Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume I, Foundations of Foreign Policy

42. Briefing Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs (Dyess) to Secretary of State Haig¹

Washington, March 25, 1981

SUBJECT

• Print Media Commentary on “Inconsistencies” in U.S. Foreign Policy

SUMMARY. We have seen about sixteen news stories and columns, the earliest dated 2/12, alluding to alleged inconsistencies in foreign policy. The stories deal with diverse issues (Poland, foreign aid, neutron warhead, Chile, negotiations with the Soviets, El Salvador), but focus on this common set of concerns:

— A basic foreign policy framework (other than opposition to the Soviets) has yet to be formulated;

— Senior officials are making conflicting policy statements;

— The administration is having to adjust its campaign rhetoric to foreign policy realities. END SUMMARY.

Lack of Foreign Policy Framework. Hedrick Smith, writing in the New York Times, contended that a succession of seemingly official statements followed by disavowals indicate: “the Reagan foreign policy team has still not worked out an overall policy framework or conceptualized the intellectual underpinnings of its daily action” (3/20).²

Proclamations Precede Policy. Daniel Southerland wrote in the Christian Science Monitor that administration officials, who promised a more forceful foreign policy, “are sometimes sounding forceful in public before reaching unified, carefully considered positions on the specifics” (2/12).³ Anthony Lewis wrote, “the line toward the Soviet Union has been a case of talk first, think later. Reagan and Haig began by calling the Communists liars and criminals. When Brezhnev suggested a summit meeting, they did not know how to reply” (New York Times, 3/15).⁴

Mixed Signals From the Administration. Roland Flamini, writing from Bonn in the Washington Star, said the West Germans viewed the neutron bomb story and the Richard Pipes interview⁵ as indicating an internal divergence of views within the administration. He claimed this dispute “is the main reason why a U.S. foreign policy has been slow in emerging” (Washington Star, 3/21). ABC’s Barrie Dunsmore suggested that U.S. foreign policy is shaping up slowly because of internal rivalry over power (Evening News, 3/22).

Campaign Promises and Foreign Policy Realities. Philip Geyelin wrote in the Washington Post, “Some part of the problem has to be that the administration’s top figures hit the ground still running for President, so to speak . . . Meantime, there is one thing to be said for the Reagan vacillation: The second-thought zags have in every instance been an improvement over the zigs” (3/20).⁶ Daniel Southerland in the Christian Science Monitor: “The administration is having to adjust its tough-sounding campaign rhetoric to foreign policy rhetoric to foreign policy realities” (3/21).⁷

Western Allies Counsel Patience over U.S. “Zig-zags.” In an article in the New York Times, datelined Paris, Richard Elder wrote: “Among the three major allies, at least, the inclination is to allow Washington the luxury of a certain incoherence in enunciating itself. For the present, these are taken less as signs of uncertainty or serious division than as a commendable process of cogitation before making difficult decisions” (3/23).⁸

An editorial in the London Sunday Telegraph commented: “The hand of Alexander Haig . . . is the hand of a pragmatist, seeking to achieve what is prudent and possible in a programme launched with much vague rhetoric. If he can succeed in establishing his authority and set up the same meeting of minds that Dr. Kissinger finally enjoyed with President Nixon, then American foreign policy can settle down on a coherent course” (3/22).

1. Source: Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, P810075–0791. No classification marking. Drafted by Vivian Gillespie (PA/OAP) on March 23. An unknown hand wrote “OBE” in the top right-hand corner of the memorandum. Copies of the newspaper clippings were not found attached.
2. Reference is to Hedrick Smith, “Discordant Voices: A Rash of Opposing Statements Bring Reagan Foreign Policies Into Question,” New York Times, March 20, 1981, p. A2. The full quotation reads: “Privately some Administration officials acknowledge that the Reagan foreign policy team has still not worked out an overall policy framework or conceptualized the intellectual underpinnings of its daily actions. ‘Aside from opposing the Soviets, we don’t really have a foreign policy,’ said one experienced diplomat. ‘All this is such a change that people are disoriented,’ said another career diplomat. ‘There’s a lot of confusion inside the Government.’”
3. Reference is to Daniel Southerland, “Is there a ‘consistency gap’ in Reagan foreign policy?” Christian Science Monitor, February 12, 1981, p. 4. The full quotation reads: “The administration is having to adjust its tough-sounding campaign rhetoric to foreign policy realities. Its officials came in promising a more forceful foreign policy and they are sometimes sounding forceful in public before reaching unified, carefully considered positions on the specifics.”
4. Reference is to Anthony Lewis, “Abroad at Home: Deifying The Vicar,” New York Times, March 15, 1981, p. E19. Lewis’s use of the word “Vicar” in the title is in reference to George Church’s article entitled, “Alexander Haig: The Vicar Takes Charge,” printed in the March 16 issue of TIME magazine. Church ostensibly based the title on Haig’s use of the word “vicar” to describe his role as Secretary, made during his January 28 news conference (see Document 23.) Lewis’s reference to Brezhnev is to Brezhnev’s February 23 address; see footnote 3, Document 30.
5. See footnote 3, Document 38.
6. Reference is to Philip Geyelin, “Zigzagging Through Foreign Policy,” Washington Post, March 20, 1981, p. A23. The full quotation reads: “So some part of the problem has to be that the administration’s top figures hit the ground still running for president, so to speak, still faithful to every jot and tittle of the Reagan line. Some part of it has also to do with the president himself. Left to his own devices (in the interview with Walter Cronkite [see Document 33]) he betrays a sort of fierce fidelity to a lot of his much earlier thinking, without much recognition of what may be new and different about today’s Cold War. And some part of it has to do with a sort of ‘scorched-earth’ approach by long-frustrated conservatives finally come to power and determined to erase every fingerprint of the recent past: the Law of the Sea, the Carter refusal to upgrade Saudi Arabia F15s and—above all—human rights. There remains that part of the zigzagging that has to do with getting organized; the system, quite obviously, is not firmly in place. Meantime, there is one thing to be said for the Reagan vacillation: The second-thought zags have in every instance been an improvement over the zigs.”
7. The date of the article referenced here is in error; this sentence appears in Southerland’s February 12 article (see footnote 3, above).
8. Reference is to Richard Eder, “As U.S. Works Out Policies, Europe Waits Patiently,” New York Times, March 23, 1981, p. A3. The full quotation reads: “Among the three major allies, at least, the inclination is to allow Washington both time and the luxury of a certain incoherence in enunciating itself. For the present, these are taken less as signs of uncertainty or serious division than as a commendable process of cogitation before making difficult decisions.”