This Job Calls for More Than Just a ‘Temp’ : State Dept. needs a permanent leader to fill Baker’s shoes

The question no longer seems to be whether Secretary of State James A. Baker III will move to the White House to take command of President Bush’s lagging reelection campaign, but when.

The expectation is that the shift will come by mid-August, after Bush and Baker meet with Israel’s visiting Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The timing of the changeover is politically important. The meeting with Rabin is scheduled for the presidential retreat at Camp David--to which only selected foreign leaders are honored with an invitation--and there Bush almost certainly will announce his approval of loan guarantees to Israel for immigrant absorption. In both setting and circumstance, the meeting intends to send the message that with a new and more moderate Israeli government in place, the long chill in U.S.-Israel relations is over.

It would also, at the same time, remind people that Bush and Baker have been responsible for reviving the dormant Middle East peace talks, no mean foreign policy achievement given the regional apathy and even opposition to the peace process that exists. It is an accomplishment the President can point to with pride in this election year.

But it isn’t the fact of Baker’s departure from the State Department but the manner of his going that is now a subject of speculation. He is known to deeply enjoy serving as secretary of state. He has made a commendable record, for the most part deftly guiding U.S. foreign policy over the last 3 1/2 years through a period of rapid and turbulent global change. Undoubtedly, if the November election produces a second Bush Administration, Baker would be more than willing to return to his diplomatic duties. For that reason some in Washington think he would like to take only a leave of absence rather than resign. That would be a mistake.

It would be a mistake first of all because foreign policy can’t be put on hold for three months or more because its top manager is occupied with other matters. The department needs a leader, not a caretaker, whose voice is respected within the government and carries authority in the world at large. Too much is happening or pending--in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East, Russia--to permit a void or indecision in policy-making or in crisis management.

A leave of absence by Baker would also be a mistake because it remains important, to the greatest possible extent, to keep any signs of overt partisanship out of a foreign policy that is committed to serving national, not party, interests. No one suggested that Baker would politicize foreign policy when he went from being Bush’s campaign manager in 1988 to heading the State Department in 1989. But appearances would be different if he only temporarily left the department in 1992 to run a reelection campaign and then returned to run the department.

Far better for Baker to resign and for Bush promptly to name a permanent replacement, whether the veteran and respected deputy secretary Lawrence S. Eagleburger or someone of similar talents. Foreign policy takes no hiatus during the U.S. election season. Someone must be--and must be seen to be--authoritatively and clearly in charge.