[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   CONCERNING THE SECRETARY OF STATE

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to address an article 
that appears in the May 30, 1994 issue of Time. The article speculates 
on who the successor to Secretary of State Warren Christopher might be 
should he leave office. First among the names mentioned, is one that 
has been mentioned before, Strobe Talbott. If Mr. Christopher's 
departure is imminent and President Clinton is contemplating Deputy 
Secretary of State Talbott's nomination for the position, I offer only 
one admonition: Don't.
  Mr. President, I ask that the article from Time, be included in the 
Record following my remarks.
  The article follows:

                       Is It Time for Him to Go?

                          (by Michael Kramer)

       Earl Weaver, the former Baltimore Orioles manager, was 
     famous for an off-color vocabulary even a Hell's Angel might 
     envy. When he was particularly upset with an unfavorable 
     call, however, Weaver would stow the four-letter words and 
     calmly ask the offending umpire, ``Are you going to get any 
     better, or is this it?'' The same question (and the identical 
     implied answer) could be asked of Bill Clinton when it comes 
     to the President's feeble and often feckless foreign policy. 
     In fact, experts have been asking it for months, but ``it's 
     getting heavy now,'' concedes a senior Administration 
     official. ``All the polls show it. Real people are getting 
     real nervous. The perception of ineptitude is growing. The 
     public doesn't like foreigners' thinking the President is out 
     of his depth. Americans don't like being embarrassed. It's 
     hurting the President's overall job-approval ratings, and 
     it'll continue hurting unless something's done about it.''
       But what? How about a sacrifice? Unlike baseball managers, 
     Presidents can't be fired until the next election. In 
     politics, it's the appointed players who go. Soon that player 
     may be Warren Christopher. Friends and associates of the 
     Secretary of State are quietly discussing his possible 
     departure, hints of which can be found in last week's 
     statements from the Middle East. During Christopher's latest 
     diplomatic shuttle between Israel and Syria, the guarded 
     descriptions of progress contained a caveat. Both Jerusalem 
     and Damascus, U.S. officials said, want Christopher even more 
     involved as the ``honest broker'' in their negotiations. 
     ``Now, what if that's ratchetted up?'' asks a Clinton 
     adviser. ``What if a comprehensive peace is seen to require 
     Chris' full-time attention and he becomes our special Middle 
     East envoy? Or maybe he can get some declaration of 
     principles signed and just walk off. Either way, he could 
     save face and claim a legacy, right?''
       As trial balloons go, this one has more air than most. But 
     who would replace Christopher? Five people are mentioned by 
     those familiar with the Administration's desire to project a 
     new certitude abroad. From among the current insiders are 
     Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, an intellectually 
     gifted friend of the President's; and National Security 
     Adviser Tony Lake, who appears to have the greatest day-to-
     day influence on Clinton when the subject is foreign affairs. 
     The question, though, is whether anyone from the present 
     roster would be seen as a credible ``agent of change,'' to 
     borrow a favorite Clinton phrase. Leading the list of new-
     blood types from outside the inner circle:
       Lee Hamilton. Despite his reputation as a dispassionate 
     analyst, the House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman has at 
     times blasted Clinton's weak performance abroad. On Haiti, 
     for example: ``We don't know what the policy is, but we know 
     what kind of underwear [Clinton] wears.'' Cracks like that 
     one can't endear him to the President. But Hamilton ``would 
     bring some professionalism to the amateur hour around here,'' 
     says a State Department official. ``If we'd changed our 
     refugee policy on Lee's watch, you can bet there would have 
     been some interim way of dealing with the Haitian boat people 
     before we got the new procedures in place. We wouldn't be 
     turning people back and looking ridiculous. After all, the 
     reason for our change is that those we've sent back so far 
     are being brutalized when they're returned.''
       Walter Mondale. The former Vice President and current U.S. 
     ambassador to Japan is a cool, straight-talking pol. During 
     his losing race against Ronald Reagan in 1984, Mondale 
     resisted promising what he knew or suspected he couldn't 
     deliver. Clinton needs to learn what Mondale seems to know 
     instinctively: disaster haunts those whose rhetoric doesn't 
     match reality. On North Korea, a Mondale-inspired policy 
     would probably avoid any further ``public blue-skying about 
     U.S. options,'' says Leslie Gelb, president of the Council on 
     Foreign Relations. ``What's needed there now is a forthright 
     expression of our goal--the denuclearization of the Korean 
     peninsula; an articulated willingness to trade improved 
     relations and economic assistance as the means to get the 
     North to play ball; a sternly delivered reminder that we 
     stand by our pledge to defend the South--with the specifics 
     left purposely vague; and then an intense but completely 
     private diplomacy.'' For tasks like those, Mondale fills the 
     bill. He is exceptionally well disciplined and has the 
     standing to ensure that everyone reads from the same script--
     and shuts up when told to.
       Colin Powell. The former Joint Chiefs chairman is a long 
     shot, but he would bring instant credibility and remove a 
     possible 1996 rival to the President. Powell is as risk-
     averse to military adventures as Clinton is, but that could 
     be a strength. Given his background and especially his 
     command of Desert Storm, Powell alone may possess the stature 
     necessary to make diplomacy work when the President's primary 
     objective is to avoid the use of force.
       A shift at State may be clever and helpful, but in 
     diplomacy as well as in baseball, it's the manager who sets 
     the tone. The players can make the President look good, but 
     only if he sets the goals and pursues them resolutely. If he 
     doesn't, the losses, both real and perceived, will mount. 
     Before long, that weakness could spark a crisis that dwarfs 
     Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti--a crisis that the evidence so far 
     indicates Clinton would bungle miserably.

                          ____________________