U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticized the idea of putting the global community ahead of national populations during an October 7 speech in Athens. He linked his argument to Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda and invoked ancient Greek ideals to defend national loyalty.
“It’s become fashionable today to believe that enlightened foreign policy means prioritizing the global community over one’s own people,” he said. The remark presents global responsibility as a competing priority. That framing deserves a challenge.
Caring about humanity is not a betrayal
Governments have particular responsibilities to the people they serve. They must provide public services, protect residents and remain accountable for their decisions. None of that requires treating concern for people elsewhere as a weakness.
The choice Rubio presents is too narrow. A government can improve life at home while cooperating internationally and respecting the lives of foreigners. It can defend its population without dismissing everyone outside its borders.
A person’s birthplace does not determine the value of their suffering. An American child and a child born elsewhere deserve the same moral concern, even when different governments bear responsibility for their care.
Shared problems demand shared responsibility
Consider a disease outbreak crossing borders, pollution moving through the atmosphere or violence forcing families to flee. A government cannot make these problems disappear simply by declaring its own population the priority.
Cooperation requires countries to accept obligations as well as benefits. Each must sometimes contribute resources to a solution whose gains reach beyond its territory. That is a practical response to a shared world.
Moreover, helping people elsewhere can protect people at home. The supposed conflict between national welfare and global solidarity often disappears when we examine how those interests connect.
National loyalty needs moral limits
Love for a community can inspire generosity, public service and democratic participation. However, loyalty becomes dangerous when leaders use it to excuse harms they would condemn if another country inflicted them.
The same standards should govern our judgment regardless of the flag involved. Torture, persecution and attacks on civilians do not become acceptable when they serve a preferred nation’s interests.
Political leaders should explain how their decisions protect people while meeting those standards. Invoking national loyalty cannot substitute for that explanation, and celebrating national power does not tell us whether its use is just.
Human rights belong to everyone
A humanist response begins with the person, including people who cannot vote in our elections or appeal to our patriotic loyalties. Their lives remain real. Their needs remain worthy of attention.
We do not have to abandon local responsibilities to recognize a global community. We need institutions that connect the two and leaders who can explain their relationship honestly. National borders organize political responsibility; they should never mark the boundary of human compassion.
