The President and the Secretary of State
Reviews the relationship between these US offices, with particular reference to Reagan's presidency, and the vicissitudes of his secretaries. Calls for the restoration of mutual respect between the White House and the State Department, and puts forward some principles and practices on which this could be based. Concludes that "what matters is whose advice, written or unwritten, the president ultimately values the most on any given issue".
Theodore C. Sorensen, Special Counsel to President John F. Kennedy, practices international law in New York City. His latest book, co-authored with Ralf Dahrendorf, is A Widening Atlantic? Domestic Change & Foreign Policy.
The next president, regardless of party, must restore mutual respect between the White House and Department of State.
Although the Iran-contra hearings focused on the executive-legislative imbalance, they also revealed a pattern of White House disdain for the Department of State so pervasive that Secretary George Shultz’s own blunt testimony, while preserving his personal reputation, confirmed his department’s emasculation. Never informed by the president of key foreign policy decisions, deliberately deceived by what senators termed a White House "junta" utilizing "rather shady characters" to carry out U.S. foreign policy, the secretary testified to "a sense of estrangement," of not being "in good odor" with the White House staff.
This was no attack of Foggy Bottom paranoia. National Security Adviser John Poindexter had placed the State Department on the list of those "who didn’t need to know" certain overseas actions. His assistant, Oliver North, gave the department the code name "Wimp." Poindexter’s predecessor Robert McFarlane once said North should be secretary of state. Both McFarlane and Poindexter traveled secretly abroad without informing the department. Still other White House aides vetoed Shultz’s trips and suggested anonymously to the press that he resign.
II
Although the House and Senate committees investigating the Iran-contra affair were assured that new personnel and procedures would halt such conflicts, this was neither the first nor the last time Mr. Shultz was shut out or shot down by the White House. Nor was he the first secretary of state to encounter this treatment.
Indeed, his appointment followed Reagan’s "acceptance" of a resignation frequently threatened, but never tendered, by Alexander Haig. Despite repeated presidential assurances that "you are my foreign policy guy," Secretary Haig found his policy pronouncements publicly disputed by White House assistants (who reciprocated his ill will), his procedural requests unanswered, and his authority over personnel and crisis management—even his place on Air Force One and in presidential receiving lines—downgraded. Like Shultz, Haig at one point felt obliged to acknowledge that he could not speak for the Administration.
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Those who serve in government, especially when under attack, are likely to be conscious--somewhat defensively perhaps--of the spirit of the old Spanish proverb: "It is not the same to talk of bulls, as to be in the bullring." The memory of that sentiment has had some bearing on my observations from the safe distance of private life. It has commended a focus on institutional problems--those that transcend partisanship.
Reagan's foreign policy is not statecraft, but stagecraft. Irangate has shown this, having shaken Reagan's authority, and made a nonsense of his anti-terrorism policy. But this does not mean that he has doomed himself to two years of reactive, defensive, unproductive foreign policy, because his unworldly views, and the cosseting courtiers who take his wishes as commands, may change.
If the USA is to sustain its role in the world, it needs a bipartisan foreign policy. "There is a strategic opportunity for a significant improvement in Soviet-American relations", while NATO needs redefinition as a guard against utopianism and in the light of economic integration in Europe. Also notes the US budget problem and relations with Japan and China. In the Middle East, supports guaranteed Israeli and Palestine states. Reviews pan-American issues. In general calls for "more selective and collaborative strategies based on new realities". Former US secretaries of state. The footnotes indicate the points on which the authors disagree, viz (1) the future of SDI (2) directions of arms control in the future (3) the value of an international conference on the Middle East.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.