Rubio’s Platform Is All Criticism, No Alternatives
Rubio’s Platform is All Criticism, No Alternatives
April 14, 2015
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) punted on foreign policy and national security issues in his speech announcing his candidacy for president, limiting his discussion of these issues to a single paragraph. Still, his positions are as clear as they are familiar: Sen. Rubio espouses the same Cold War mentality that made Sen. John McCain such a troubling candidate for commander-in-chief in 2008. He is quick to criticize what he sees as American weakness, from the nuclear negotiations with Iran to U.S. policies toward Russia and China, but he fails to present credible alternatives. As he builds his platform in the months to come, he will need to make a compelling case for not just what’s wrong with U.S. foreign policy, but how he hopes to improve it.
Rubio wants to scrap the international agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but he has no alternative. In his speech, Sen. Rubio cited “the administration’s dangerous concessions to Iran” as a sign of American weakness. He said in an interview with NPR that he would act unilaterally to scuttle an international agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon by reimposing sanctions, though he acknowledged “it wouldn’t be as effective” without international support. It’s unclear what Sen. Rubio hopes this will achieve. It took years of devastating international sanctions to bring Iran to the negotiating table and it has resulted in a framework for a sustainable, enforceable agreement that would ensure that Iran cannot build a bomb, but the window for their effectiveness is closing. As NSN Advisory Board Chair Sandy Berger wrote recently, “Enacting new, tough sanctions in an effort to force Iran toward a ‘better’ deal would mystify and alarm the rest of the world, isolating and weakening us…There is no second bite at this apple. This is a good deal. We should not be distracted by talk of a better one.” [Marco Rubio via NPR, 4/13/15. Sandy Berger via Politico, 4/5/15]
Sen. Rubio criticized American “hostility to Israel” that simply is not in evidence. Sen. Rubio echoed a point made by Sen. Cruz that the United States has abandoned its special relationship with Israel. But for a country supposedly “hostile” to Israel, the United States has shown an unwavering commitment to Israeli security. AIPAC writes, “On Feb. 2, President Obama submitted his budget for fiscal year 2016, including $3.1 billion in security assistance for Israel. U.S. security assistance to Israel in the annual foreign aid bill is the most tangible manifestation of American support, especially during a time of tremendous turmoil in the Middle East. American aid is a vital component of U.S. commitments to ensure that the Jewish state maintains its qualitative military edge over its adversaries.” This is nothing new for the United States or President Obama. The Congressional Research Service reports that in 2014, the United States provided “$504 million in funding for research, development, and production of Israel’s Iron Dome anti-rocket system ($235 million) and of the joint U.S.-Israel missile defense systems David’s Sling ($149.7 million), the Arrow improvement program (or Arrow II, $44.3 million), and Arrow III ($74.7 million).” Last year, the Administration requested nearly $180 million for Iron Dome. [AIPAC, accessed 3/23/15. CRS, accessed 3/23/15]
Sen. Rubio thinks the United States is “hollowing out…our military” and wants to boost Pentagon spending for wars we’re no longer fighting. Speaking on the Senate floor in March, Sen. Rubio proposed adjusting the proposed 2016 defense budget to projections made in 2012, running roughshod over the budget caps imposed by the Budget Control Act. While Sen. Rubio is right to suggest that defense spending has declined over the past several years, he neglects to note that “it’s relatively normal for spending to decrease this way as wars end,” notes PolitiFact. In fact, spending levels remain exorbitant. “If you go back historically, and not even that far, levels now are comparable to 2007,” Todd Harrison, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments explained to PolitiFact. “It’s still above the level of spending during the majority of the Bush years.” Sen. Rubio is “cherry picking a historic high” and “misrepresents the data, plain and simple,” said Steve Ellis, Vice President of Taxpayers for Common Sense. [PolitiFact, 3/30/15]
Sen. Rubio accused the United States of “being passive in the face of Chinese and Russian aggression,” but his hawkish rhetoric could have dangerous consequences. It is unclear what Sen. Rubio actually would do about China – though he cited American “passivity” in his announcement speech, he also noted the need to cooperate with China despite political differences when talking to NPR. By calling on the United States to provide arms to Ukraine, though, Sen. Rubio risks undermining U.S. and Ukrainian interests while not providing enough support to actually stem Russia’s actions. Gen. Philip Breedlove, Commander of U.S. European Command, has noted that the lethal aid that some people have proposed “might not be able to stop a Russian advance.” [Philip Breedlove via The Hill, 2/25/15]
Sen. Rubio said he will focus on democracy and human rights, but that requires engagement, not Cold War-style standoffs. Sen. Rubio is right that the United States must remain committed to democracy and human rights – as NSN Board Chairman Brian Katulis has suggested, the United States needs to implement a “progressive global values agenda.” Katulis has noted that this requires addressing “the tough issues of political change” and engagement and partnership, even if that entails some political and physical risks. “This means eschewing simplistic calls from some neoconservatives either to use military force or to threaten cuts in security collaboration with partners in the region as a tool to force democratic change,” Katulis wrote last year. But Sen. Rubio has a very different idea of how to promote democracy and human rights – for example, telling NPR that he would walk back the gradual opening of relations with Cuba. “I don’t believe this country should be diplomatically recognizing a nation of the nature of Cuba,” he said yesterday. “And I just think that we should have continued with the policy and perhaps looked for new ways of — continue with the policy of not recognizing that regime and not allowing them access to economic growth.” That Cold War policy has been in place for decades. It failed, and it’s time to try engagement. [Brian Katulis via Democracy, Spring 2014. Marco Rubio via NPR, 4/13/15]
Crafted by Cornershop