Marco Rubio and the world that awaits him

By: Ricardo Israel - 01/12/2024

What world will receive it? It is a complicated and difficult one, negative for the US at least in the challenges of Iran, Russia and China, not only in Taiwan, but as the rival that wants to displace it as the main superpower of the world in this 21st century, in which case there are two readings, either it is a country that still has a long way to go or as one that every year, every year, reduces the distance. It is not positive in the military either, since it does not seem that its troops today have the capacity to fight simultaneously the type of war that is taking place in the Middle East and in Europe, for which investment in training and weapons will be needed. It is also one where there is an alliance between Russia and China, and as a superpower it did not serve to have cut all kinds of relations with Russia, which never existed during the Cold War.

Above all, and before anything else, the US must regain the lost deterrence, not only in the above, but also with Maduro's Venezuela, which simply failed to comply with the Barbados agreements, and with the Houthis in international navigation in the Red Sea. In other words, respect has been lost.

However, to the extent that Rubio understands this well, it is a world that offers him an opportunity, a great opportunity. If he is successful, he could not only become the first Latin American, unlike in 2016, to face an election in 2028 with a real chance of winning, but he could also improve the role of the United States as the necessary power, as the undisputed superpower of the world, which it is not today. To start with, U.S. foreign policy needs to recover what was abundant in the Cold War, that is, from the sense of mission to the concept of red lines, in terms of a more predictable world, where friends and adversaries were clear about both what was unacceptable and acceptable for Washington, with answers that do not exist today about what would be the conditions under which the United States would go to war, not from a distance, but with troops on the ground.

The United States must recover what it has lacked for too many years: a sense of continuity in its foreign policy and unity. It is unacceptable that, as a superpower, it should modify its objectives simply because the occupant of the White House changes. There are still elements of Machiavelli's The Prince that are still valid in foreign policy, such as the need to be respected and not just loved, as well as the vision of political leadership that existed in classical Greece, in terms of a Great Helmsman, that is, one capable of steering the ship of state with a sure and firm hand, allowing decisions to reach a safe harbor, both in calm seas and in stormy weather.

Personal characteristics are also added, since I have been convinced since his first government that to fully understand how Trump makes decisions, one must resort to the Art of the Deal (1987), a book co-authored with journalist Tony Schwartz, a mix of autobiography and investment advice, and whose recent rereading allows us to understand better than other texts, what is expected to be achieved with the tariffs.

From the presidential campaign itself, unlike other areas where there were proposals and a clear mandate, nothing similar emerged in foreign policy, and in fact, not even as a response to Russia's new nuclear policy. Hence the opportunity for here, as in other areas, to recover the influence that the State Department once had, including ensuring that an American president is not the next target of the International Criminal Court for any future military intervention. A campaign where Latinos were installed for the first time not only as the first minority, but one that can be decisive in winning elections, a position that Latin American foreign ministries still do not understand is the best instrument to influence American politics with a single voice. Another missed opportunity? If they realize, collaborating with Rubio may be their best option, starting with Mexico, even if it means forgetting their preference for the dying Castro regime.

In my opinion and analysis, the difference that Marco Rubio can make requires, above all, the understanding that no lasting success can come if the country does not recover the unity that was left over during the Cold War, since, to lead other countries, to give leadership, unity is needed, and with a capital unity, since foreign policy is a state policy and not a party policy. In his favor, he has the fact that, as he himself has pointed out, after the woke experience of the Democratic Party, the Republicans are today a different party, more representative of the diversity of the United States than in the past, not only with a growing social presence of the working class and women, but also of the age of young people, and of the ethnicity of Latinos, African Americans and Asians.

By the way, it is different to be a senator with strong credentials in some issues and places than to be the person in charge, the czar, of international relations. It is also the world where success and failure will not be measured by Cuba or Venezuela but by China, Ukraine or the Middle East. Therefore, his proposals must have a mark of national unity, and perhaps the first to be undertaken should be a proposal that has bipartisan support, and personally, it occurs to me that it should be something that is often declared and never seriously concretized, such as a new architecture of international organizations and not just a minor and cosmetic reform of the very useless UN. Indeed, it is an initiative that can only be led by the United States, since it is the author and creator of the two attempts that took place in the 20th century, and, moreover, it continues to be the financier of the one that is still in force, despite the fact that the bureaucracy has taken on a life of its own and, in addition, overwhelming votes systematically appear against the interests of Washington, without consequences for those who act in this way, which occurs not only in the General Assembly but also in numerous related institutions such as the International Criminal Court.

