Can Marco Rubio Change Both Vietnam and Cuba?
By Khanh Vu Duc*
HAVANA TIMES – If Marco Rubio becomes Secretary of State in a Trump 2.0 administration, he will inherit a world grappling with authoritarian resurgence, economic instability, and geopolitical rivalry. Nowhere are these challenges more evident than in Vietnam and Cuba—two enduring communist regimes that, while diverging in development trajectories, share a resistance to democratic governance. Rubio, a staunch advocate of democracy and human rights, faces a daunting question: can he inspire change in both nations without destabilizing them?
The answer is yes—but only with a pragmatic approach that balances principled advocacy for human rights with a strategic understanding of geopolitical realities.
Vietnam: The Geopolitical Keystone
Vietnam stands as a paradox. Its economic success, driven by market reforms and global integration since the “Đổi Mới” policy of 1986, is undeniable. It is now a critical player in global supply chains and a key U.S. partner in counterbalancing China’s assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific. Yet its political system remains rigid, with limited tolerance for dissent and a poor record on civil liberties.
Rubio must address this duality head-on. U.S. policymakers often overlook Vietnam’s strategic importance, focusing narrowly on its economic reforms or its role in the U.S.-China rivalry. But for Vietnam to achieve true stability and prosperity, it must embrace political reforms. A freer society would unlock its full potential, enabling innovation and entrepreneurship while fostering trust in governance.
However, pushing too hard risks alienating Hanoi and driving it closer to Beijing. Vietnam’s leaders remain deeply wary of foreign interference, shaped by a history of resistance to Chinese domination and Western colonization. Rubio should advocate for gradual reforms that align with Vietnam’s cultural and political realities. Support for civil society, independent journalism, and rule-of-law initiatives can serve as stepping stones toward greater political openness.
At the same time, Rubio must be clear that partnership with the U.S. comes with expectations. Vietnam’s aspirations for deeper integration into the global economy—through frameworks like the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)—should be tied to measurable improvements in labor rights and freedom of expression. Pragmatism does not mean compromising principles; it means pursuing them strategically.
Cuba: A Crisis at the Crossroads
Cuba’s trajectory stands in stark contrast. While Vietnam leveraged market reforms to escape economic stagnation, Cuba clings to an antiquated socialist model that has left its economy in shambles. The island is facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, with widespread shortages of food, medicine, and electricity. Over a million Cubans have fled since 2020, creating a migration crisis that directly affects the United States.
Rubio, a Cuban-American, has long championed the cause of Cuban democracy. His potential leadership could mark a turning point—but only if he tempers the pursuit of regime change with a commitment to humanitarian relief and incremental reform.
Critics like Professor William LeoGrande in Foreign Policy warn that a policy of maximum pressure risks pushing Cuba toward chaos, with dire consequences for the region. A collapse of the Cuban regime could unleash mass migration, destabilize the Caribbean, and create a haven for transnational crime. Rubio must recognize these risks and pivot toward a policy that combines targeted pressure with constructive engagement.
Humanitarian aid, such as food and medicine, is both a moral imperative and a strategic opportunity. It undermines the regime’s narrative of U.S. hostility while alleviating suffering. Lifting certain sanctions, such as those on oil shipments from Venezuela, could help stabilize Cuba’s energy grid, laying the groundwork for future reforms.
At the same time, the U.S. should empower Cuba’s private sector, which has shown resilience despite government restrictions. Expanding remittances, supporting small businesses, and facilitating internet access are practical steps that strengthen Cuban society from within. Rubio should make it clear that these measures are not about propping up the regime but about supporting the Cuban people in their quest for dignity and freedom.
The U.S.-China-Vietnam Triangle
Both Vietnam and Cuba are deeply entwined with U.S.-China dynamics. While Vietnam actively resists China’s territorial ambitions, Cuba has grown more reliant on Chinese trade and investment as U.S. sanctions bite. Rubio must navigate these complexities with care.
In Vietnam, the U.S. has a unique opportunity to deepen ties and counterbalance China’s influence. This requires more than just defense cooperation; it demands a comprehensive partnership that includes economic, cultural, and governance initiatives. Encouraging Vietnam to diversify its alliances strengthens its autonomy, reducing its dependence on Beijing.
In Cuba, the challenge is to prevent China from filling the vacuum left by U.S. disengagement. Beijing has already made inroads, from infrastructure investments to technology exports. Rubio must offer an alternative vision—one that prioritizes Cuban sovereignty and economic self-reliance over dependency on authoritarian powers.
Principled Pragmatism: The Path Forward
Rubio’s potential tenure as Secretary of State offers a chance to redefine U.S. engagement with Vietnam and Cuba. Both nations represent the broader struggle between democracy and authoritarianism—a struggle that demands both firmness and flexibility.
