1 week Ago By Peter McKenna
Once Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is confirmed as the next U.S.
secretary of state — the first Hispanic to hold the position — there are sure to be substantial changes in American foreign policy. And I’m not just talking here about notable modifications in relations with China, Ukraine, Iran and even Canada. Read this article for free: Already have an account? To continue reading, please subscribe: * Once Florida Sen.
Marco Rubio is confirmed as the next U.S. secretary of state — the first Hispanic to hold the position — there are sure to be substantial changes in American foreign policy.
And I’m not just talking here about notable modifications in relations with China, Ukraine, Iran and even Canada. Read unlimited articles for free today: Already have an account? Opinion Once Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is confirmed as the next U.
S. secretary of state — the first Hispanic to hold the position — there are sure to be substantial changes in American foreign policy. And I’m not just talking here about notable modifications in relations with China, Ukraine, Iran and even Canada.
No, I’m pondering the stark turn that is likely to come in how the U.S. views its relationship with Latin America and the Caribbean.
Don’t get me wrong, successive U.S. governments have mistakenly ignored what has been happening in its own backyard for at least 25 years now — so I’m glad to see that Rubio will seek to expand the U.
S. footprint in the Americas. But I am worried about the nature, scope and finer details of official Washington’s hemispheric shift.
It goes without saying that striving to put U.S. relations with some of the region’s major players — such as Mexico, Brazil and Colombia — on a stronger footing makes eminently good sense.
There are obvious advantages for the U.S. in a host of policy areas: namely, security, trade and investment, politico-diplomatic and people-to-people exchanges.
From a strategic standpoint, though, securing a relatively stable and peaceful Americas advances a core U.S. national interest in its own neighbourhood.
Furthermore, a larger U.S. presence in the region opens up the possibility for confronting key concerns over migration, drug trafficking and could even have important domestic electoral benefits as well.
By courting various governments — friend and foe — in the region, Washington will be able to utilize these diplomatic assets to tackle many of the world’s global challenges and regional hotspots. More to the point: a committed and trusted U.S.
has a better chance of diminishing an otherwise growing Chinese, Russian and Iranian role in the hemisphere. Unfortunately, that doesn’t look like the underlying impetus or direction that Rubio wants to take U.S.
policy toward Latin America. He seems to be talking about pitting those countries in the region that want to align with the U.S.
against those with serious misgivings about doing so. In an April 2024 article in the journal, , Rubio highlighted the centrality of building “a pro-America future in our region.” He then went on to emphasize the importance of strengthening “ties with friendlier leaders in our region” and those who express “strong support for the American-led international order.
” Of course, he is referring here to exclusively right-leaning governments in Argentina, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay and the Dominican Republic (and others). Stated differently, Rubio wants to cobble together a pro-U.S.
coalition of conservative-minded leaders to counter those countries led by political leftists (including Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay). Just to be clear: He’s not looking to unify countries in the hemisphere around a shared set of socio-economic and security issues. Instead, he wants to isolate left-leaning governments, to sow division and discord, and to punish the outliers.
The people of Latin America, however, have seen this U.S. movie before — throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s — and they have demonstrably turned thumbs-down to it.
Additionally, his tendency to abrasively rub people the wrong way, to see political leaders as either “with us or against us” and to engage in gratuitous name-calling will not serve him well. Just look at his previous statements about former Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador as an “apologist for tyranny,” describing Chilean President Gabriel Boric as “one of the leading anti-Israel voices in Latin America,” and labelling Colombian President Gustavo Petro as “an agent of chaos.” That is not particularly helpful in building trust, confidence and personal relationships in a part of the world where the U.
S. has rarely been seen in a positive light. It is worth noting, though, that Rubio has been whispering in Donald Trump’s ear about matters in the Americas since 2016.
That won’t change at all when the new administration comes to power in January 2025. In fact, Rubio will be more emboldened as secretary of state to chart a more hawkish and hardline U.S.
Latin America policy. But if you are outside of Rubio’s conception of a right-leaning alliance and looking in, those countries will inevitably be punished by a Trump Administration. In short, you will need to fall into line and embrace the U.
S. perspective on regional and global politics or you will pay a price for your insubordination. As a longtime Republican member of the Senate’s foreign relations committee, Rubio has travelled abroad and is well-versed in matters of international affairs.
But he has often allowed his deeply held ideological convictions to get the better of him — and to blind him from seeing more pragmatic policy solutions. So I’m afraid that Rubio’s intellectual rigidity and implacable anti-communist leanings might return the conduct of U.S.
foreign policy to a disastrous Cold War posture. And if the past is any indication, I can’t see how this will end well for the U.S.
and the people of Latin America. Peter McKenna is professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown. Advertisement Advertisement.