That characteristic of leading and uniting should also be present in Latin America (LA), since Marco Rubio has the possibility of constructing a proposal like no Secretary of State had had since Madeleine Albright in Bill Clinton's second term (1997-2001), with something that still endures in US foreign policy, which is the expansion of NATO to the East, despite the criticism of Kissinger and George Kennan. For his part, Gorbachev always assured that, in order to allow German unity, they were lied to that there would be no expansion, which is also used by Putin, now as a pretext. However, the evidence points to supporting what Russia asserted, even though it was not written down.

It has always been argued that the fact that Ms. Albright was born in Prague was important in that decision, and there is no doubt that her family's Cuban origins influence the expectations placed on the senator, which are not easy to meet, in relation to Venezuela and Cuba. What is not in doubt is that there are not only expectations, but also a favorable context for Rubio's deployment, since, in addition, there has not been a Secretary of State for a long time who has the relationship that he has with the region, not only the majority language, but also understanding it and personally knowing the actors, local and foreign.

However, the reasonable thing to do would be to lead a proposal with the possibility of transcending over time, and that means doing things together with Latin America instead of imposing them, for example, on the issue of illegal immigration. And since the relationship is not good, as demonstrated by the failure of the Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles in 2022, where several countries simply did not show up and those who were present, like Boric, allowed themselves to criticize those who invited them for the absence of Cuba or for their support for Israel, behaviors that they would hardly allow themselves to do in front of Xi Jinping if he were the convener.

If a proposal that transcends appears, Marco Rubio is capable and prepared to lead it, since Latin America is one of the world's closest regions, not only geographically, but also as a critical witness to the fact that the US has retreated in the face of China's economic strength and Russia's geopolitical return, with the loss of Venezuela as an ally representing a defeat of proportions, with no reaction so far, since we are talking about the country with the largest oil reserves in the world. The proposal is necessary since, for example, the US today lacks an initiative similar to that of the Chinese Silk Road, nor is it carrying out an infrastructure project remotely similar to the new Peruvian megaport of Chancay, that is, Chinese economic power is what makes it a very different rival from the former USSR. Otherwise, the best evidence that China is seeking to replace the US is that they are following step by step what the Americans did to displace Great Britain, it is enough to compare what both sides have done in Latin America, Washington in the 20th century and Beijing in the current one.

Not only that, it is also timely and necessary, since too much time has passed since the last bipartisan proposal, which took place in the 1990s, when Bush Sr.'s idea of an Initiative for the Americas was taken up by Clinton so that, at the first Summit in Miami in 1994, democracy and the market were its basis, representing until today, one of the many opportunities wasted by Latin America, due to the influence of Castro-Chavez in an era where there was optimism and there was only one dictatorship, the Cuban one.

And if the rumours that there have been consultations between the Biden and Trump teams on issues of the Middle East and Ukraine are true, it would mean that a certain sanity is being restored in the US transitions, and that something like this has not happened for years, perhaps decades, an additional reason for Rubio's distinctive mark to be major bipartisan proposals, which, even if rejected, would mark a new stage, where a new architecture of international organisations has a better chance of being accepted by both parties and transformed into law by Congress.

However, for this to work, Rubio will need a sharp and well-tuned instrument, and there are doubts, including myself, that the State Department currently has these characteristics. Therefore, internal leadership will be needed, avoiding what in sports jargon is known as own goals or unforced errors. This also depends on the harmony that will be maintained with the person who constitutionally leads international relations, that is, the president and his team, the White House. And one of the things that is certain about Trump is the way he personalizes decisions and Rubio's task will be to build a relationship of mutual benefit, with clear spaces for autonomous action on both sides, with Kissinger and Nixon being an example. Of particular relevance, for example, will be the designations already made of those who will have specific tasks, where the strategic lines will surely be consulted by the nominees with the president, although the details of execution will be the responsibility of the State Department. For example, this is what will probably happen with the man who has already been appointed to seek peace between Russia and Ukraine, General Keith Kellog.

In other words, Rubio will have to prevail over the internal factions that characterize the State Department today, with struggles sometimes over ego and sometimes over political lines, some legitimate and others highly personal. And there is no better way to overcome these discrepancies that can sink good initiatives than to transcend them with big objectives that allow the incorporation of all those who want to do so with good will.

And nothing better illustrates what is wrong than the case of the Ambassador to Chile, a position that remained unfilled for a long time, who said she would not feel comfortable representing the new government, when what is taught in every university or diplomatic academy is that, in a democracy, ambassadors represent the country more than governments.

