International Engagement

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, there is an ongoing debate in our politics today about the value of leadership around the world in the 21st century. There is a view that seems to be gaining traction and favor--that our international engagement is one-sided, that our allies are free riders, that we contribute too much and get too little in return, and so why should we be involved in the world? These voices exist in both parties, and I would like to answer them today.

I want to start by looking back at the last century, when the world emerged from the death and destruction of the Second World War. The United States could have decided after that war to wall ourselves off-- that after the loss of so many of our best and brightest, we had already paid enough for peace.

Instead, our country became the driving force behind international order. We forged a series of strong alliances, led with moral clarity, and positioned our military strength strategically around the world. In doing so, the American people benefitted immensely as we helped to stave off the threat of another global conflict and oversaw decades of economic growth and the spread of democracy and freedom around the world. Then, like now, our people benefitted tremendously from our status in the world, even though our engagement was disproportional to that of other nations; in fact, we benefitted precisely because our engagement was disproportional to that of other nations.

International engagement has never been a business deal. International engagement is not a transaction in which we give something tangible and receive something tangible in return. America has more to give to the nations we are helping, and that is one of the reasons why we have a responsibility to lead. It is written in the Bible: ``From everyone who has been given much, much will be required.'' But our leadership ends up paying dividends for the entire world, and especially for the American people.

First of all, American workers and families benefit economically. International affairs have a bigger impact on the financial well-being of our people today than ever before. In our global economy, someone on the other side of the planet can now buy a product from an American with the tap of a finger. But when nations or entire regions are torn apart by war and by oppression, they become closed off, and economic growth in our own country is restricted as a result.

If America were to fail to protect the openness of international waters, global shipping would be threatened and prices would rise for consumers on virtually everything. Similarly, if space and cyber space became threatened or restricted, global communications and commerce would suffer as well.

Americans also see real benefits in terms of our safety at home and around the world. Without American leadership, regional order tends to break down, and then instability spreads. This opens up vacuums that are filled up by radicals, and those radicals always--irrespective of what we are doing or what we are not doing--target America, and they do so either to bolster their own prestige or for ideological reasons or often for both. As President Obama has found, leaving the Middle East doesn't mean terrorists stop trying to kill Americans. Our families, our homeland, and our men and women in uniform are less safe when America disengages from the world.

We also benefit geopolitically when we help other nations. Think what Europe would look like if it had not been for America's moral and strategic leadership during the Cold War. Europe still faces many challenges today, mainly because of our neglect of the crisis in Syria, but for centuries prior, Europe was driven by conflict. European peace was thought to be impossible. Yet that is what NATO and other institutions have helped achieve with American support.

What would Asia look like right now had the United States not helped it to rebuild after the Second World War. Look at the way that American leadership allowed South Korea to go from a poor country--a dictatorship--to a vibrant democracy and one of the largest economies in the world. South Korea is now a net donor to foreign aid and a crucial ally for us in a region that includes an aggressive China and a belligerent North Korea.

Japan has gone from a country devastated by war and not trusted by its neighbors to one of the most peaceful societies in the world. It has also become a net contributor to global security through its military and humanitarian assistance programs.

Then there is the Middle East. Whether we should continue to play a role there is a question that weighs particularly heavily on the minds of many Americans. I understand the doubts and frustrations. We have been involved in the region for decades. Nothing seems to be getting better, and despite our attempts to help, we watch on television as some celebrate our tragedies and burn our flag in the Arab streets.

It is true that we cannot solve all of the region's problems, but we have an interest in what happens there, nonetheless. That interest is served by our involvement, not by our withdrawal. ISIS arose, in the first place, because of the political instability that exists in both Syria and Iraq, and that instability was created in part because President Obama withdrew or withheld American leadership at crucial moments.

Failing to lead costs us more in the long-term than it saves us in the short-term, and we will continue to pay a steep price each time we fail to lead in the future.

There are complex considerations to make regarding our engagement in every region, but I believe a world without sustained American engagement is not a world any of us want to live in. This idea shared by prominent voices in both parties--that America is such a weak nation that we cannot afford to be engaged in the world--is one of the biggest lies ever told to the American people. Just because our government leaders are weak does not mean America is weak.

No American wants to live in a world where Vladimir Putin sets the agenda or ISIS holds us hostage to their demands. Yet this is the world we are heading toward as political leaders continue to embrace America's decline.

Defense spending is currently at roughly 3.3 percent of our budget, compared to 14 percent at the height of the Korean war. Our Army is on track to be at pre-World War II levels. Our Navy is already at pre- World War I levels, and our Air Force has the smallest and oldest combat force in its history. These are the results of specific policy choices made by politicians right here. It is no accident that the result has been more conflict around the world and less American influence.

I saw firsthand on a recent trip to Iraq how our men and women in uniform around the world are doing their best to keep us safe with limited resources. We put them in an untenable position. They are asked to maintain our global commitments, fight ISIS and other terrorist groups, and deter countries such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. They and our country deserve better.

``Spend less abroad so we can spend more at home'' has become a common refrain among leaders in both parties. It is used to excuse cuts to the military and our presence around the world. The truth is that the defense budget is not the primary driver of our debt. It is our entitlement programs. Every time we try to cut a dollar from our military, it seems to cost us several more just to make up for it.

In addition to investing in our strength, we must apply that strength in a way that respects our values and supports our economic interests.

Americans deserve a foreign policy we can be proud of. But for the last 8 years, we have had a Commander in Chief who praises and appeases dictators to promote the illusion of peace. Some in my party have now adopted a similar approach. They may claim to represent different ideas, but both emanate from the same notion--that Americans are too tired, that America is too weak, and that we are too much like the rest of the world to stand up to tyrants, so we should just cut deals with them instead.

This is not only morally wrong, but it is contrary to our interests. Whenever our foreign policy becomes unhinged from its moral purpose, it weakens global stability and it forms cracks in our national resolve. But whenever freedom and human rights spread, partners for our Nation are born. We must restore America's willingness to state boldly what we stand for and why. Just as Reagan never flinched in his criticisms of the Soviet Union, we must not shy away from demanding that China allow true freedom for its 1.3 billion people or boldly stating that Vladimir Putin is a corrupt thug. Nor should we hesitate in calling the source of atrocities in the Middle East by its real name--radical Islam. We should always stand with Israel, and we should not abandon the cause of freedom in our own hemisphere and allow cruel and immoral dictatorships in Cuba and Venezuela to be absolved of their crimes.

The world needs America's moral and military strength just as much as our people and our economy do. No other nation can deter global conflict by its presence alone. No other nation can offer the security and benevolence that America can. No other Nation can be trusted to defend peace and advance liberty.

America cannot avoid its role as a global leader. But we also know America cannot be tasked with protecting the world on its own. It will take an international order of free nations with free economies to do so. We must work with like-minded allies whenever possible and encourage them to do their part, but no other nation has the ability to organize or lead such a coalition if we fail to do so.

That is why I will continue to make the case for an engaged America, no matter who becomes our next President, no matter how the political winds may blow. Our safety and our prosperity depend on it. The ideal of America depends on it. That was true last century, and it is even more so today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source