By Kousar Khan

Is the contemporary international system witnessing a gradual return to hard-power politics, or is it merely revealing a reality that was never abandoned? The recent events that unfolded did not invent a new international reality but exposed an old one. Beneath decades of talk about globalization, liberal norms, and multilateral cooperation, power politics – Realpolitik – never truly disappeared. It simply wore a veil of institutions, markets, trade, and values to disguise its true nature. Trump’s foreign policy tears away that language and confronts the international community with an uncomfortable truth: power has always mattered most.

From Venezuela to Iran to Greenland, Trump’s conduct raises a fundamental question about the nature of the international system. Is the world drifting back toward realism, or did it never genuinely leave it?

Liberal internationalism promised a rules-based order governed by cooperation, institutions, and moral restraint. Truman Doctrine advocated liberal institutionalism. Yet with passing time when those rules clash with strategic interests, they were routinely ignored by the powerful ones.

In contemporary discourse, the “Donroe Doctrine” has become talk of the town. Although not an official policy, but the trends which Trump is walking upon signals towards something – “history repeating itself”- the ‘Monroe Doctrine’. By rhetorically and operationally reviving the logic of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, Trump has reframed U.S. foreign policy around open assertions of hemispheric dominance. Where James Monroe warned European powers to stay out of the Americas, Trump’s posture goes further – challenging the sovereignty of governments themselves in the name of American primacy.

Reported U.S. actions in Venezuela and operation ‘Absolute Resolve’ justified Monroe’s legacy and the claim that American dominance in the Western Hemisphere “will not be questioned again,”. Branded as stabilization or protection, such maneuvers resemble classic interventionism. The alleged intent to oversee political transition while redirecting Venezuela’s oil resources toward U.S. interests aligns seamlessly with a realist worldview where control of resources equals power.

Hans J. Morgenthau, in his seminal work Politics Among Nations, argues that “international politics is, at its core, a struggle for power.” This reality remains undiminished in the twenty-first century. The assumption prevalent over the past two decades, that the international system was steadily moving toward soft power, institutional cooperation, and norm-based governance, has been decisively upended by recent events. From unilateral interventions and economic coercion to the open prioritization of national interest over multilateral commitments, global politics once again reflects the primacy of power over principle. What has changed is not the nature of international relations, but the fading illusion that power politics had been replaced by moral restraint.

Trump’s nationalism, embodied in Make America Great Again, marks a decisive break from Wilsonian idealism. Wilsonianism emphasized democracy promotion, international law, and multilateral institutions. Trump has replaced this with Hamiltonianism: a realist, commerce-driven, interest-centric approach that prioritizes economic leverage, strategic advantage, and national strength. Trade wars, sanctions, resource diplomacy, and unilateral threats are not deviations from U.S. history; they are deeply embedded within it.

Those who believed that China’s rise signaled the end of Realpolitik misunderstood history. China’s ascent did not end realism; it intensified it. The liberal assumption, “that economic interdependence would tame power competition”, proved overly optimistic. Joseph Stiglitz, in his book, Globalization and Its Discontents, warned that globalization was never a neutral or benevolent force. It was structured to benefit powerful states and corporations, often at the expense of weaker societies. Trump’s approach does not reject globalization; it weaponizes it. Sanctions, tariffs, and energy politics are tools of coercion in an interconnected world, not signs of its decline.

At the theoretical level, this moment underscores the enduring relevance of realism. Liberalism claimed that institutions could mitigate anarchy, norms could constrain power, and cooperation could replace coercion. But realism reminds us that the international system remains anarchic, there is no central authority above states. Institutions survive only so long as powerful states find them useful. When they do not, those institutions are sidelined or ignored.

For further illustration, this shift is best understood through the levels of analysis in International Relations. At the systemic level, power transitions, particularly China’s rise, have increased insecurity and competition. At the state level, U.S. relative decline anxiety fuels aggressive strategies to preserve dominance. But it is at the individual level that Trump’s impact becomes decisive. Unlike traditional presidents constrained by elite consensus and diplomatic norms, Trump’s personal worldview – transactional, nationalist, and confrontational – has reshaped U.S. foreign policy conduct. His skepticism toward alliances, disdain for multilateralism, and belief in raw leverage demonstrate how individual leadership can redirect state behavior and, by extension, the international community.

This is not unprecedented. Leaders matter. Bismarck, Napoleon, and Nixon all reshaped global politics through personal vision. Trump belongs in this tradition, not as an anomaly, but as a reminder that individuals can accelerate underlying structural trends. He did not dismantle the liberal order alone; he revealed how fragile it always was.

The implications extend beyond the West. For countries like Pakistan, this resurgence of overt power politics is both dangerous and clarifying. In a world where norms are selectively applied and alliances are transactional, survival depends on strategic realism. Pakistan must avoid ideological alignments and instead pursue flexible diplomacy; balancing relations with the U.S., China, and regional actors without overdependence on any single power. Economic resilience, internal political stability, and regional connectivity are no longer development goals alone; they are security imperatives.

Pakistan should also learn from Joseph Stiglitz’s critique: globalization without autonomy breeds vulnerability. Strengthening domestic institutions, diversifying trade, and investing in human capital offer insulation against external coercion. In an anarchic system, moral appeals rarely protect weak states; strategic foresight sometimes does.

Ultimately, Trump’s foreign policy does not mark the death of liberal internationalism, it exposes its limits. Thucydides’ ancient observation still haunts modern diplomacy: the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. Liberalism softened the edges of that reality but never erased it. The Donroe Doctrine is not a new chapter; it is a reminder that history never stopped repeating itself. The only real question is whether the rest of the world is prepared to face power politics without illusion.