Secretary of State Marco Rubio continues to impress; however, his response to the Wall Street Journalist narrative engineer is absolutely brilliant.
Following visits to Colombia and Ecuador, Secretary Rubio is in Peru today to discuss the “Shield of The America’s; a joint collaboration and intensely strategic partnership between the United States and Latin American countries to eliminate corruption, arrest narcotraffickers and remove all corrupt elements.
During a news conference with Peruvian President Keiko Fujimori, Secretary Rubio addressed the Peruvian people in both English and Spanish as he explained the specifics of the Shield and what the partnership entails. During the Q&A session of the press conference, a Wall Street Journal narrative engineer asked a question about sovereignty and the U.S. acting unilaterally if Peru didn’t agree to address the threat.
Essentially, Rubio responded by telling the journalist to stop working for the ‘Bureau of Imaginary Problems’. I have prompted the video at the point of the question and then provided the transcript from that moment to the end. The overall English audio-dub is not bad, so the entire presser is well worth watching:
[Transcript] – QUESTION: Vera Bergengruen with The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Secretary, you have stressed that the members of the Shield of the Americas are sovereign partners. But if one of these governments refuses to act against one of these groups that Washington deems a terrorist threat, does the U.S. reserve the right to act unilaterally, including here in Peru?
And President Fujimori: (Via interpreter) The question wanted more information about the partner of the Shield of the Americas. This will include to collaborate with the United States here in the country.
SECRETARY RUBIO: I’ll answer that question in English and Spanish. I don’t know if you guys heard it. Basically, the gist of the question is, if you’re a member of the Shield and refuse to act, does the United States – will the United States act unilaterally?
Well, if we were going to act unilaterally, why would we need the Shield? We’re not – if we were interested in acting unilaterally, we have the capacity to act unilaterally. The reason why we’re not doing it is because we want to do it with our partners. It’s the most effective way to do it. For us to confront transnational criminal groups, we need to do it inside the sovereign territory of countries, and we want to partner with those countries. It’s in their interest to do it. That is why we have the Shield. That is why the Shield exists.
People make up these problems that don’t exist. They’re getting ahead of themselves with these – these ridiculous sort of things that no one’s even contemplating. The bottom line is the reason why we have a Shield is because we choose to act in partnership with our partners. So it’s very simple. This is not very complicated; let me explain this to you. It’s a very, very simple equation. We have a country that says we want to defeat these criminals, these terrorists, these evil, despicable human beings; we want to defeat them. We want to work with America to defeat them. And so we say, of course we want to work – what should we say to them? No, we don’t want to work with you? No, we’d like you not to do anything about these groups?