Marco penned a sweeping essay for Foreign Affairs magazine this week that provides a deeper look into his multi-pronged foreign policy strategy.
It’s an approach the Florida senator says would “restore the post-1945 bipartisan presidential tradition of a strong and engaged America” while meeting “the new realities of a globalized world.”
The ‘Rubio Doctrine’ would focus on renewing three things: military might and American strength, U.S. interests in the global economy, and America’s commitment to spreading democracy and human rights to repressive foreign regimes.
Rubio describes his outlook as a “fixed set of principles and objectives” capable of restoring “global certainty regarding American commitments.”
“We will encourage and assist the rise of more powers when their rise is benign or noble,” he writes. “We wish to be a fraternal force than a paternal one.”
According to Rubio, the Obama Administration’s public criticism of using military strength to terminate Iran’s nuclear program gave Iranian leaders an opportunity to capitalize on what they perceived as President Obama’s lack of strength.
“Iran recognized that it could push for greater compromise without fear that the United States would break off the talks,” he writes, adding that “The president’s drive for a deal caused him to forsake a basic principle of diplomacy with rogue regimes: it must be backed by the threat of force.”
Instead, the senator says he would have moved forces into the region, highlighted Iran’s history of human rights abuses and threats against Israel, and put more pressure on Iran.
“It is true that Iran, in response to these displays of strength, may have broken off negotiations or even lashed out in the region,” Rubio writes. “History, however, suggests that even if Iran had created more trouble in the near term, increased pressure would have eventually forced it to back down.”
Secondly, Rubio says the United States must ensure “safety and stability” in regions where small sovereign states are surrounded by dominant nations. He uses the Russia-Ukraine conflict as an example and says the Administration’s “halting and meager” response suggests that “borders can be violated and countries invaded without serious consequences.”
As president, the Florida Republican says he would prohibit high-level Russian officials from obtaining U.S. visas and consider stationing combat troops in eastern Europe to demonstrate America’s commitment to its NATO allies and dissuade Russia from further aggression.
“By preserving Ukraine’s freedom and demonstrating that the United States will not tolerate such threats to the global economy, the United States can begin to deter other potential aggressors from bullying their neighbors, including an increasingly ambitious China,” Rubio wrote.
Rubio also says the administration’s silence on human rights violations in China undermines America’s role as a purveyor of liberty.
“China’s actions reveal a basic truth: the manner in which governments treat their own citizens is indicative of the manner in which they will treat other nations,” he wrote. “If the United States hopes to restore stability in East Asia, it has to speak with clarity and strength regarding the universal rights and values that America represents.”
If his White House bid proves successful, Rubio says his administration would interact more with democracies in Eastern Asia and engage with “dissidents, reformers, and religious rights activists” seeking freedom in Beijing. According to Senate Foreign Relations Committee member, “when true freedom for the 1.3 billion people of China is finally attained, the impact will fundamentally change the course of human history.”
Foreign Policy experts have described Rubio as an ‘aggressive enthusiast’ for foreign intervention whose uber-hawkish agenda sets him apart from GOP candidates like Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Paul has routinely been described as an “isolationist” while Cruz has emphasized America’s role as a global leader, but said the job of the U.S. is not to “build democratic utopias across the world.”
“They’re all hawkish — just not to the extent [Rubio] is,” Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, told McClatchy DC in May. “He’s a very strong supporter of intervention generally, and supported the use of force by President Obama as well as President Bush, even at a time it wasn’t politically popular.”
Shortly after Rubio’s first major foreign policy speech as a presidential candidate, the Democratic National Committee reportedly described his doctrine as “neoconservative meets Cold War.”
According to a Pew Research poll released roughly two weeks ahead of Thursday’s debate, only 30 percent of Americans say the best way to ensure peace is through military strength while 58 percent prefer “good diplomacy.”
Nevertheless, Rubio’s penchant for military might and assertive leadership could appeal to the conservative voters he’s looking to win over. The same poll found that Republicans prefer military strength to diplomacy by 49 to 36 percent.
Rubio will join nine other Republican presidential contenders for Fox News’ prime-time debate in Cleveland, Ohio Thursday night at 9 p.m. EST.
