 |
| Pix credit Bloomberg/Getty Images and here |
And I think what bothers the President the most is he has these great phone calls where everyone sort of claims yeah, we’d like to see this end, if we could find a way forward, and then he turns on the news and another city has been bombed, including those far from the frontlines. So at some point, he’s got to make a decision here about what – how much to continue to engage in an effort to do ceasefires if one of the two sides is not interested in one.(Interview: Secretary of State Marco Rubio with Brian Kilmeade of Fox Radio).
 |
| Pix credit here |
Secretary Rubio gave a quite interesting interview to Brian Kilmeade at Fox on the last day of July, the text of which was published to the State Department website and also follows below.
The interview covered the usual ground. It did however, offer a peek at some less usual nooks and crannies of the U.S. position as it seeks to lurch toward some sort of deal, virtually any sort of deal at this point as long as the President can say "we have a deal" in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The question is the extent to which the President can be played or at least manipulated as a function of desperation to declare a deal. Hamas as been doing the same thing, of course, but there the problem is compounded because of the ease with which that entity has been able to manage mass perception and thus skew pathways toward "win". But it also shed much more interesting light on the nature of the U.S.-India relationship that was refreshingly honest--and reasonable. And reasonable does not produce a "happily ever after ending"--just the realities of a marriage in which there is always work to be done. And at the heart of the work are iterative transactions that have no direction or purpose other than the win-win possibilities of transactional success. In this sense one comes to the essential transactional nature of America First; and its difference from its fraternal twin, the Belt & Road Initiative. In transactional cognitive cages of the America First sort, the deal as the essence of actin; in the Belt & Road cognitive cage, the deal is necessary in itself but more so as an instrument of extra-transactional objectives.
In both cases the essence of the driving force is "transaction."--at least on the U.S. side. In Russia-Ukraine, the context can be made as complicated as one wants (or needs), the temptation, realized, draws on historical (re)constructions back going back at least to the settlement of the area in the 7th century. But that is irrelevant to the Americans. On the U.S. side these are understood as the objects and instruments of strategic negotiation, but with substantially little relevance to the deal itself--the deal that forms the self-referencing universe of action-object. For them, the transactional universe is simple--the first "deal" is to get the shooting to stop. That is it. How one gets there, the price to be paid is secondary to creating a situation in which proper deal making can start: "Again, I think our hope is to avoid that and to sort of figure out a way that we can get the fighting to stop. We think that’s the best path forward, but we’re open to some different paths. But the best path forward is to have the shooting stop and the talking start." (Rubio Interview). That first deal makes secondary deal making possible. The rest, as Secretary Rubio noted, are merely considerations of pathways to the substance of the deal. But that, too, is transactional--rewards and punishments that drive an analysis of costs and benefits that nudge parties toward a transactional goal--and no more--no great ideological master plan, no "American Path" toward some sort of ideal apotheosis, no master plan for dominating the world or even caring enough about it to try to change anyone (unless and to the extent they interfere with US interests or otherwise annoy the President--e-g-. Brazil).
India feels more like the transactional bargaining of partners in a committed but newish relationship where at least one of the partners is coming out of a prior "marriage." Marriage transactions are iterative, constant, and negotiated within a very different conceptual cage. It is all about the "peace" in a relationship grounded in a constant state of negotiation but as a function of the necessary state of stability. As long as the partners are committed to a long term relationship--bound together by ties of culture, history, interests, needs or migratory consequences--transactional behaviors can be reduced to the endless jokes about the endlessly quarreling partners in a long term marriages: a love built on pragmatic transactional decisions and bound together by annoyance as the triggering element of compromise, but one grounded in the fundamental premise of commitment to "make this work".
Look, global trade – India is an ally. It’s a strategic partner. Like anything in foreign policy, you’re not going to align a hundred percent of the time on everything. India has huge energy needs and that includes the ability to buy oil and coal and gas and things that it needs to power its economy like every country does, and it buys it from Russia, because Russian oil is sanctioned and cheap and – meaning they have to – in many cases, they’re selling it under the global price because of the sanctions. * * * So it is most certainly a point of irritation in our relationship with India – not the only point of irritation. We also have many other points of cooperation with them. But I think what you’re seeing the President express is the very clear frustration that with so many other oil vendors available, India continues to buy so much from Russia, which in essence is helping to fund the war effort. . . (Rubio Interview).