For its part, this time the Trump administration seems to be the second stage rather than a new one, and this is demonstrated by the successful way in which priorities and names have been announced, which demonstrates an intense learning process in relation to the first government 2016-2020 where many positions were left unfilled. Now, there is a clarity that did not exist then as well as a mastery of the operation of the keys of power, which is not always possessed by those who come to government from the private sector. It is an element that will also have an impact on international relations, and nothing exemplifies this better than the Musk-Ramaswamy duo, which evidently has the potential in domestic politics to loosen the shackles of American capitalism, as well as to diminish the importance of the so-called “Administrative” or “Bureaucratic” State, but whether or not it succeeds, given the ambition of the task, it will have an undoubted impact not only on technology or on the magnitude of federal employment, but each and every one of its decisions can have an impact on international relations, beyond the newsworthy interest of seeing internet giants like Zuckerberg beginning to approach Mar-a-Lago, after Trump was censored on the social networks of some of them, and it is undoubted that great avenues could open up in areas that they have not yet reached, and which represent a lot of money and business. Or, on the contrary, there could be an application of antitrust legislation against them, given the current Republican majority. We will see.

And by definition, being global companies, this will open gaps of agreement and disagreement not only with rivals but also with US allies, and sooner or later, this will drag the State Department into it, the question being whether it is at the beginning, the middle or the end, and everything advises an active politician like the still senator from Florida to be there from the beginning.

In other words, even if Rubio starts out with complete freedom in the leadership of Latin America, especially Cuba and Venezuela, the reality of international relations and the almost total irrelevance of the region will be expressed in that it will necessarily be affected at all levels by decisions made elsewhere. On the subject of immigration, we must also include the impact generated by what is done in the matter of tariffs with Mexico, an additional reason that should encourage Rubio to seek a project that he leads for Latin America, where other areas are invited to join and not the State Department that is forced to do so.

When expectations are high in situations where personal control is relative, everything suggests that Rubio should escape a fatality that has already lasted for too many decades, with errors on both sides, which only sees illegal immigration and drugs south of the Rio Grande, without considering the potential of a region where not only lithium, copper and oil are found, but also rare earths whose production has been monopolized by China for so many years due to their importance for new technologies as well as the products and minerals necessary for the increasingly distant energy transition. In addition, the return of the objective of the US being the main producer of oil and gas makes it move even further away from the self-generated failures of the increasingly less credible climate summits.

The need to reposition the State Department's role as an instrument of international relations takes on new meaning with the announcements made about the increased use of punitive tariffs not only with China, but also with Mexico and Canada, which in addition to being the three main trading partners, are, in the case of the last two, neighbors and traditional allies, a luxury that not all powers share or enjoy in their security. Consequences can be added on all sides, especially if issues such as illegal immigration and fentanyl are incorporated. For the same reason, they have the potential to affect relations, which have good and bad times, but have always, in general, been predictable.

Therefore, Rubio's task from day one will probably be to have a direct or indirect participation that does not unnecessarily affect his main task in the permanent relations between these allies. I even believe that the focus on Mexico is exaggerated and unfair, and it will be the State Department’s job to weigh up the history of substantial loss of territory, that fentanyl is consumed in the US and not in Mexico, and that the weapons with which Mexican cartels kill and kill themselves come from the US, in addition to the fact that it was a political decision of the White House to hand over the border in practical terms to the cartels, with consequences including in violation of human rights for women and children, in addition to the fact that in fact, illegal immigration affects Mexican security and social services as it moves north, in addition to the fact that the country collaborates with Washington’s requests on immigration, including the “remain in Mexico” policy as many times as it has been requested, in compliance with what is provided by International Law, in relation to the duty of the first country through which they pass on the way to the American dream.

Furthermore, if he manages to have bipartisan proposals for Latin America and the world, Rubio will have to be careful that a new design for the State Department as the preferred instrument of foreign policy is not affected by a persistent error of the White House in recent years, where there is a lesson to be learned from the temptation to transfer the debate and internal polarization of the United States to other countries, having made a wrong reading, equally in Brazil and Israel, where in both cases, rather than seeing permanent relations, an ally of Trump was seen, in the cases of Bolsonaro and Netanyahu, with the result that with Lula an ally of Russia, Iran and China has been obtained in the presidency, while the relationship with Netanyahu has affected the conduct of the war, interrupting arms deliveries and harming the war effort.

Finally, Rubio will have to focus his attention, along with the Treasury Department, on issues such as sanctions, which have not been successful in much less harming Russia's war effort, in a war that Moscow now appears to be winning. Above all, the main challenge is maintaining the strength of the dollar, which is currently a key element for the US to remain the world's reserve currency, and although still at a modest level, alternatives have appeared, not only from China, but also in the oil market by Saudi Arabia, which has long been upset by what it considers too much permissiveness towards Iran, and by something that perhaps diplomacy could not prevent, which is that the monarchy was considered a "pariah" for the murder of a dissident in the embassy in Türkiye.

And as in other areas, perhaps in the words of that great constructor of transcendent phrases that was Winston Churchill, the meaning of a successful and permanent foreign policy is found: “In war, resolution. In defeat, defiance. In victory, magnanimity. In peace, good will.”

@israelzipper

Master and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Laws (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».