond rhetoric, balancing diplomatic courtesy with strategic autonomy.
Silence is strategic data. Observing who applauds, and who does not, offers critical insight into global power perceptions. The quiet delegates were not passive observers; they were signaling, in the only way diplomatically appropriate, that Western-centric narratives do not automatically command their allegiance.
Forward-Looking Strategy for Malaysia
Malaysia can turn such moments into opportunity. While the standing ovation highlighted Western solidarity, born partly of anxiety, the response from the Global South should focus on asserting regional leadership and strategic independence. This can be achieved by:
Strengthening Southeast Asian coalitions to advance shared regional priorities. ASEAN’s centrality is not merely a diplomatic principle; it is a necessity in a multipolar world.
Deepening ties with other Global South partners to balance Western influence without severing ties. South-South cooperation offers practical alternatives to dependence on any single power bloc.
Engaging with Western powers constructively, but on terms that protect national and regional interests. Malaysia can welcome investment and partnership while resisting narratives that presume a shared destiny defined in Washington or Brussels.
Diversifying economic relationships to ensure that no single partner, whether West or East, holds disproportionate leverage over Malaysia’s development trajectory.
By doing so, Malaysia ensures that Western-centric narratives do not dictate its strategic choices, while still maintaining constructive relations with transatlantic partners. The MSC, in this light, becomes not only a stage for Western reassurance, but also a mirror reflecting where the Global South must assert its agency.
Conclusion
Rubio’s Munich speech was an attempt at a reaffirmation of U.S.-Europe unity, celebrated by the Western core of the conference. But the standing ovation was as much about Western anxiety as it was about Western solidarity, a desperate hope that the transatlantic partnership can withstand internal and external pressures.
Middle Eastern and Global South delegates listened politely, signaling that Western-centric narratives rarely resonate universally. Their silence was not empty; it was filled with the weight of colonial memory, contemporary economic calculus, and strategic independence.
For Malaysia, the key takeaway is simple yet profound: in a world where alliances, histories, and global narratives are interpreted differently across regions, strategic discernment is as important as diplomacy. Observing who applauds, and who does not, offers critical insight into global power perceptions and informs how nations like Malaysia can navigate a complex, multipolar order with clarity, confidence, and autonomy.
HS Wong is a member of the Executive Committee of the International Movement for a Just World.
18 February 2026