This works best where both parties are merchants and for which life is no more than a series of transactions bound within the frameworks of marriage, alliance or interest. So, the Secretary tells us--expect more squabbling--the U.S. with Russian oil purchases, the Indians with American cozying up to Pakistan's leadership--then arguments and some sort of transactional accommodation to keep the marriage going on terms that suits both.
But perhaps the most interesting element of the interview was Secretary Rubio's reaction to the now well orchestrated international public and private movement toward the "resolution" of the Gaza situation (political, humanitarian, governance, etc.). Here, again, the primary deal is to get the shooting to stop. But with a difference.
QUESTION. Another big thing on your plate is what Steve Witkoff’s doing today. He’s heading over to Israel. Then he wants to possibly go to Gaza. We have allies – UK, Canada, and France – all either threatening to or have already done recognizing a Palestinian state. That’s over 140 in the UN. How does the U.S. view this move?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Irrelevant. It’s irrelevant. I mean, it’s annoying to some, but it’s irrelevant. It doesn’t mean anything. First of all, none of these countries have the ability to create a Palestinian state. There can be no Palestinian state unless Israel agrees to it. Number two, they can’t even tell you where this Palestinian state is. They can’t tell you who will govern it. And I think number three, it’s counterproductive. (Rubio Interview).
 |
| Pix credit (Ghostbusters 2) |
Beyond that there were tidbits worth savoring--US-China relations and the question of Taiwan; and of course the 2016 Russia meddling affair. The former will acquire a life of its own and a meta-transactional situation, one requiring the adjustment of the parameters of markets and borders before the more relevant issues of transactions may be attempted. The latter provides the sort of salacious tidbits that help augment the Administration's claims about the nature of corruption within key organs of state institutions.
At the end of all of this one gets a better sense of the parameters of America First under conditions of transaction within a cognitive cage of merchants jealous of the deal but indifferent to the function of priests and officials to develop some sort of semiotic overlay, an interpretive covering, for what merchants do best, iterative deal making in the service of their interests and for the protection of their markets.
That, anyway, is one way of looking at things. As they say in some movies--peace, like death, is not an end but a doorway. That acquires a quite interesting aspect in transactional spaces.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio with Brian Kilmeade of Fox Radio
QUESTION: Welcome back, everybody. It’s my privilege to bring in the National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Mr. Secretary, welcome.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Good morning. How are you?
QUESTION: I’m doing great so far. You have a lot on your plate. I can’t imagine what it’s like, your things-to-do list. I know the President of the United States talked about one of his top priorities now, within 10 days he’s going to make a decision on what’s going to happen with Russia, which he does not believe that they want a ceasefire. Here’s what he said:
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I’m not so interested in talking anymore. He’s – he talks. We have such nice conversations, such respectful and nice conversations, and then people die the following night in a – with a missile going into a town and hitting – I mean, recently, I guess – a nursing home, but they hit other things. Whatever they hit, people die.
So he’s obviously changed dramatically since he first took office. What do you think is going to happen after 10 days, Mr. Secretary?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, the – first of all, let me say the President has waited over six months now and given the best efforts possible. We continue to engage with the Russian side, as early as this week – earlier this week, on Monday or Tuesday. We had a whole conversation with them as well – not with Putin but with some of Putin’s top people – in hopes of arriving at some understanding on a path forward that would lead to peace, and we’ve not seen any progress on that.
And I think what bothers the President the most is he has these great phone calls where everyone sort of claims yeah, we’d like to see this end, if we could find a way forward, and then he turns on the news and another city has been bombed, including those far from the frontlines. So at some point, he’s got to make a decision here about what – how much to continue to engage in an effort to do ceasefires if one of the two sides is not interested in one.
So the President has a lot of options. I mean, he has options, as everyone knows, to sanction secondary sales of oil, secondary sanctions on oil sales of Russia oil, which is a huge part of their revenue. There’s banking, sectoral banking sanctions that would also be very powerful. Again, I think our hope is to avoid that and to sort of figure out a way that we can get the fighting to stop. We think that’s the best path forward, but we’re open to some different paths. But the best path forward is to have the shooting stop and the talking start. But so far, there’s not been, what we feel at least, a sincere interest on the Russian side of achieving that objective.
So we’ll continue to be available and willing to participate in something like that, if it becomes available. But obviously the President’s not going to wait forever.
