Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guest
Episode Summary
This week on One Decision In Brief, hosts Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove unpack the latest shifts in diplomacy, notably U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's decision to cut 15% of the State Department's staff. They also analyze the significance of France's military capabilities amid rising global tensions, and what President Trump's latest tariff threats could mean for the future of the global economy.
Episode produced by Situation Room Studios. Original music composed and produced by Leo Sidran.
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
INTRODUCTION
Raffini: Hi, and welcome to One Decision in Brief. I'm Christina Raffini joined today, of course, by my co-host, Richard Dearlove. Today, we're going to be talking about the cuts at the US Department of State, France boosting its military spending, and what the tariff trade war from the US means for foreign policy. Let's take a listen. Sir Richard, how are you?
CUTS AT THE US STATE DEPARTMENT
Dearlove: I'm very well, Christina. How are you?
Raffini: Less fun here in DC this week. I think the big news was, first of all, these massive 15% cuts at the State Department. There were these really tearful scenes of, you know, people who've worked there their whole careers and just getting these notices. They kinda went out, you know, in tears and with tears, to be frank. I was checking on folks throughout the day, who were just, you know, devastated, and, obviously, they had their colleagues gathered in the lobby and kinda did a clap out as they were leaving. I just wanna discuss what your thoughts are on it, and then especially from an operability standpoint, how it impacts things like just what the US tries to do overseas, morale, intelligence gathering, any of that stuff.
Dearlove: Yeah. I mean, to do a cut that size in one go without asking for voluntary redundancies, which I guess they were not, is quite a big deal because, you know, it cuts your capability. And I'm sure there are lots of people in specific areas who have terrific expertise, like some of the aid programs. So I know a lot of those were cut, but there will be all sorts of specialty knowledge that they're gonna lose.
Raffini: And it's a brutal thing to do, particularly if you're getting rid of people who've worked there for, like, thirty years plus, twenty, thirty years. They also didn't do it based on individuals or talent. They just did it based on, okay, we're cutting this department. We're gonna keep two people. We'll keep the two people with the most seniority. So it wasn't very targeted. And, you know, like, one example is the Diplomatic Security Service, which is like the Secret Service for the State Department. When the Secretary of State gets off the plane, you see all these security guys. People always say it's his Secret Service. It's actually not. It's a different branch. Since I've covered that place for almost eight years now, they've had their own kind of communications office that can, you know, answer specific questions because they have a specific expertise. That entire department has been cut out. So it's like a lot of these civil service, kind of the middle management, the glue that keeps these offices together, this administration just doesn't have a lot of use for, and they're getting rid of them, and more and more it's just getting centralized under a few people.
Dearlove: Yeah, that's extraordinary. I think they'll probably discover in due course and pretty quickly that they've suddenly got holes that no one's filling. I mean, things like, you know, people who specialize in the security of embassies. Okay. You've got that program where you have marine guards and detachment stationed in embassies, but there's much more additional stuff to that. And I just wonder how seriously they take that. For example, I mean, embassies overseas particularly in hostile countries are always under threat from intelligence penetration. They're looking at all the staff. They're scrutinizing them. And people who understand all of that and brief the staff look after all that side of things. It's really complicated. So I'm pretty shocked to hear that some of that's been peeled away, probably by people who don't really understand the complexity of running some of these operations.
Raffini: And the other thing is that a lot of the people I've spoken to have said they cannot perform the function that I perform or my department performs with the amount of people they now have. So what a lot of them are doing are going to the private sector subcontractors and saying, hey, do you want to hire me? They're going to need somebody to do this, with the theory that they're then going to charge the US government more money to do the exact function they were doing before. So for all this cost cutting, saving measures, public private partnerships, it's probably gonna end up costing them more to do things like build embassies because they fired the person who was putting in the, you know, the duct system and the security system. You know, all that stuff is just gonna come back and end up costing them more money in the long run, I think.
Dearlove: I mean, you put your finger on something really important, which is the construction work which goes on inside embassies, which has to be done by secure contractors being flown out from the United States, then all the supplies have to be brought out especially because you don't want, you know, some guy trying to infiltrate microphones in if you buy your supplies locally. And that's even in countries which are reasonably, I wouldn't say friendly, but are not hostile. Let's put them in the middle. And, you know, that whole business of building safe speech rooms, all sorts of complicated things, having your right type of secure communications, maintaining all the machines.
Raffini: I mean, there's so many aspects that people don't understand about embassy life. These are the guys, like, shoveling coal into the engine to make sure the ship is moving forward while different administrations and different captains keep swapping out. And they've been really dismissive of this middle management group, and now they're just plain dismissing them. And I think it could be a problem, but we'll see.
Dearlove: I think it'll be problematic, and I think you're right. They'll be hired out as contractors and charge a hell of a lot more.
FRANCE BOOSTS MILITARY SPENDING
Raffini: And speaking of spending money, so France has announced that it's gonna really increase its military spending. It's gonna spend 7,600,000,000 over the next two years. Macron said, you have to be feared in this world, and to be feared, you have to be strong. France, of course, is the only country in the EU that has nuclear capabilities. And the announcement was made, as we were just talking about, on Bastille Day. What's your take on this? I think this seems like one of the few good things to come out of Trump's foreign policy is Europe's desire to take control of its own security, but I'm curious what your take is.
