#1956347 IADES - 2022 - Diplomata (Terceiro Secretário)

“Certain broader conditions must also be borne in mind when one considers the future of foreign service work. Among the most significant has been the extreme fragmentation of American policy-making and diplomacy in recent years.

Effective diplomacy in the traditional European sense, up through the French Revolution and even later, rested on the assumption that the diplomat, in speaking to the government to which he was accredited, was speaking for the supreme source of power in his own country and would be backed up by its authority in anything he undertook to say in its name. This in turn rested on the assumption that some single coherent and responsible center of power—a crowned head, a president, or an allpowerful prime minister—in the diplomat's own country was in a position to compel the country's other authorities to play their part in meeting any commitments made through the diplomatic process. This principle, known in German speaking countries as das Primat der Aussenpolitik (the precedence of foreign policy), was seen by monarchs and prime ministers of earlier ages as a sine qua non of successful diplomacy.

Application of this principle to a democratic society would always present difficulties, since it is plainly incompatible with the diffusion of authority that democratic rule usually requires. The incompatibility was bound to be particularly acute for the United States, where
the diffusion of political power is extensive even in comparison with other democracies. For example, because of the constitutional requirement that treaties be ratified by the Senate, the chief executive has never been able to negotiate the text of a treaty without confessing that the other party could not rely on the wording unless and until it had passed muster in the Senate.

As the American political system matured and the powers of individual states, courts, and even municipal and local authorities gained acceptance, it gradually became clear that the federal government could not often speak for the country as a whole without consultation, and sometimes even negotiation, not only with Congress but with a host of other authorities or players. Entities with which accommodations had to be reached even came to include some private enterprises. The extreme diffusion of authority at home was bound to place limitations on the representation of America’s interests by its ambassadors (…) abroad”.

KENNAN, George F. Diplomacy without diplomats? Foreign Affairs, vol. 76, n. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1997, p. 204-205, with adaptations.

Considering the ideas and the vocabulary presented in the text, mark the following item

As a consequence of the extreme fragmentation of American policy-making and diplomacy, ambassadors of the United States represent only the interests of the federal government abroad.