Marco Rubio's Munich Speech

Two days ago, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio addressed the Munich Security Conference held in Munich, Germany. European leaders had been apprehensive about the speech due to recent friction between the United States and its European allies, which included threats by cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump to take over Greenland, and on-again, off-again tariffs on European imports to the United States. However, Rubio urged cooperation between the U.S. and Europe and a renewed and strengthened alliance. Ultimately, however, Rubio did not so much propose a new international system but rather a version of the old world order with some of its worst faults compounded. His version of the future provides a stark contrast to the remarks of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at the World Economic Forum held in Davos, Switzerland. In many ways, Rubio's talk justified the stance taken by Carney and could well provide additional impetus to Carney's perspective of the future.

There was quite a bit in Rubio's speech that is worth discussing. Today I am going to focus on the content related to the international order. I plan to write about other aspects tomorrow, though plans can always change. As I wrote in an earlier blog post about Carney's WEC speech, following World War II, there was an effort to create what became known as the "rules-based system" or "liberal international order." The hope was that international institutions and international laws could govern the relationships among nations to allow for increased cooperation between nations and reduce the chances of war. The theory was that as interdependence increased, countries would be less likely to turn to force to resolve problems.

In his talk, Carney portrayed the rules-based international order as having been an imperfect, but beneficial system. In his words:

For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically, and we knew that international law applied with varied rigour, depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was useful, and American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.

However, Carney claimed, recently "great powers" — by which he was mostly referring to the United States — had begun using economic integration as a weapon. The result, according to Carney, was that "We are in the midst of a rupture".

Whereas Carney seemed to view an end to the rules-based system with regret, Rubio was almost ecstatic to see the system come to an end. Describing the rules-based system as "a foolish idea," Rubio went on to say:

In this delusion, we embraced a dogmatic vision of free and unfettered trade, even as some nations protected their economies and subsidized their companies to systematically undercut ours – shuttering our plants, resulting in large parts of our societies being deindustrialized, shipping millions of working and middle-class jobs overseas, and handing control of our critical supply chains to both adversaries and rivals.

We increasingly outsourced our sovereignty to international institutions while many nations invested in massive welfare states at the cost of maintaining the ability to defend themselves. This, even as other countries have invested in the most rapid military buildup in all of human history and have not hesitated to use hard power to pursue their own interests. To appease a climate cult, we have imposed energy policies on ourselves that are impoverishing our people, even as our competitors exploit oil and coal and natural gas and anything else – not just to power their economies, but to use as leverage against our own.

In Carney's perception of the rules-based system, the rules were written to the benefit of powerful countries such as the United States. However, this was an acceptable trade-off because, overall, the rules-based system provided more benefits than it did detriments. Rubio, however, seems incapable of understanding that, far from sacrificing its sovereignty, the U.S. participated in the rules-based system with its own set of rules. Moreover, U.S. power and prestige were enhanced due to its position as the lynchpin of the international order. To the extent that the U.S. deindustrialized, this was a result of freemarket business decisions made by multinational corporations and a wealthy elite. It is difficult to conclude anything other than that Rubio is misunderstanding history.

Carney and Rubio are also at odds when it comes to their prescriptions for the future. Carney sees the path forward as being one of mutually beneficial ties between like-minded nations. Rubio is prepared for the U.S. to go forward alone. As Carney says:

This is not naïve multilateralism, nor is it relying on their institutions. It’s building coalitions that work issue by issue with partners who share enough common ground to act together. In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations. What it’s doing is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities.

Rubio's vision for the future is almost the complete opposite:

Under President Trump, the United States of America will once again take on the task of renewal and restoration, driven by a vision of a future as proud, as sovereign, and as vital as our civilization’s past. And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe.

Rubio enunciated the MAGA vision of an international order. The U.S. will put itself first. Other countries can cooperate if they want, but their status will always be secondary to that of the United States. This is exactly the flaw in the rules-based system cited by Carney, but on steroids. What Rubio and other U.S. leaders such as Trump either don't realize or don't care about is that other countries also want to look to their own best interests. Why should the countries of Europe cooperate in putting America first rather than, say, Germany or France first? Alternatively, why wouldn't they join Carney in creating a multinational alliance capable of confronting the United States and other large powers from a position of strength?

As the British online magazine UnHerd put it:

But the new world order Rubio called for looks remarkably like the one he criticised in at least one respect: it has a dominant America at its centre, ready to coerce allies and adversaries alike.

The article went further to say:

The foundation of the transatlantic bond is different in Rubio’s narrative, but its purpose and utility for the United States is not. Donald Trump’s Washington still seeks American preeminence, and still hopes that Europe will sign up to support this project — as it has for decades — by strengthening itself militarily and economically, and backing the administration’s vision of the “new Western Century”. But Rubio’s speech also contained an implicit threat. If Europe does not join this effort, America will go its own way, and the old continent will be left behind. Compliance, then, is the price of a continued transatlantic partnership.

I cannot emphasize enough how Rubio is taking the biggest flaws of the rules-based system and making them bigger. Given that even the previous flaws were enough to force Carney to announce a "rupture," why should there be any expectation that a system in which those flaws are enlarged would be acceptable? While in the short term, Europe will likely try to present at least the appearance of going along with Trump and Rubio, in the long run, they must surely be thinking of other plans.

Rubio presented a path forward that will almost certainly significantly weaken the United States by most measures. In the rules-based system, the U.S. held what was effectively a "first among equals" position. The rules were used to its advantage when possible and ignored when they weren't. Now, Rubio proposes a system where that does not only remain true, but the benefits of the rules-based system to other nations are reduced, if not eliminated. It is very unlikely that such an order will be acceptable to other countries for long.

If the U.S. becomes more alienated, it will find itself in a weaker position. Let's take an example that I have used before: electric vehicles. Trump has waged a war on EVs in the United States. Meanwhile, much of the world is embracing EVs. As demand for EVs grows internationally, U.S. automakers that are stuck concentrating on internal combustion vehicles will find themselves to be less competitive. Recently, Carney signed an agreement with China that will allow Chinese-manufactured EVs to be imported to Canada. Mexico has been importing Chinese EVs for years, and China has become the leading automobile supplier to Mexico. Therefore, even U.S. manufacturers’ closest international markets could soon be lost. Trump can keep the Chinese EVs out of the United States, but he can't force other countries to buy cars they don't want. In effect, Trump is orchestrating the destruction of the U.S. auto industry.

Another aspect of Rubio's speech was an ahistorical version of history that is focused on White Christian identity. If things go as planned, I will write about that tomorrow.