In Vietnam, Rubio should leverage the country’s economic ambitions to push for gradual political reforms, demonstrating that freedom and prosperity go hand in hand. In Cuba, he should address the immediate humanitarian crisis while laying the groundwork for long-term change.
Critics may argue that such an approach lacks boldness or risks legitimizing authoritarian regimes. But history shows that transformative change often begins with small, incremental steps. The U.S.-Vietnam relationship, once mired in hostility, is now a cornerstone of regional stability. A similar trajectory is possible for Cuba, but it requires patience and strategic vision.
Rubio must also be prepared for the long game. True change in Vietnam and Cuba will not happen overnight, nor will it come solely from external pressure. It will emerge from the aspirations of their people, supported by a U.S. policy that champions freedom, democracy, and human dignity.
By combining principled advocacy with pragmatic diplomacy, Rubio can answer the question at the heart of this debate. Yes, he can change Vietnam and Cuba—not by imposing solutions, but by empowering their people to build freer, fairer societies.
*Guest author Khanh Vu Duc is a lawyer and law professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Stephen,
Thank you again for your thoughtful response and for sharing your perspective. I greatly appreciate the depth of your analysis and your reference to the comparison with Vietnam’s economic trajectory.
Indeed, Vietnam’s remarkable transformation after the war offers valuable lessons for Cuba. While both nations operate under a single-party communist system, Vietnam’s embrace of market-oriented reforms (Đổi Mới) demonstrates how pragmatic economic policies can lift millions out of poverty while maintaining political stability. However, as you rightly point out, Cuba’s stagnation persists despite decades of ideological and financial support from allies like Russia and China. This contrast underscores the necessity for Cuba to adopt meaningful reforms tailored to its unique conditions.
Like you, I hope for a peaceful and nonviolent transition for Cuba. However, I would add that such transitions require not just external pressure but also international cooperation and support for grassroots movements within Cuba. The resilience of the Cuban people deserves recognition and encouragement, especially as they face enormous challenges in their daily lives.
Thank you again for your insightful comments and for engaging in this dialogue. It’s been a pleasure exchanging ideas with you.
Best regards,
Khanh Vu Duc
Dear Khanh Vu Duc
I really appreciate your insightful comments regarding my submission.
Whether Marco Rubio becomes Secretary of State in the newly elected Trump administration or someone else, I believe the next four years with a Trump presidency in the White House will determine Cuba’s economic and political future.
Either a soft approach is taken for a necessary political change or a heavy handed approach to achieve the same outcome, for the majority of Cuban people radical, necessary political and economic change is absolutely required.
In my submissions to Havana Times when discussing Cuba’s disastrous economic and social conditions I often bring up the tremendous economic success of Vietnam after that country’s infrastructure was practically annihilated by the Vietnam War. Yet, after a few short years and still adhering to its communist roots the country and its resilient people were able to use modern market economic forces to achieve its remarkable success today.
Yet, communist Cuba not having suffered anything near the devastation Vietnam suffered after 60 plus years is mired in economic and political perpetual stagnation. Even with economic aid poring in from ideological brothers such as Russia, China, Venezuela and even Vietnam the country is persistently paralyzed.
I hope, and I am sure you agree, the necessary political and economic change that is inevitable for the sake of all Cubans will be a smooth non violent transition.
It has been a pleasure interacting with you.
Stephen
Dear Stephen,
Thank you for engaging with the article and for raising important points about the dynamics of a potential Trump 2.0 administration and its implications for Marco Rubio’s role as Secretary of State. Your concerns about President Trump’s transactional approach to politics and its potential impact on Cuba policy are valid and deserve careful consideration.
However, I would argue that Rubio’s potential to shape policy should not be underestimated, even under a transactional administration. Rubio has consistently demonstrated a deep commitment to advancing democracy, particularly in Latin America. His leadership on Cuba and Venezuela policy during the Trump administration highlighted his ability to influence policy within the constraints of a broader agenda. While Trump may prioritize transactional outcomes, Rubio could leverage his credibility among Cuban Americans and his understanding of Cuba’s political and economic realities to advocate for a principled but pragmatic approach.
Your mention of Trump’s maximum pressure strategy, exemplified by his trade policy with Canada and Mexico, underscores the complexity of policymaking under his leadership. However, Cuba is a unique case where U.S. national security and regional stability intersect. Rubio has the expertise and proximity to advocate for a policy that avoids the pitfalls of isolationism while preventing authoritarian powers like Russia and China from deepening their influence in the Caribbean.
As for the suggestion that a policy of maximum pressure risks chaos in Cuba, this is not a call for inaction or appeasement. Rather, it’s a recognition that maximum pressure, without parallel efforts to empower Cuban civil society and provide humanitarian relief, could exacerbate the suffering of ordinary Cubans while strengthening the regime’s narrative of U.S. aggression. Rubio could address this by coupling pressure with tangible support for democratic actors and ensuring any sanctions are strategically targeted.