QUESTION: So Medvedev, the former president, threatened you guys, threated our country, and said basically your ultimatums, that it’s going to lead to confrontation – if I could just paraphrase – and he says with your country. And Donald Trump last night said to – went back at Medvedev and said, “[T]ell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he’s still President, to watch his words. He’s entering very dangerous territory!” Do you take him seriously, Medvedev?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, you can’t ignore anything someone’s saying, and you always is that approved as – but he basically is not a relevant player in Russian politics. He’s not a decision maker. He’s not in any of the meetings or conversations we’ve ever had. As you recall, he was the president there for about four years, during the time when Putin didn’t run again, and then he obviously came back, so he was a placeholder. So I wouldn’t call him a relevant decision maker.
But by the same token, obviously he’s someone who once held office there and is still in a role in government, and his words are going to have impact in sort of being the provocateur and things of that nature. But – so I think the – I’m not sure he’s speaking for the official Russian position, but he’s certainly someone in an official position in Russia who’s saying things that are inflammatory. But that’s okay. I don’t think that’s going to be a factor one way or the other.
QUESTION: Do you think Russia’s in a position to confront America militarily?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, that’s not even a fathomable thing. I mean, understand a war between the United States and Russia is not something we can ever see. These are the two largest nuclear weapons militaries in the world, and the danger would just be too great. I don’t think there’s any doubt that from a conventional military capability the Russians could not take on the United States or frankly many of the countries in Europe, for that matter. I think they would struggle. They’ve struggled with Ukraine, who now is the largest army in Europe, but at the time of being invaded was not. I think they would struggle on a conventional front greatly.
So that’s not a – I think what you worry more about is not an all-out war with Russia. I think what you worry more about is a skirmish or a miscalculation that leads up to the start of conflict, because that – since the Russians are not very good at conventional weaponry, they would almost invariably have to rely on some other means like a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield to sort of escalate in an effort to de-escalate a fight. So you would worry about that. But we shouldn’t even think about it, because that not something that is plausible or frankly feasible for either side.
QUESTION: So as you know, the trade deals are coming down. That’s not really your purview. You have enough on your plate. But one thing the President said last night on Truth Social – he goes Russia continue to be the top oil supplier to India during their first six months, making up 35 percent of the overall supplies. Quote: “INDIA WILL THEREFORE BE PAYING A TARIFF OF 25%, PLUS A PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE, STARTING ON AUGUST FIRST.” He’s upset; maybe you’re upset. But India continues to get, instead of small portion, a great portion of their discounted oil from Russia, which is fueling their war machine. How disappointed are you in this so-called ally?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Look, global trade – India is an ally. It’s a strategic partner. Like anything in foreign policy, you’re not going to align a hundred percent of the time on everything. India has huge energy needs and that includes the ability to buy oil and coal and gas and things that it needs to power its economy like every country does, and it buys it from Russia, because Russian oil is sanctioned and cheap and – meaning they have to – in many cases, they’re selling it under the global price because of the sanctions.
QUESTION: Yeah.
SECRETARY RUBIO: And that – unfortunately that is helping to sustain the Russian war effort. So it is most certainly a point of irritation in our relationship with India – not the only point of irritation. We also have many other points of cooperation with them. But I think what you’re seeing the President express is the very clear frustration that with so many other oil vendors available, India continues to buy so much from Russia, which in essence is helping to fund the war effort —
QUESTION: Right.
SECRETARY RUBIO: — and allowing this war to continue in Ukraine.
QUESTION: So Mr. Secretary, I have to tell you that they’re doing an investigation – you have John Ratcliffe of the CIA, the FBI director, the assistant director, deputy director doing a heavy investigation into what went on in 2016, when you were in the Senate, about leading up to Russian meddling in the election. And Matt Taibbi and others have led the investigation on the way, and they’re finding out new revelations. But every time a Democrat’s asked about the investigation into 2016 and the role of John Brennan and James Comey and others, they point to an investigation you did as senator.
I want you to hear Democratic Congressman Jason Crow:
CONGRESSMAN CROW: There have been four – four – investigations, including a bipartisan Senate investigation led under the first Trump Administration, and led in part by Marco Rubio, that was very, very clear —
QUESTION: Okay.
CONGRESSMAN CROW: — on these findings. These have been investigated and reinvestigated and reinvestigated —
QUESTION: Okay.
CONGRESSMAN CROW: — and nothing has changed up until this past month.
