Trumpian imperialism, Global anarchism and shrinking Pax Americana

Aditya Bhalla

The Park Cricket Bully and Pax Americana 

In childhood, many of us came across a park cricket bully who loved to remind everyone that he owned the bat, thereby determining whether the game would be played. Because of this, the bully always used to get his way, and the other players exhibited compliance towards him. They feared alienating him would cancel their game, depriving them of their evening recreation.

But what if the other players began to feel they did not have to put up with this ‘dadagiri’^[1]? Remember how the bully constantly announced that he possessed the bat? That very act clearly underscored that the bully’s influence over his fellow players was waning. They gradually started exploring alternatives like football, or even played their own game of cricket without the domineering bully imposing his will or bossing them around. Frustrated and fearful that he was losing the upper hand, the bully tried even harder to assert his hegemony. In turn, his fellow players grew weary of his browbeating tendencies and slowly left him isolated, weakening his clout in the process.

This scenario aptly mirrors today’s geopolitical realities, in which the world order led by the USA^[2], established in the aftermath of the Second World War, is undergoing a decline. American allies, especially in western Europe, are growing increasingly sceptical of the USA, leading them to chart their own independent course. The recent India-EU^[3] FTA^[4] and the varied reactions of European nations, including Spain, to the current conflict in West Asia showcase the widening fissures between the USA and its allies. President Donald Trump’s subsequent sulky responses, like threatening to impose a trade embargo on Spain for its refusal to back the American war effort against Iran, highlight his attempts to remind everyone who the ‘big brother’ is. Enforcing compliance in this brazen manner thus underscores the cracks within Pax Americana.

The Historical Roots of American Hegemony

Of course, this is not to say that the USA has never acted imperialistically. History has witnessed American imperialism since the Monroe Doctrine (1823). The Monroe Doctrine was grounded in the principle of anti-colonialism and it opposed foreign intervention in the Western Hemisphere. This policy laid the foundation for US interventionism in the Americas, thereby cementing its status as a regional hegemon. Building upon the Monroe Doctrine, President Theodore Roosevelt’s administration instituted the Roosevelt Corollary in 1904, following the Venezuelan crisis of 1902-03, wherein the European powers blockaded Venezuelan ports over unpaid debts. This essentially gave the USA the license to intervene in the internal affairs of Latin American countries under the guise of maintaining regional stability and security. Both these instruments of foreign policy were fundamental in solidifying the USA’s position as a hegemon within the Western Hemisphere.

From Regional Power to Global Superpower

By the mid-twentieth century, the USA was not restricted to being a regional hegemon. It had emerged as a global superpower following its victory over the Axis powers in the Second World War. The relegation of Britain and France to secondary powers left a power vacuum that was quickly filled by the USA and USSR^[5], resulting in a bipolar world order that ignited a period of mistrust and geopolitical rivalry between the two superpowers known as the 'Cold War'. This period was marked by ideological differences and competition within the realms of defence and technology.  Both the USA and USSR attempted to expand their spheres of influence. Each sought to shape the global landscape according to their diametrically opposite visions of political and economic order.

As a result, the USA sought to ‘contain’ the spread of Communism propagated by the USSR. American policymakers perceived Communism as antithetical to their values, such as freedom and liberty. The USA thus began to anchor its hegemony through a rules-based international order which claimed to champion democracy, free trade and collective security. This gave the USA a facade of moral legitimacy to intervene across the world to tackle the Communist threat, ranging from Korea (1950-53) to Cuba (1959-62) to Vietnam (1954-75) to Afghanistan (1979-89).

Unipolarity and Its Limits: Afghanistan and Iraq

With the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the Cold War came to a close and ideological rivalries were no longer at the forefront of the global stage. This ushered in a period of unipolarity where the USA was the sole superpower, which, in turn, fortified Pax Americana. Consequently, the USA consolidated its hold over global institutions (UN^[6], IMF^[7] and World Bank) and exercised its military, technological and economic prowess worldwide. This further reinforced American hegemony, which was justified through the manufacturing of consent within the framework of the rules-based international order. For example, in response to the 9/11^[8] terror attacks, the USA invaded Afghanistan (2001) as part of its Global War on Terrorism campaign, a robust justificatory narrative that received strong support from the international community in the early stages.

Even controversial decisions such as the invasion of Iraq (2003) were justified under the veneer of moral legitimacy. Essentially, the USA claimed that Iraq possessed WMDs^[9], including biological and chemical weapons, and highlighted it as a threat to global security. It argued that Iraq violated numerous UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 1441^[10]. President George W Bush’s administration cited this as a legal basis for the unilateral military invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein’s regime. American interventionism during the post-Cold War era was thus rooted in the preservation of global security and stability, promotion of democracy and protection of human rights.

The Rise of Multipolarity: Russia, China and India

But this uncontested unipolar moment did not last long. By the 2000s, it had begun to show signs of erosion, especially with the resurgence of Russia, a former Soviet republic, as a geopolitical challenger to American dominance. Under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin, Russia started to reassert itself within its neighbourhood. From the conflict with Georgia (2008) to the annexation of Crimea (2014) and the ongoing war with Ukraine, Russia’s decisive military actions demonstrate that American hegemony in Europe is neither undisputed nor immune to fissures.

At the same time, China was charting the course for its ascent, paving the way for an increasingly multipolar world. Since joining the WTO^[11] in 2001, China’s economy and trade have been on an upward trajectory, giving it greater access to global markets and positioning itself as a major contender to American economic hegemony. In 2013, China launched the BRI^[12], which places emphasis on the development of strategic trade routes connecting Asia, Africa and Europe. This propelled China to expand its own sphere of influence and challenge American dominance with its own model of globalisation that sees participation from over 150 countries, as of 2026. China also began to make inroads in the South China Sea, which directly threatened American maritime primacy and displayed China’s rise as a formidable military power as well.