Finally, your assertion that “any potential change had better benefit Donald Trump” raises an important point about the challenges Rubio might face. Yet, this underscores the need for a Secretary of State who can navigate the tension between presidential priorities and long-term U.S. interests. Rubio’s ability to articulate a vision that aligns U.S. moral leadership with pragmatic goals could redefine how the U.S. engages not only with Cuba but also with Vietnam and other nations under authoritarian rule.
I appreciate your thought-provoking commentary and thank you for joining this conversation.
Sincerely,
Khanh Vu Duc
Dear Moses Patterson,
Thank you for your comment and for sharing your perspective. I appreciate your emphasis on the urgency of meaningful change in Cuba. However, I believe that a strategy solely focused on regime collapse, without concurrent attention to the Cuban people’s immediate needs, could result in even greater suffering and destabilization.
The argument for a balanced approach is not to sustain the current regime but to mitigate the potential humanitarian fallout of an abrupt collapse. Historical precedents show that complete state breakdowns often lead to prolonged chaos, which can be exploited by organized crime or foreign adversaries, as I discussed in the op-ed. For instance, a sudden collapse might create an exodus similar to the Mariel boatlift or amplify narcotics trafficking in the Caribbean—outcomes that would harm not just Cuba but also the U.S. and regional stability.
Moreover, providing carefully managed humanitarian aid does not necessarily equate to propping up the regime. If aid is structured to bypass state channels and empower civil society, it can simultaneously alleviate suffering and support grassroots movements for democracy. This approach requires precision, transparency, and international oversight, which could prevent the regime from misusing resources.
Lastly, while it’s true that Russia and China haven’t yet “saved the day,” their opportunistic strategies suggest they could step in under the right conditions. The U.S. would be wise to preempt such moves by taking a principled yet pragmatic stance, engaging with the Cuban people rather than leaving a vacuum that authoritarian actors could fill.
I respect your viewpoint and welcome your dialogue on this complex issue.
Best regards,
Khanh Vu Duc
If Marco Rubio becomes Secretary of State in a Trump 2.0 administration, Mr. Rubio will be subjected to the whims of Donald Trump. Whatever is advantageous to Donald, usually in a monetary sense, will be acceptable to his administration.
Forget about any benefits to Cuba as long as Trump benefits first and foremost from any political transaction is OK with him. This has been his modus operandi his entire business career and he has extended this successful approach into his politics. Some will vehemently disagree he is politically “successful”; nevertheless, he has been duly elected in a democratic country – twice.
The article states: “Critics like Professor William LeoGrande in Foreign Policy warn that a policy of maximum pressure risks pushing Cuba toward chaos, with dire consequences for the region.” In other words is the Professor suggesting to Mr. Rubio to not engage in “maximum pressure” to try and instil democracy in Cuba?
That certainly is not the way President elect Donald Trump does his political business. For example, a week ago Trump announced maximum pressure with punitive tariffs of 25% on all imports to the USA from Canada and Mexico. That announcement has caused horrendous worry and consternation among the Canadian population, government and Prime Minister and rightly so.
And, Canada is a reliable, historical, friendly trading partner plus a USA ally in more ways than one. The Canadian Prime Minister instantaneously arranged a phone call with Trump to discuss the impending harsh tariff penalty. Moreover, Trump invited the Prime Minister to Mar-o- Largo (Trump’s Florida residence) for dinner and discussion about tariffs and the like.
No doubt Marco Rubio will be pressured to exercise maximum pressure on the Cuban totalitarian leaders because that is the way Donald Trump treats his political adversaries. Would a Cuban totalitarian leader be invited to dine with either Rubio or Trump to discuss potential democracy on the island? Whatever political posturing takes place on the island it will be negotiated between Trump and Putin because after all has any political posturing recently taken place in Cuba without Russian involvement?
The article continues: “Rubio must offer an alternative vision—one that prioritizes Cuban sovereignty and economic self-reliance over dependency on authoritarian powers.” It will be extremely difficult for Rubio to go down this path with a transactional President – elect who operates politically on the basis of winners and losers.
When it comes to Cuba, a totalitarian sovereign state, only a short distance from Trump’s and Rubio’s home residences, any potential change, politically and economically, had better benefit Donald Trump ( MAGA). Just that thought and approach will repulse the current Cuban totalitarian rulers to no end.
I disagree with certain important points in this post. The author says that human rights and humanitarian needs must be protected while a regime change program is implemented in Cuba. As harsh as it sounds, I thoroughly disagree. Any effort to avoid further disaster in Cuba through US aid efforts will only serve to sustain the powers that be. Instead, if regime change is the plan, the US must charge full steam ahead and allow the Castro dictatorship to collapse entirely before an aid package is provided. Otherwise, Cuban leadership will continue to do what they have always done, live well off the international support they receive while the average Cuban suffers. If China, Russia or a landing party from Mars was going to swoop in and save the day, they would be doing that now.