A Palpable Sense of Retrenchment in Europe Comes Into Focus With Secretary of State Rubio’s Opening Moves

Secretary Rubio has delivered a message to his British counterparts about Communist China’s “malign influence” over a swath of the world’s seas, signaling straight out of the gate that his gaze will be more tightly focused on unpredictable Beijing than dependably gloomy Brussels.In Mr. Rubio’s first official phone call with the current British foreign secretary, David Lammy, the “depth of the U.S.-UK Special Relationship” was affirmed, as was the need to address issues such as “China’s malign influence.” Yet keeping a free and open Indo-Pacific region “that is secure and stable” is emerging as one of the most critical priorities for America and its closest allies.Communist China’s attempts to make the South China Sea into a giant sphere of influence are well-known, but somewhat more obscure are Beijing’s attempts to project its power to locations in the South Pacific as well as the arguably more vitally strategic Indo-Pacific region.Earlier this month, the British said they would hold off on finalizing a deal to hand over sovereignty of the contested Chagos Islands to Mauritius. The largest island in that remote archipelago is Diego Garcia, a tropical atoll which is home to America’s most important naval base west of Pearl Harbor. Technically, it is a British-American naval and bomber base.As recently as October there was a deal in place that aimed to keep the base under British and American jurisdiction for at least the next 99 years. Mr. Rubio’s predecessor, Secretary of State Blinken, last year hailed that deal as a “win for diplomacy.” Mr. Rubio, before joining the Trump administration, belonged to the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. He has long been a critic of Beijing. Last July, he introduced the United States-India Defense Cooperation Act in the Senate, announcing when he did that “Communist China continues to aggressively expand its domain in the Indo-Pacific region, all while it seeks to impede the sovereignty and autonomy of our regional partners.”Prior to his becoming America’s top diplomat, Mr. Rubio called the prospect of the Chagos changing hands “concerning” because “it would provide an opportunity for Communist China to gain valuable intelligence on our naval support facility in Mauritius.”Does Beijing really have its sights set on Diego Garcia? Ask a high-ranking member of the CCP if President Xi has designs on the atoll itself and the answer might not be affirmative. However, Mauritius has a free trade agreement with Beijing, which has in recent years poured more than a billion dollars’ worth of investments into the island country. Sino-Mauritians make up a quarter of the population, and the country is reportedly among the top three international clearing centers for the renminbi.Obviously, putting Port Louis in charge of Diego Garcia, where units from the U.S. Navy, Air Force, and Space Force, and the British Royal Navy are poised within striking distance of potential Middle Eastern and South Asian flashpoints, is not in the best strategic interest of either Washington or London.Under the terms of Sir Keir Starmer’s deal, the Times of London first reported, Britain would pay the equivalent of around $11 billion over 99 years in annual installments to lease back Diego Garcia from Mauritius. That deal, now on ice as Trump officials take a closer look at it, had been signed with a previous Mauritian government.As of midweek there was no reported progress on new negotiations. However, the issue is clearly a significant one for the White House.In a break with Washingtonian tradition, Secretary Rubio held a meeting of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue soon after he was sworn in — as clear a signal as any that the geopolitical focus of this administration is almost certainly going to be the Indo-Pacific and addressing threats from Beijing.The Quad, as it is known informally, includes Japan and Australia as well as India and America. Customarily the Secretary of State’s first foreign confab is with one of America’s adjacent neighbors or a fellow member of NATO overseas; that did not happen. As for Ukraine, one of President Trump’s most outspoken if unofficial advisors, Steve Bannon, told a Greek newspaper over the weekend that “It is a European problem” and that “President Trump should not take any responsibility for this war.”So, as far as the continent of Europe goes, there is a palpable sense of retrenchment. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, invited Secretary Rubio to join a meeting of the bloc’s foreign ministers at Brussels on Monday, but he did not attend. While not exactly a snub, it is also no feather in Brussels’ cap to be left in the cold, as it were. President Trump has so far favored reinforcing strong country to country ties on the Continent — think Italy, Hungary, and to a certain extent the Netherlands, France, and Greece. Oiling the wheels of the Brussels bureaucracy was never going to be a foreign policy priority. The new global thrust and parry is happening in Asia, and also points south.

A Palpable Sense of Retrenchment in Europe Comes Into Focus With Secretary of State Rubio’s Opening Moves

More from the New York Sun

Fauci’s Refusal To Answer Questions Matches Hubris of America’s Botched Covid Response

America Risks Falling Behind Communist China in the AI Development Race

State Department Tells Americans To Prepare To Flee From Middle East

More from the New York Sun

Fauci’s Refusal To Answer Questions Matches Hubris of America’s Botched Covid Response

America Risks Falling Behind Communist China in the AI Development Race

State Department Tells Americans To Prepare To Flee From Middle East

Trump Threatens to Revive Anti-Weaponization Fund as Blanche Nomination Stalls

Spain Claims Ceuta Crisis Easing, With Most Migrants Already Returned to Morocco

George Santos Agrees to $35,000 To Settle Federal Probe Over Kalshi Trades

Infantino Abandons Kushner Deal But Fails To Halt Global FIFA Uprising

Trump Lashes Out at Pirro Over Dropped Reflecting Pool Case: ‘I Disagree 100%’