Views on Russia and climate leave reservations about Rex
Rex Tillerson has much to commend him as his nomination to become secretary of State comes up for a vote today in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Tillerson displayed considerable achievement by rising to become chief executive officer of ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest and most successful companies. He knows leaders around the globe.
He has the backing of some well-respected foreign policy experts; on Sunday, he picked up important support from Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. And Tillerson, 64, was a better choice than the bombastic John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani, who Donald Trump also considered for State.
Yet there are also several reasons for reservations about Trump’s choice for one of the most important national security posts. Like Trump, Tillerson is a wealthy businessman who never served a day in government. If confirmed, he would be tasked with navigating the U.S. through treacherous foreign policy shoals, which requires different skills than negotiating oil deals.
Tillerson’s rocky, day-long testimony before the Foreign Relations panel revealed causes for concern. In his opening remarks, Tillerson endorsed a U.S. foreign policy emphasizing moral leadership. But during the question- and-answer sessions, he repeatedly expressed caution when it came to criticizing some of the world’s most flagrant examples of human rights violations.
He declined comment about the thousands slaughtered in Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte’s ruthless war on drugs, and when asked Russia’s merciless bombing of civilians in Syria, Tillerson managed only an understated “that is not acceptable behavior.” His muted response on Russia was especially disconcerting because of concerns about Tillerson’s close ties to Moscow and Trump’s obsequiousness toward President Vladimir Putin.
By comparison, Tillerson was alarmingly hawkish about China’s occupation of disputed reefs in the South China Sea . A firmer response to China’s actions is appropriate, but he advocated sending China “a clear signal that first, the island building stops, and second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.” Tillerson’s response sounded very much like fighting words, not someone who wants to be the nation’s chief diplomat.
Perhaps most troubling was how Tilllerson seemed to walk back his widely publicized concerns about global warming, views many thought would be important in a Trump cabinet with with so many climate-change skeptics. The former fossil-fuel executive disagreed that climate change is a major national security risk and failed to offer strong support for the Paris Agreement to limit carbon emissions.
To his credit, Tillerson did draw some important distinctions with Trump, supporting the NATO alliance (which Trump has suggested is obsolete) and favoring a Pacific trade agreement that the new president opposes.
In fact, if Tillerson is confirmed, as appears likely, his true test is likely to be his ability to push back simultaneously against foreign adversaries and the illconsidered foreign policy demands of his erratic boss.