Brett85
03-07-2014, 11:38 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/ukraine-russia-crimea-2016-presidential-elections-ted-cruz-marco-rubio-rand-paul-104386_Page2.html
For a glimpse at how a future Republican president might handle a global crisis, look no further than the Senate.
There, three possible 2016 GOP presidential contenders — Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida — are weighing in on the Ukraine crisis and offering their own visions for U.S. foreign policy that highlight rifts between neoconservatives and isolationists that remain even as the Republican Party tilts away from U.S. military interventions.
Rubio (Fla.) is calling for the most robust U.S. response to the Russian incursion into Ukraine and supporting an aid package regardless of whether it’s paid for, a sharp departure from conservative orthodoxy. Paul (Ky.) said he is likely to oppose an aid package that isn’t offset and worries about giving any money to a country that has had a “series of crooks running the place.”
Meanwhile, Cruz is treading a middle ground and declined to endorse or oppose an aid package, instead calling for expelling Russia from the G-8 and possibly breaking treaties with Moscow.
The Ukraine debate allows the three conservative senators to distinguish themselves from congressional leaders, President Barack Obama and potential 2016 GOP challengers, all more than a year before the campaign begins in earnest. And in interviews this week, the senators seemed fully aware their jobs in the Capitol give them the unique opportunity to weigh in on international affairs.
Foreign policy crises like those in Ukraine, Iran and Syria also allow the Republicans to carve out sharp policy differences among each other, which hasn’t always been easy, given that they rarely disagree on domestic issues other than immigration reform.
Still, the three GOP stars are aligned in several foreign policy areas. They all see a role for the U.S. to play in global affairs, but not as the international law enforcer envisioned by Republicans of a decade ago. And they all echo an American electorate sick of overseas conflict that is closely watching the rise of anti-American governments all over the world.
And though the trio reflects a war-weary American public, Rubio easily offers the most interventionist approach and seems eager to discuss his vision for America, often in soaring rhetoric. Despite the isolationist reputations that precede them, both Cruz and Paul want the U.S. to play some international role — though Cruz is more forceful than Paul on this point.
Notably, the trio is divided on an aid package being considered by the Senate that will be more comprehensive than the limited package passed by the House on Thursday. The Senate bill could come before the Foreign Relations Committee as early as Tuesday, a panel on which both Paul and Rubio serve.
Rubio said that he will support an aid package to Ukraine even if it is not offset by spending cuts or new revenue, reflective of Rubio’s insistence that America maintain its international leadership role even if cannot be the world’s police officer.
“I would prefer that it would be offset, but I think that’s important enough that we should move forward on it even if it isn’t,” Rubio said. “This is an issue of significant national security magnitude that we should move on.”
Paul said that he is likely to oppose a bill that is not paid for and has fundamental concerns about giving any money or loans to a country that he said ranks among the “most corrupt” in the world — an assessment neither Cruz, nor Rubio volunteered.
“We really — literally and figuratively — would have to borrow money from China to send it to the Ukraine,” he said. “The other problem is Ukraine owes Russia money, so if we’re giving Ukraine money and they’re paying it to Russia, does that sound like a good idea or a bad idea?”
Paul questioned the legality of Ukraine’s recent power transition and said leaders there should prove “they’re going to be less corrupt” as a condition of receiving funds. Perhaps letting Ukraine go bankrupt to wipe the slate clean is the best path, the Kentucky senator surmised.
“If you go through 10 years of austerity that’s enforced by the West, then it just leads to unhappiness and all that. Maybe you’re better off having the swiftness of bankruptcy and restarting,” Paul said.
Cruz would not comment on whether he will support an aid package but seemed cool to the idea. He quickly suggested alternatives that the United States should explore rather than fixate on whether a package should be paid for or not.
“More important than aid is expanding economic trade — expanding mutually beneficial commerce, helping open the door for energy to flow to Ukraine in the private market,” Cruz said. “There are other steps that we can and should be looking at seriously with regard to Russia, such as immediately moving to expel them from the G-8, such as looking at existing treaties between the United States and Russia and considering abrogating those treaties.”
Despite their differences on Ukraine, there is more unity among the senators on punishing Russia and President Vladimir Putin. All agree generally with Obama’s move toward targeted sanctions on Russian officials and Secretary of State John Kerry’s suggestion that Russia be removed from the G-8.
And as evidence of how far the GOP has shifted since George W. Bush’s presidency, all quickly dismissed even the faintest suggestion of U.S. military action in Crimea.
