What awaits the US State Department after Rex Tillerson?

According to Reuters, there seems to be no doubt that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is now a figure "in the crosshairs" of US President Donald Trump, although Mr. Trump may still deny this.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. (Source: THX/TTXVN)

Last month, there was speculation that Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, would soon replace Tillerson. Last week, a series of news reports signaled the end of the career of Tillerson, who has not denied calling Trump a “moron.”

In response to these rumors, Mr. Trump immediately responded on Twitter by writing "Fake News," and affirmed that Tillerson would not leave his position despite disagreements between the two on a number of issues.

Mr Trump may be sincere, or he may be trying to “buy time” to avoid the possibility of holding a controversial hearing on a new candidate for US Secretary of State at an inopportune time for an administration that is struggling to deal with allegations of Russian interference in the US election in Mr Trump’s favor.

But whether Tillerson leaves sooner or later, it is important to look at what lies ahead for the State Department. It is unclear whether CIA Director Mike Pompeo will take over Tillerson’s position.

Meanwhile, the political appointments in Washington are now akin to those of a weak president. Many of the previously appointed and pending appointments are no longer interested in jobs that could see them removed from office after a while. This makes it difficult for Pompeo to fill the vacancies in the State Department.

Meanwhile, Pompeo's time in the CIA was too short for him to win over loyal staff (to follow him to work at the State Department), and most of the staff at the CIA headquarters in Langley considered the State Department job a form of "demotion."

There is also a cultural issue at play. Pompeo’s hard-line stance at the CIA has led to him acting in a domineering manner toward many CIA officials, leading them to question whether the director can overcome cultural differences and make good decisions.

So it’s easy to see how Pompeo’s tough stance would hurt the State Department, which has a culture of ambiguous “what ifs” and “maybes.” Pompeo also caught Trump’s eye in part because of his tough stance on Iran.

Within the State Department, the Iran nuclear deal is seen as one of the institution’s most important successes. Pompeo is a conservative, and the State Department has always been home to the most “liberal” voices. Despite Tillerson’s lack of ability, he has been on the same page as the department, pushing for dialogue with North Korea and supporting the Iran nuclear deal. Pompeo, meanwhile, has opposed both.

Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Mike Pompeo. (Source: Getty)

But whether Tillerson is replaced by Pompeo or someone else, the fundamentals of the transition remain the same.

The State Department is a foreign institution, half staffed by Americans and half by foreign officials. This unique dynamic between civil servants (non-diplomats, including support staff based in Washington, D.C.) and foreign service officers (who are primarily responsible for policy in Washington and staff embassies and consulates abroad) complicates the transition to secretary of state.

Reconciling these two forces, which have different interests, can be a difficult task. Unlike the military, where internal orders and procedures are written down in regulations, the State Department is a looser structure. The question is whether the State Department is a top-down bureaucracy. Mr. Tillerson’s failure was largely a failure to appreciate this. The traditional way to get into the department is for the secretary to fill key positions with political appointees who will make up the ranks of the agency. But Mr. Tillerson has left too many positions vacant for too long, leaving him without a single ally in the department to lend a hand when times get tough.

In addition to streamlining the department’s organization, the new secretaries will be tasked with setting a broader goal for the department. The State Department has no original primary goal. Under one administration, it focused on arms control, while under another it focused on rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. More recently, it has focused on “soft power.” Tillerson, meanwhile, has never outlined a grand goal beyond superficial thoughts about reforming the agency’s structure.

After talking to former State Department officials, the author suggests that Tillerson’s successor will face an atmosphere at the department that is reminiscent of a pet shelter: weak figures who fear the arrival of new people, those who have left but are still on the books to collect their pensions, and the majority who remain in a wait-and-see mode. But it is worth noting that some figures feel empowered and believe they have the power to “take down” any weak secretary, and they will do the same to the new secretary.

Ultimately, these inconsistencies are not really about who will be the new secretary but who will be the president. Those who are upset with Tillerson are using him as a stand-in for Trump. The White House remains the primary agency for foreign policy, but it has no love for its own foreign policy establishment. Trump has agreed to drastically cut the State Department budget, and many believe that the many unfilled positions at the department are an attempt by Trump to rein in the department. Trump himself has said that foreign policy is not about serving anyone but his interests.

One commentator said that the State Department is an institution that President Trump does not respect, does not appreciate, or does not understand. While Tillerson has different views from Trump on North Korea and Iran, Pompeo is a hawk and loyal to Trump. If Trump really wants to destroy the State Department, it is difficult to imagine anyone better able to carry out his wishes than Pompeo./.

According to Vietnam+