Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Who handles American foreign relations?
The question has been answered and discussed in terms of the Executive and the Congress in several recent books. We shall attempt here to answer the question in terms of the people who occupy the higher, or policy-making, positions in the Department of State and Foreign Service. Biographical data is published for individuals in this group in the Biographic Register of the Department of State and its supplements.
This type of “Who's Who” sketch is limited, of course, to the bare skeletons of men's lives and is worthless as a test of faith and gumption. One of the tragedies, indeed, in the public service since the loyalty program began in 1947 is the fact that loyalty and security risk cannot be proved by social analysis in a time when loyalty and safeness in matters of security are the great questions that overshadow other concerns in any consideration of public personnel. Of the main reasons for finding an employee a poor security risk—wrong political association, bad character, sexual deviation, excessive drinking, or talking too much—none can be measured by any objective standard. Guilt is a matter of degree, and the degree is a matter of opinion among security officers and others who are urged by their climate to be as suspicious as possible.
1 For review articles dealing with the recent literature in this field see Macmahon, Arthur W., “The Administration of Foreign Affairs,” this Review, Vol. 45, pp. 836–66 (Sept., 1951)Google Scholar; Dangerfield, Royden, “Studies in the Administration of United States Foreign Affairs,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 40, pp. 275–82 (Autumn, 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Two important books that have appeared since these review articles were written are ProfessorMacmahon's, Administration in Foreign Affairs (University, Ala., 1953)Google Scholar; and Elliot, William Yandell, United States Foreign Policy, Its Organization and Control (New York, 1952)Google Scholar.
2 An analysis similar to the one to follow appears in McCamy, James L., The Administration of American Foreign Affairs (New York, 1950)Google Scholar, chs. 4 and 8, based upon data of 1948. The main differences between the present study and the earlier one are: (a) The new data are for April, 1952; (b) the new analysis of the Foreign Service covers all Foreign Service Officers and Reserve and all higher officials of the Foreign Service Staff, while the earlier study was based upon a sample of one-third of Foreign Service Officers only. The Foreign Service Staff and Reserve, created by the Foreign Service Act of 1946, were not sufficiently settled in 1948 to permit fruitful analysis.
The work was supported by a grant from the Research Committee of the Graduate School, University of Wisconsin.
3 The groups of the Foreign Service were established in the Foreign Service Act of 1946, Public Law 724, Chap. 957, 79th Cong., 2nd sess.
4 Smuckler, Ralph, “The Region of Isolationism,” this Review, Vol. 47, pp. 386–401 (June, 1953)Google Scholar. While the nation is not divided as neatly as most conversation has it, Professor Smuckler does find that according to votes in Congress the North Central region is more isolationist than other regions. See also Grassmuck, George L., Sectional Biases in Congress on Foreign Policy (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, Vol. 78, 1951)Google Scholar.
5 U. S. Office of Education, Biennial Survey of Education, 1937–38 (Washington, G.P.O. 1940)Google Scholar.
6 The United States is one of the few nations that still separates its “foreign office” personnel from its foreign service. Surveyors in recent years, the Hoover Commission, the Rowe Committee, the Wriston Committee, have recommended a merger. By the time this appears, a merger may have been started. On the other hand, it may not. Much can happen, as it has happened, between the issuance of a report with recommendations and the final outcome. For the recommendations, see Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, Foreign Affairs, A Report to the Congress (Washington, G.P.O., Feb., 1949), pp. 61–68Google Scholar; Rowe, James H. et al. , An Improved Personnel System for the Conduct of Foreign Affairs (Washington, Dept. of State, 1950)Google Scholar; U.S. Dept. of State Publication 5458, Toward A Stronger Foreign Service (Washington, G.P.O., June, 1954), pp. 25–35Google Scholar.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.