The Foreign Service Journal, April 2017

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | APRIL 2017 17 “The Problem Is Not…” C urtis Cutter has written a valu- able critique of the Journal , which is published in this issue.While we do not agree entirely with him, we are in complete accord with his appeal for the publication in the Jour- nal of more articles on major foreign policy questions. …The Journal is also prepared to publish commentary on current foreign policy. . In fact, our policy toward China was recently critically appraised in the pages of the Journal . To our disappointment, we could not find in the department or even among retired officers, including some of the most vocal champions of the policy, anyone willing to write a countering argument. In regard to professionalism, a subject which Mr. Cutter is quite right to suggest is not sufficiently treated in our pages, we did recently pub- lish a very deft surgical job on some aspects of the conduct of American foreign relations in the Dominican Republic. This piece, written by one of our most distin- guished retired officers, went to the very heart of the professional problems faced by an American ambassador. …To date, no other officer in our profession has written any amplification or rebuttal for our pages. … The problem is not with the inten- tions of the members of the Journal Board. The problem is with the membership which rarely ventures to write anything particularly serious about foreign policy or on the more controversial aspects of the conduct of diplomacy abroad. —Excerpted from the lead editorial of the same title in the April 1967, FSJ . 50 Years Ago rules everything, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs knows nothing.” Others argue that the “chaos” at the department is already affecting foreign policy, making it more difficult to remain tough on Iran, for example, and advance religious freedom around the globe, The Daily Caller reported. Carol Morello and Anne Gearan of The Washington Post suggested that State has been sidelined. After the White House reportedly vetoed Tillerson’s choice of Elliott Abrams for deputy secretary (D), this number two position at State has yet to be filled (and the second D position has been eliminated). Including ambassadorial posts, there are more than 200 vacancies at the depart- ment, according to staffers for Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Concern has been echoed in the media across the country. “As we write, there is no deputy secretary of state and only one of the six under secretaries of state is in place,” retired FSO John M. Koenig and former State Department official Carol Kessler wrote in The Seattle Times . “To have a coherent and effective foreign policy, senior positions, including assistant secretaries and ambassadors, should be filled as soon as possible. Appointees should be selected on the basis of their qualifications, not their political connections.” As for Tillerson, himself, some say the Secretary of State’s low profile is deliberate: “Tillerson may be playing a long game,” wrote Politico ’s Nahal Toosi on March 6. “Considering how erratic the president himself can be on certain foreign policy topics, Tillerson may deem it safer not to say things in public that might end up contradicting his boss and further confusing foreign capitals carefully watching for infighting in the administration.” “I’m rooting for him,” one State Depart- ment official told Toosi, noting that the people who remain the most zen about the situation are those who have served in multiple administrations. “Colleagues who have briefed him are impressed. They find him thoughtful, inquisitive and profes- sional,” the official added. Toosi said that while many State staffers expected a restructuring—indeed, in his welcome address at the department Sec. Tillerson had promised change: “we can’t sustain ineffective traditions over optimal outcomes”—the size of the proposed cuts was “a gut punch.” Tillerson has agreed in principle to the cuts, the Associated Press reported, but wants to spread themout over three years to soften the impact and, according to State’s press division, has beenmaking his influence felt behind the scenes. What all of this means for U.S. foreign policy and national security remains to be seen. “There’s no question this is the slowest transition in decades,” R. Nicho- las Burns, a retired FSO and former State Department official told The New York Times onMarch 12. Burns added: “It is a very, very big mistake. The world contin- ues—it doesn’t respect transitions.” —The Editors