While China deftly manoeuvred its emergence as an economic and technological powerhouse to reckon with, another rising power in Asia set about making its mark on the world stage: India. Leveraging the gains from its landmark policy of economic liberalisation (1991), the Indian economy sustained its boom in the 2000s, bolstering its position as a high-growth market. This significantly reduced India’s reliance on foreign aid, signifying a tectonic shift towards financial autonomy. As a result, India’s bargaining power surged, which sowed the seeds for India’s independent foreign policy of strategic autonomy and multi-alignment. For instance, India is a member of both BRICS^[13] and QUAD^[14]. That in itself showcases its ability to “chew gum and walk at the same time”, as articulated by External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar.

Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India’s global prominence has risen significantly, reflecting a more assertive approach to today’s complex geopolitics. This is evident in its refusal to fully endorse US positions on Ukraine and West Asia and in its continued consolidation of defence and trade ties with Russia despite American pressure. India has also assumed leadership of vital international forums, from the presidency of the G20^[15] (2022-23) to the chairmanship of BRICS (2026), amplifying its influence on the world stage. India’s rise as a key player in the international arena, therefore, clearly accentuates the decline of unipolarity, exposing the cracks within US hegemony.

Trumpian Imperialism: Boldness Born of Fragile Hegemony

Multipolarity had practically crystallised by the time Trump assumed office again in 2025. Realising that compliance was no longer automatically guaranteed, and American influence was waning globally, Trump implemented a foreign policy characterised by unilateralism, transactional diplomacy and unabashed browbeating. Effectively, the USA no longer possessed the moral high ground to justify its ‘dadagiri’. From engaging in provocative expansionist rhetoric regarding Greenland and Canada to threatening to impose tariffs on non-compliant nations, Trump’s approach illustrated how American imperialism has acquired a much bolder hue. This audaciousness was quite conspicuous in how the USA intervened in Venezuela (2026) and captured President Nicolas Maduro. As part of stabilisation efforts, Trump openly proposed that the USA would supervise the nation and its abundant oil reserves. His administration justified the action by citing drug trafficking and regional security, but detractors claimed it lacked clear international legal support and was a brutal display of power over a sovereign state. Even traditional allies such as Mexico, France and Denmark did not endorse the American method to initiate regime change in Venezuela, indicating the USA’s diminished moral legitimacy and inefficacy of its justificatory narratives.

The Decline of Moral Legitimacy

Unlike the invasion of Iraq, American interventionism in Venezuela was not rooted in the enforcement of international laws. In fact, several experts and Latin American nations highlighted that it was a flagrant violation of UN Charter Article 2(4)^[16]. This substantiates the notion that the USA no longer relies on justifying its hegemony using the framework of the consent rules-based order, much like the park cricket bully who becomes boisterous when the other players stop giving two hoots about him. Raw power projection has thus become the new ‘normal’ in American foreign policy.

Contemporary West Asia: Iran and the Limits of Compliance

Today, the USA, alongside Israel, is operating with the same mindset by conducting military strikes against Iran, a blatant display of authority that highlights how brittle its hegemony is. Regional tensions across West Asia have intensified as Iran launched retaliatory strikes against the Gulf nations and Israel, demonstrating the consequences of brazen American ‘dadagiri’ devoid of moral or legal legitimacy. This is further underscored by the reluctance of American allies, in both the Gulf and Europe, to wholly support the war effort against Iran. It can therefore be inferred that automatic compliance and backing are no longer guaranteed, especially in this turbulent, ever-changing world order, which enables the USA’s audacious behaviour globally.

The Sun Sets on Pax Americana

While the USA may still wield the bat, especially with its economic and military supremacy, fellow players have begun looking for alternative avenues, signalling their scepticism and mistrust. It is safe to say that the cracks within Pax Americana have come to the forefront. Struggling to accept that the game has changed, the bully’s desperation and frustration only prove that tectonic shifts in the world order are underway. Trumpian imperialism is simply a symptom of others standing up to the bully and assertively declaring, ‘Bahut hua! Ab teri nahi chalegi.’^[17] The sun is clearly setting on American hegemony.

Note :

“The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organisation, institution or affiliation.”

---

Author,

Aditya Bhalla is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Military History and Conflict Studies at the United Service Institution of India (USI), where he works on military history, conflict studies, and contemporary geopolitics. He contributes to key research initiatives and supports flagship projects, including the Indian Military Heritage Festival and the Masters in International Conflict Studies programme.

He graduated cum laude from Ashoka University with a degree in History and International Relations and a minor in Political Science, and holds a Postgraduate Diploma in Advanced Studies and Research. He has prior experience in policy and analytical work with Ernst & Young’s Government and Public Sector division, and has held leadership roles at the Ashoka Society for International Affairs.

His research focuses on South Asia’s international history especially India’s foreign policy towards Pakistan as well as broader questions of global power transitions and the evolving international order.

---

[1] Indianism denoting intimidating and coercive behaviour

[2] United States of America

[3] European Union

[4] Free Trade Agreement

[5] Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union)

[6] United Nations

[7] International Monetary Fund

[8] Terror attacks carried out by al-Qaeda against the United States on 9 November 2001

[9] Weapons of Mass Destruction

[10] Passed by the UN Security Council in 2002, it was a “decision to set up an enhanced inspection regime to ensure Iraq's compliance of its disarmament obligations”.

[11] World Trade Organization

[12] Belt and Road Initiative

[13] Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa

[14] Quadrilateral Security Dialogue

[15] Group of Twenty: comprising of 19 countries and the European Union

[16] Highlights that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

[17]