QUESTION: So do you think anything has changed since you did that thorough investigation – Russian meddled in our election, period?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, but that’s not what the question was. I don’t think that the issue is whether Russia did things to try to influence American public opinion and/or drive wedges. I think – here’s the thing that they leave out when they talk about this, and they’re so dishonest about it. What they leave out is the issue here was not that. The issue here was they claimed that they did it not just to help Trump but that Trump was in on it. For a year and a half – almost two and a half years – they put this country through this notion – this fake fraud, scheme, lie – that Trump was somehow in cahoots collaborating with Russian and Russian intelligence officials to help his campaign.
And what my investigation that I – I was the acting chairman of the intelligence committee – what that investigation showed is that there was zero, zilch proof whatsoever – any evidence of any kind – that the Trump campaign in any way colluded with the Russians. That’s number one. That’s clear. So I think what they should be saying is that there was a bipartisan study done by the Senate committee that found that the narrative that all these people were putting out there was a lie.
Here’s the other thing that report found: that the way they handled the dossier – understand this dossier. This dossier was a piece of campaign disinformation. It was paid for by political campaigns. They hired the equivalent of a private investigator, and then they laundered it. Usually they take that and leak it to the media. In this case, they laundered it through our intelligence agencies. So you had some of the highest-level officials in our intelligence agencies in the country taking that fake, ridiculous dossier and using it to influence and inform an official intelligence assessment of what happened in this campaign.
The report that we put out pointed to this. My statement at the time pointed to this. And I think we’ve learned even more about how hard – what we’ve learned over the last – with these new revelations is how hard the FBI and some people – not all, but some people at the CIA worked to make that dossier a part of their intelligence assessment. It is a huge outrage because it was fake. It was a lie, and they used it to mislead the American public. It cost millions of dollars in investigations – all chasing a hoax.
So that’s the part they leave out because they’re trying to play cute with words, and the media is either uninterested or too lazy to understand those nuances and that reality.
QUESTION: I think both. They were too busy getting their awards for running that story. Literally, all these New York Times, Washington Post – these reporters are getting rewards for being a stenographer for John Brennan and others who are clearly leaking even when out of office.
Another big thing on your plate is what Steve Witkoff’s doing today. He’s heading over to Israel. Then he wants to possibly go to Gaza. We have allies – UK, Canada, and France – all either threatening to or have already done recognizing a Palestinian state. That’s over 140 in the UN. How does the U.S. view this move?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Irrelevant. It’s irrelevant. I mean, it’s annoying to some, but it’s irrelevant. It doesn’t mean anything. First of all, none of these countries have the ability to create a Palestinian state. There can be no Palestinian state unless Israel agrees to it. Number two, they can’t even tell you where this Palestinian state is. They can’t tell you who will govern it. And I think number three, it’s counterproductive.
So think about it now if you’re Hamas. You’re Hamas. You’re holding – you’re still holding 20 innocent people as hostages. You’re holding the bodies of over 50 of the people you massacred, raped, and killed during this – on October 7th of 2023. You’re sitting there hiding in some tunnel somewhere as cowards, and then you’re reading or hearing in the press that all of these countries are rallying to your side – because this is the Hamas side. At the end of the day, the Hamas side is the Palestinian statehood side. So you are creating this reward.
And by the way, they are hurting ceasefire talks, because Hamas is sitting there saying – that’s the problem with the UK statement. The UK is like, well, if Israel doesn’t agree to a ceasefire by September, we’re going to recognize a Palestinian state. So if I’m Hamas, I say, you know what, let’s not allow there to be a ceasefire. If Hamas refuses to agree to a ceasefire, it guarantees a Palestinian state will be recognized by all these countries in September. So they’re not going to agree to a ceasefire. I mean, it’s so clumsy.
But what this really is, in many of these countries’ case, is their domestic politics. Some of these countries have huge constituencies now that are pressuring them domestically to line up on this side, irrespective of its geopolitical ramifications. That’s what they’re doing here. But they’re hurting – they’re actually hurting the cause, they’re not helping, because a) their statement isn’t going to change anything other than it encourages and rewards Hamas, who now have every reason in the world not to agree to ceasefire and not to release these hostages. I wish all these countries would get together for once and maybe in one clear voice say you must release these 20 living hostages who are – that’s what they are; they’re hostages – you must release them immediately. I wish there was as much attention paid to that as some of the other factors here.