“Even at the height of the Cold War, we didn’t go around the world engaging the military in every conflict,” Rubio said. “[Ukraine] doesn’t have a military solution. Even if we wanted one, there wouldn’t be one.”
Depending on the issue, the foreign policy contrasts among the three can be bright — or nonexistent. Paul engineered a Senate vote on cutting aid to Egypt last July that was blessed by Cruz but opposed by Rubio. All three opposed Obama’s failed bid to authorize military force in Syria in the Foreign Relations Committee.
And as they play central roles in Washington’s favorite parlor game ahead of a presidential election, Rubio, Cruz and Paul obviously have thought deeply about the perception of them within the Republican Party — and how they compare to each other. Paul said only his “enemies” would deem him an isolationist, while Rubio said he doesn’t even understand what the terms “hawk” and “dove” mean anymore, declining to shoulder either label.
Meanwhile, Cruz offered a specific GOP spectrum on foreign policy that used Paul as a foil to the hawkishness of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Rubio was left out of Cruz’s assessment altogether.
“My foreign policy views are different from both of them, and I would suggest they represent a third point on the triangle,” Cruz said. “I agree with John McCain that we should be a voice for freedom, but I agree with Rand Paul that we should be exceedingly reluctant to employ U.S. military force. That being said, we have a military for a reason — it is to protect our national security.”
Paul seemed less concerned than Rubio and Cruz about how the U.S. is viewed globally, but asserted that “we do live in an interconnected world and that we do have a role in promoting stability around the world.” In any event, it’s not the U.S. that Paul believes will be Russia’s ultimate undoing in Crimea. He believes Putin is his own worst enemy.
“The biggest thing that has the potential to turn this out: Russian stock markets plummeting. I think that’s why Putin backed off a little bit,” Paul said. “If he attempts to occupy Ukraine, I think there will be a civil war. If Ukraine becomes Syria, that’s a disaster for Russia, 80 percent of their oil’s going across there. The Ukrainian 14-year-olds will be blowing up their pipelines if that’s where we go.”
To Rubio, the situation in Ukraine isn’t just about staring down with Putin but instead a window into the future.
“The price of not acting will be extraordinary, because it won’t just be the Ukraine,” Rubio said. “The Chinese and others are watching this and saying, ‘We’re interested in seeing what price do you pay for executing illegitimate claims? And what price do you pay for moving on a neighboring country and taking over territory?’”
For a glimpse at how a future Republican president might handle a global crisis, look no further than the Senate.
There, three possible 2016 GOP presidential contenders — Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida — are weighing in on the Ukraine crisis and offering their own visions for U.S. foreign policy that highlight rifts between neoconservatives and isolationists that remain even as the Republican Party tilts away from U.S. military interventions.
Rubio (Fla.) is calling for the most robust U.S. response to the Russian incursion into Ukraine and supporting an aid package regardless of whether it’s paid for, a sharp departure from conservative orthodoxy. Paul (Ky.) said he is likely to oppose an aid package that isn’t offset and worries about giving any money to a country that has had a “series of crooks running the place.”
Meanwhile, Cruz is treading a middle ground and declined to endorse or oppose an aid package, instead calling for expelling Russia from the G-8 and possibly breaking treaties with Moscow.
The Ukraine debate allows the three conservative senators to distinguish themselves from congressional leaders, President Barack Obama and potential 2016 GOP challengers, all more than a year before the campaign begins in earnest. And in interviews this week, the senators seemed fully aware their jobs in the Capitol give them the unique opportunity to weigh in on international affairs.
Foreign policy crises like those in Ukraine, Iran and Syria also allow the Republicans to carve out sharp policy differences among each other, which hasn’t always been easy, given that they rarely disagree on domestic issues other than immigration reform.
Still, the three GOP stars are aligned in several foreign policy areas. They all see a role for the U.S. to play in global affairs, but not as the international law enforcer envisioned by Republicans of a decade ago. And they all echo an American electorate sick of overseas conflict that is closely watching the rise of anti-American governments all over the world.
And though the trio reflects a war-weary American public, Rubio easily offers the most interventionist approach and seems eager to discuss his vision for America, often in soaring rhetoric. Despite the isolationist reputations that precede them, both Cruz and Paul want the U.S. to play some international role — though Cruz is more forceful than Paul on this point.
Notably, the trio is divided on an aid package being considered by the Senate that will be more comprehensive than the limited package passed by the House on Thursday. The Senate bill could come before the Foreign Relations Committee as early as Tuesday, a panel on which both Paul and Rubio serve.
