New York, July 21—George Shultz the public servant is well known. George Shultz the foreign-policy architect, less so. And any effort to decoct from the dismissal of Alexander Haig exactly what it was about his own foreign-policy recommendations that Mr. Reagan found unacceptable is difficult. Although there have been references to Haig’s disagreements with the White House on how hard to oppose Begin’s Lebanese incursion, to use a useful word of yesteryear, or on whether it was wise to slow down the construction of the Siberian gas pipeline, most of the copy expended on his departure has dwelt on personality problems. About this, Al Haig shouldn’t really worry. In the long run, to have a strong personality is not in itself disqualifying. But a strong personality goes best with authority. De Gaulle’s strong personality kept him out of power for a dozen years. But once in power, what would Gaullism have been without the strong personality of its leader?
In short, we have arrived at a moment when a studied reformulation of foreign policy would be most helpful. If that word strikes the White House as too severe, then use the gentler word: a studied reiteration of foreign policy. Because it is unquestionably true that much that has happened has not appeared coherent. Lunching with William Safire the day before he was ousted, Al Haig confessed that he thought the decision a year ago by Reagan to cancel our agricultural boycott of the Soviet Union a grievous error, the ripple effect of which has been the furious resentment of the Europeans over our subsequent restrictions on the gas pipeline. So that what is needed during the next few weeks in particular, when George Shultz’s foreign policy reifies, is the assertion of a U.S. foreign policy distinctively American. This does not mean a foreign policy that relies any the less on our allies. But a foreign policy that states exactly what it is that the United States seeks on behalf of itself. A few suggested planks:
Comments