Whatever the political system, ancient or modern, tyrannical or democratic, totalitarian or military, diplomacy is by nature centralized and bureaucratized. Diplomacy is no longer, if it ever was, merely the foreign affairs arm of the state, nor are diplomats, for that matter, makers of foreign policy.
In the age of the masses, of rapid communication, the policymaking of foreign affairs in the United States was centralized authoritatively in the office of the president. The president has officially appointed secretaries of state, defense, treasury, commerce, and the director of Central Intelligence, as well as a National Security Council, to advise him on foreign affairs.
Today, the formulating and making of foreign policy is no longer the exclusive territory of the president, the cabinet, the government, or the appointed officers and civil servants of government. Foreign affairs is also made by Congress, not only in its function of advice and consent to the president, but also through its investigative authority and the role its members play individually in their input in foreign relations.
Although legally and constitutionally the president is primus inter pares in the making of foreign policy, and it is the constitutional duty and function of Congress to advise him, the media, private individuals, groups, special interests, and lobbies can intervene and even change the course of foreign policy to an agenda different from that of the president and even that of Congress.
The president's policy, whether carried out by one cabinet officer or another, by professional diplomats or specially designated emissaries, is nevertheless the institutionally authoritative and legitimate source of U.S. foreign policy. But can foreign policy also be the legitimate concern of non-professional, nonofficial individuals?
Partisan intervention
Private, but official, emissaries so designated by the president can indeed be the legitimate representatives of a president's foreign policy. In fact, many presidents have relied heavily on private emissaries in the conduct of foreign affairs. Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt did not trust their foreign affairs bureaucracies and used emissaries like Colonel House, Harry Hopkins, Averell Harriman, Gen. Patrick Hurley, and others to circumvent the bureaucracies of the State Department and the diplomatic corps. Some presidents prefer the private style in the conduct of diplomacy, or the use of special diplomats such as Ellsworth Bunker and Philip Habib, to use recent examples. Private emissaries are still in the realm of legitimacy since they reflect the president's viewpoint in matters of foreign affairs and policy.
Congressional, private, or partisan political intervention in the conduct of foreign affairs and the making of foreign policy is not unconstitutional, especially if authorized by the president, but it can certainly drift into questionable areas. Often individual efforts are made to actively influence foreign policy and foreign affairs, sometimes counter to the policy of the president. In cases like these, the motives of the particular individual must be determined.
Private intervention in
...
Read Full Article
|