Rubio said that he will support an aid package to Ukraine even if it is not offset by spending cuts or new revenue, reflective of Rubio’s insistence that America maintain its international leadership role even if cannot be the world’s police officer.
“I would prefer that it would be offset, but I think that’s important enough that we should move forward on it even if it isn’t,” Rubio said. “This is an issue of significant national security magnitude that we should move on.”
Paul said that he is likely to oppose a bill that is not paid for and has fundamental concerns about giving any money or loans to a country that he said ranks among the “most corrupt” in the world — an assessment neither Cruz, nor Rubio volunteered.
“We really — literally and figuratively — would have to borrow money from China to send it to the Ukraine,” he said. “The other problem is Ukraine owes Russia money, so if we’re giving Ukraine money and they’re paying it to Russia, does that sound like a good idea or a bad idea?”
Paul questioned the legality of Ukraine’s recent power transition and said leaders there should prove “they’re going to be less corrupt” as a condition of receiving funds. Perhaps letting Ukraine go bankrupt to wipe the slate clean is the best path, the Kentucky senator surmised.
“If you go through 10 years of austerity that’s enforced by the West, then it just leads to unhappiness and all that. Maybe you’re better off having the swiftness of bankruptcy and restarting,” Paul said.
Cruz would not comment on whether he will support an aid package but seemed cool to the idea. He quickly suggested alternatives that the United States should explore rather than fixate on whether a package should be paid for or not.
“More important than aid is expanding economic trade — expanding mutually beneficial commerce, helping open the door for energy to flow to Ukraine in the private market,” Cruz said. “There are other steps that we can and should be looking at seriously with regard to Russia, such as immediately moving to expel them from the G-8, such as looking at existing treaties between the United States and Russia and considering abrogating those treaties.”
Despite their differences on Ukraine, there is more unity among the senators on punishing Russia and President Vladimir Putin. All agree generally with Obama’s move toward targeted sanctions on Russian officials and Secretary of State John Kerry’s suggestion that Russia be removed from the G-8.
And as evidence of how far the GOP has shifted since George W. Bush’s presidency, all quickly dismissed even the faintest suggestion of U.S. military action in Crimea.
“Even at the height of the Cold War, we didn’t go around the world engaging the military in every conflict,” Rubio said. “[Ukraine] doesn’t have a military solution. Even if we wanted one, there wouldn’t be one.”
Depending on the issue, the foreign policy contrasts among the three can be bright — or nonexistent. Paul engineered a Senate vote on cutting aid to Egypt last July that was blessed by Cruz but opposed by Rubio. All three opposed Obama’s failed bid to authorize military force in Syria in the Foreign Relations Committee.
And as they play central roles in Washington’s favorite parlor game ahead of a presidential election, Rubio, Cruz and Paul obviously have thought deeply about the perception of them within the Republican Party — and how they compare to each other. Paul said only his “enemies” would deem him an isolationist, while Rubio said he doesn’t even understand what the terms “hawk” and “dove” mean anymore, declining to shoulder either label.
Meanwhile, Cruz offered a specific GOP spectrum on foreign policy that used Paul as a foil to the hawkishness of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Rubio was left out of Cruz’s assessment altogether.
“My foreign policy views are different from both of them, and I would suggest they represent a third point on the triangle,” Cruz said. “I agree with John McCain that we should be a voice for freedom, but I agree with Rand Paul that we should be exceedingly reluctant to employ U.S. military force. That being said, we have a military for a reason — it is to protect our national security.”
Paul seemed less concerned than Rubio and Cruz about how the U.S. is viewed globally, but asserted that “we do live in an interconnected world and that we do have a role in promoting stability around the world.” In any event, it’s not the U.S. that Paul believes will be Russia’s ultimate undoing in Crimea. He believes Putin is his own worst enemy.
“The biggest thing that has the potential to turn this out: Russian stock markets plummeting. I think that’s why Putin backed off a little bit,” Paul said. “If he attempts to occupy Ukraine, I think there will be a civil war. If Ukraine becomes Syria, that’s a disaster for Russia, 80 percent of their oil’s going across there. The Ukrainian 14-year-olds will be blowing up their pipelines if that’s where we go.”
To Rubio, the situation in Ukraine isn’t just about staring down with Putin but instead a window into the future.
“The price of not acting will be extraordinary, because it won’t just be the Ukraine,” Rubio said. “The Chinese and others are watching this and saying, ‘We’re interested in seeing what price do you pay for executing illegitimate claims? And what price do you pay for moving on a neighboring country and taking over territory?’”