Donald Trump’s tweets about how his America shall deal with the world – from taking back the Panama Canal to buying Greenland – have attracted equal doses of mockery and fear.
The tweets were depicted as the threats or ravings of a president divorced from his own foreign policy establishment. But a look at the confirmation hearing for Marco Rubio, the new Secretary of State, gives a different picture.
Rubio is an establishment darling. He was confirmed unanimously, 99-0 (the missing vote was his own), by his old Senate chums. Virtually all Democratic senators began their questions by saying they considered him well qualified. Yet, in his answers, Rubio supported every line taken by Trump.
It’s not surprising that Rubio would support the president who nominated him. What’s less expected is that none of his answers – whether on Panama, Greenland, Ukraine or the International Criminal Court – got any rebuttal from the Democratic senators.
We have to assume that the Trump positions, in substance, are US positions. His domestic opponents might object to the way the president puts things but they’re not objecting to the actual policies.
No one spoke up when Rubio declared that Greenland is an essential American strategic interest, going back to the beginning of the Cold War, when president Harry Truman offered to buy it from Denmark.
No one contradicted him when he said that the Panama Canal is, effectively if not legally, under Chinese control and, therefore, endangering US shipping and security interests – even though Panama has rejected these claims.
On Ukraine, Rubio suggested that its neutrality would be unacceptable to the US but he recognised that Ukraine would have to give up territory for peace. No objection was heard from any senator, even those who had previously supported the line of unconditional support for Ukraine in its quest to recover all its territory.
Rubio said the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant issued against the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, threatened the ICC’s own legitimacy. He said it should be resisted because it introduced the principle that an official of a non-member state could fall under the jurisdiction of ICC. He warned that US officials could be next.
Not one Democrat piped up to say that, 18 months before Netanyahu’s arrest warrant was issued, the ICC had issued one against an official of another non-member state, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and that Rubio’s predecessor, Antony Blinken, had urged all ICC members to comply with the warrant.
Indeed, no one objected when Rubio flatly stated that Israel had not targeted civilians in its war on Gaza, in spite of all the evidence that it has.
Marco Rubio is a smoother talker than Donald Trump- Ranier Fsadni
The hearings took place before Trump floated the idea of transferring Palestinians to other countries. That proposal may have been influenced by Miriam Adelson’s $100 million donation to the Trump campaign (according to the Israeli liberal newspaper, Haaretz, one of the conditions was to support the annexation of the West Bank). But Trump’s broad policy on Israel enjoys near consensus in the Senate.
Rubio is a smoother talker than Trump. But he made no bones that any US international position and financial aid would have to pass a triple test: Did it make the US stronger, safer and more prosperous?
The man who had unanimous Senate approval is an America First diplomat. The only concession he gave to internationalism is that he claimed that what’s good for America will also lead “the free world out of chaos”.
Rubio will have nothing to do with the idea that Trump’s plans will disrupt the world order. Quite the reverse, he declares Trump will restore order.
If the status quo continues, Rubio says, “in less than 10 years, virtually everything that matters to us in life will depend on whether China will allow us to have it or not”.
This is a US that is pivoting to China. The main concern of the US is to counteract what it calls China’s growing influence across the world, from Africa to Latin America, from control of ports to mineral rights. Multilateralism will be pursued by the US only to build an alliance against China.
The attitude governs all the choices that Rubio outlined. The Ukraine war must be shut down so that US resources can be directed elsewhere. The Middle East must be “settled” and cleaned up.
The consequences of climate change shall be recognised when they lie in the short term – such as the opening of the Arctic for shipping, which will have security as well as commercial consequences for the US.
But the long-term consequences of climate change – demanding more prudent energy policies and consumption – shall not be addressed because, as the new Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent put it, the competition with China includes all energy resources, not just green energy.
Rubio acknowledged that a long-term solution to the Ukraine war could take a long time, which suggests he’s ready to live with a dirty peace that’s for the Europeans to manage.
And Rubio seems to think that a Middle East solution is possible, even without justice for the Palestinians, including trials for war crimes and a viable Palestinian state.
But there will be no peace without justice. There will only be further instability in Europe’s southern neighbourhood to add to the tensions along various parts of the eastern border.
It’s for Europeans to decide if the reigning US vision will bring, to Europe, order out of chaos. Or whether it’s time for Europe to develop an autonomous, alternative approach to the massive challenges that face us.