Dearlove: Well, it was inevitable, really. The French have actually been quite slow in upping their defense budget, particularly in response to what the Germans have done. So I think 7,500,000,000, which he announced, may take it eventually up somewhere near 5%. And, of course, he's just been on a state visit to London. Not much came out of that. But one important thing did come out, which was an agreement for the French and British nuclear programs to have a closer relationship because the UK's strategic nuclear capability has been oriented, of course, towards its American suppliers, but it means a new level of coordination with the French. And that's actually unprecedented in a way because the French have this concept, or they've always clung to it. I mean, all targets. But in practice, they are really a nuclear armed NATO member country. So they're coming to terms with reality in this so-called French independence is really being pushed to one side. So it's quite significant in terms of the theory and also the practice. So it's a big move. And, of course, the relationship with the UK is really important because the two primary defense powers in Europe until the Germans build up, which they're some distance from doing, it's France and the UK.
Raffini: What does it mean operationally tangentially? Like, what does it really mean that they're gonna work closer together? Is there anything specific that you expect to come out of that or just better coordination?
Dearlove: Well, I think there is. The UK is about to buy this version of the F-35, which can deliver tactical nuclear weapons, which is a big departure for British nuclear weapons policy because we've only had a strategic deterrent. The French already have their own short range, you know, the smaller weapons capability, which is aircraft delivered. So I think you can imagine that these tactical weapons, there's gonna be a degree of Anglo-French coordination, and then it may well be that there's some degree of integrated targeting when it comes to strategic capability, which, of course, is submarine carried for both countries. But actually, interestingly, the French, I was looking this up recently, I think have a slightly greater number of warheads than the UK does. Actually, I've always been a great believer in Anglo-French military cooperation. And having been responsible in my career for the intelligence capability and working closely with the French, who were great partners and with whom we had a very, very high level of trust. It's really returning almost to an earlier status quo because it used to be a bit like that. We were driven apart by Macron's rather absurd euro military ambitions, which I think he's quietly forgetting about now, and he's becoming more realistic and, as it were, the strategic defense of Europe. And if that's the case, then the obvious natural partner is the UK.
TRUMP'S TARIFF TRADE WARS
Raffini: I think we need to talk about the Trump tariff trade wars, which continue. Now we've announced a 50% tariff on Brazil, 36% on Thailand. Canada's still at 35. Mexico's at 30. It is just such an uncertain mess. I think one of the reasons is it's so uncertain that no one is really moving because they just don't know what to do. You know, Mexico has said they think there's still room for negotiation, so has Canada. What is your take here? And at some point, doesn't all this start to really impact other foreign policy objectives?
Dearlove: Well, of course it does. I mean, I just don't think people realize what the knock on effects might and could be as this reverberates through the global trading system. You know, I'm intrigued to see where he ends up, you know, negotiating with the EU. The EU are devils to negotiate with as we discovered, or they're very difficult. But, you know, Trump seems to have lost patience and said, 30%, having said that the tariffs would be lower. And I don't know whether you've read the text of the letter that he wrote to the EU. It's absolutely unbelievable. It's actually quite funny. And it's like an imperial order issued from Rome, you know, in the latter days of the Roman Empire. But, look, Trump's clearly not just prepared to pursue this quite far, but use it politically, like trying to get the Brazilians to drop the court case against Bolsonaro, which is, I think, a sort of fascinating side product of his tariff policy. And where he is with the Chinese, I just don't get. I mean, there has been this negotiation which actually took place in London. It would suggest that it was reasonably successful if they're down to 10%, but I don't think anything's sure. We're still throwing darts at the board. Come on. Let's face it. It's unresolved.
Raffini: But the other problem with them is if there were a cohesive strategy you know, China does cheat, right? And this has been a problem, and it has damaged the US economy. That's all valid arguments. But there has to be a back end strategy to this. You know, a factory is not just gonna appear in time to make up for that supply chain hole, and there is no other policy other than, as you said, let's throw some darts at the board. And that's what when I talk to economists, that's what they find really infuriating is this is not how you do this. Even if these are the goals you wanna achieve, this is just not the way to get it done.
Dearlove: Yeah. Well, take your Dooney and Bourke lovely handbags. They used to be manufactured in China, I believe. They're now manufactured in Vietnam. And, you know, there's a whole issue of how the tariff policy is going to work. I mean, I think Vietnam's on 30% at the moment. They're still negotiating.
Raffini: The other strangeness to this is if you are looking for folks to come up with an alternative to China, that's why a lot of businesses had moved to Vietnam. And when I covered the last Trump administration, I think Pompeo made maybe five or six visits there. I personally was on the plane where we went at least three times, and they were really courting Vietnam as both an economic alternative to China and a strategic military partner in the region. And it just seems so counterintuitive, especially since so many businesses tried to hedge their bet and move their operations to Vietnam that they're now struck with one of these higher tariffs when they've really not, that I'm aware of, done anything antagonistic towards the US to kind of merit this.
Dearlove: I mean, the one that I think puzzles all of us in the extreme, I mean, given the closeness of the two countries is Canada. My god. You know, what on earth are the Canadian I mean, what are the Canadians thinking at this point in time?
Raffini: I can tell you what they're thinking because I talked to them, both folks in government and outside. They're just really pissed off. I mean, it's kind of amusing almost to watch a Canadian get that angry because it takes a lot. But they just feel like they've been really good neighbors for a really long time. You know, they've had our backs in different conflicts, and they've we share so many air force and NORAD and NORTHCOM, you know, operations, and it's just baffling to them and really upsetting. So I mean, it'll be very, very interesting to see what happens to Trump in the midterms because is this damaging him politically or not?
Dearlove: There must be so many sort of sensible Americans who are scratching their heads wondering what the hell is going on.
Raffini: So, Richard, thank you so much for joining me. Great talking to you. As always, for more exclusive content and key discussions with global leaders, be sure to check out our website, 1decision.com, and of course, our YouTube. I'm Christina Raffini. We'll catch you next time.
