Many Leaders Face a Moral Test. By Failing His on Ukraine, Rubio Misses His Chance at Greatness: Marco Rubio, whose parents fled the Communist takeover of their ancestral homeland, once positioned himself as a champion of liberty and a man who would return moral clarity to Washington, DC.
Alas, increasingly it appears that perks rather than principle motivate the former senator from Florida, who now jets around the world as Secretary of State.
Marco Rubio Faces a Clear Test of His Convictions
Rubio has remained largely silent as President Donald Trump seeks not only to strong arm his Ukrainian counterpart to cede both Crimea and portions of eastern Ukraine seized by the Russian Army, but to do so without any security guarantees.
Ukraine has every right to be cynical. Not only did Russia affirm Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders in the 1991 Alma Ata Declaration, but under the terms of the Budapest Memorandum three years later, the United States and United Kingdom alongside Russia guaranteed Ukrainian security in exchange for its forfeiture of legacy Soviet nuclear weapons.
There is no mitigating factor. Rubio had a choice: Sell his soul for the perks and privileges of being secretary of State or stand on principle. He chose the former.
The irony, of course, is so many other officials in Rubio’s shoes have faced similar choices but chosen differently.
What Recent History Tells Us
Consider Khaled al-Yamani, the foreign minister of Yemen’s internationally recognized government. In 2018, the international community was desperate to derail a looming battle for the Yemeni port of Hodeidah. The Houthi-controlled port was the major channel for international humanitarian assistance to enter the country. Human rights groups and journalists hyped the threat that any interruption in port operations would cause: Millions might fall victim to famine.
This was bunk. The Houthis used their control of Hodeidah to divert aid to their supporters and deny it to communities that resisted the Iranian-backed tribal group.
Still, United Nations officials wanted an agreement at any cost. They came up with a fiction: An inspection regime that was voluntary and a change of uniforms so that diplomats could pretend Houthis no longer ran customs and offloading. Al-Yamani was disgusted by what he saw and resigned in disgust. He was not willing to play a game in which diplomats might celebrate an empty peace agreement but which would condemn millions of Yemenis to continued tyranny.
That same year, Boris Johnson, at the time the United Kingdom’s secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, resigned in protest to Theresa May’s backpedaling on Brexit. In 2021, Mariam al-Mahdi, Sudan’s foreign minister, resigned to protest a pact that would have effectively normalized officials who had launched a coup after Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok struck a deal with Sudan’s military council.
Principle over Politics
Other prominent U.S. officials have put principle above politics. Jerald terHorst, President Gerald Ford’s first press secretary, resigned to protest Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon. Secrertary of State Cyrus Vance resigned in protest after President Jimmy Carter pushed forward with a secret though ultimately unsuccessful military plan to free American hostages.
There are three types of leaders in foreign policy: The greatest are those who embrace principle, no matter how difficult. Ronald Reagan fit this mold. The ordinary—Rex Tillerson, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Antony Blinken—meanwhile, are content to eschew political risk to rest on their laurels.
The worst, however, are those who have potential and promise moral courage—Samantha Power and Marco Rubio—but when the going gets tough, they fold like a cheap and empty suit.
By selling out Ukrainians, Venezuelans, and maybe even Israelis for the sake of a driver and his own jet, Rubio has exposed himself to be a cynic for whom voicing principle was always a tactic for self-promotion, not a sincere belief.
About the Author: Dr. Michael Rubin
Michael Rubin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum. The views expressed are his own.