QUESTION: Great point. The Arab League came out – Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are demanding Hamas lay down its arms and agree to a two-state solution. Now, the two-state solution you just – it’s folly. I got it. But for Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, they have the sway, don’t they? Especially Qatar.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah. I mean, over – they host the Hamas external people in their country. And look, I want to be fair, okay? I know that Qatar is not always – is a source of controversy among some. When it comes to this negotiation, they’ve been very helpful. They’ve been very forceful; they’ve put a lot of time and energy into this, and frankly they’ve expressed their own frustrations with Hamas. I think the moment of truth has to arrive, however, where there has to be consequences if Hamas continues to disagree.
Understand there was a ceasefire agreement in principle in place. Israel actually made a bunch of concessions that Hamas had asked for, hard concessions for Israel to make, and then Hamas came back and just rejected the deal – and by the way, rejected it on the same day that Macron from France made his announcement. Because at the end of the day Hamas is sitting there saying: we’re winning the PR war. We’ve got all these countries lining up on our side of this argument. We’ve got leverage now. We shouldn’t agree to anything. We should keep this thing going. That’s how – they don’t care about how many people die in Gaza, and they – they’ve got hostages that they think is their shield, and now they’ve got all these countries sort of lining up on their side.
And so as they view this anti-Israel narrative building internationally, it’s emboldening Hamas. And I do think, however, it’s interesting how forceful these Arab countries are about demilitarizing Gaza. I think that’s a very important thing, because if Gaza is not demilitarized, if Hamas is not demilitarized, there will never – there – a lasting peace is impossible in Gaza or anywhere.
QUESTION: No, I hear you. The other thing is you’re talking about the huge Muslim population in France and the UK, where people find those cities almost unrecognizable because of what they have allowed to happen with immigration into their country. I assume that’s what you were saying, right? You don’t mean liberal —
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I think might – I mean, look, I’m not an – their internal politics may be influenced by a combination of things. We have seen this – see the unity of these pro-Islamist, anti-Western, anti-capitalism left sort of merger, and they sort of join forces on everything from attacking ICE officers to —
QUESTION: Yeah.
SECRETARY RUBIO: I mean, you’ve seen in some of these immigration riots, immigration enforcement riots that you’ve seen with these protesters in California and other places. In many of these things, it’s the same people. They’re wearing the same – waving the same flags, wearing the same headscarf, and it’s the same people that shut down our universities. That’s what we’ve experienced domestically, and this has become a factor in many these countries as well. They’re under tremendous domestic pressure.
And you watch the programming of things like the BBC – 95 percent of their coverage is about how evil, in their narrative, Israel is. Very little coverage paid to the hostages, the families. It’s totally been forgotten, because you know why? There – the United States is not insensitive, and we have done a lot. We’ve done more than, frankly, anybody else in terms of providing funding –
QUESTION: In terms of aid.
SECRETARY RUBIO: – necessary for humanitarian relief in Gaza. And the cameras capture the images of the human suffering there. You know what the cameras don’t capture? The suffering of 20 people living in tunnels right now taken hostage by Hamas for almost – for a long time. No one’s covering that. Where’s the – and no one’s talking about that.
QUESTION: Listen, Mr. Secretary, people have talked about a change in tone with China. The Taiwan president came here. We said don’t trend – don’t walk across the country; it’s going to aggravate China. We seem to be going more towards Pakistan than India as of late. Do you think we’re more in deal mode with China? How would you describe our approach as we push forward on trade with China and also ask them to help us with Ukraine?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, we have plenty of issues that we disagree with China on, and they happen every day. I mean, in terms of – those things continue. We remain as committed as ever to freedom of navigation in the region. We remain as committed as ever to our partners in the Philippines and in places like Taiwan and other things of this nature.
We are also entering a period of some sort of strategic stability. In the end, we have two big – the two largest economies in the world. An all-out trade conflict between the U.S. and China, I think the U.S. would benefit from it in some ways, but the world would be hurt by it. It would have a huge impact on the world, and then on our economy, and especially on the Chinese economy.
QUESTION: Right.
SECRETARY RUBIO: So I think as much as anything else, a mature foreign policy requires strategic balancing of equities as we move forward. There – we don’t have a trade deal with China. What we have is an agreement in the short term that was just recently extended after a very hard negotiation that occurred with our trade negotiators just a few days ago.
So I think it’s – at the end of the day, two things are true. We have a lot of irritants long term with China that we need to confront. There are vulnerabilities that we need to close, and I think it’s time we have a responsible —
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I guess I have to stop you there, against a hard break. Thanks so much for your time.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah. Okay, thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment