CHAPTER I

FOREIGN SERVICE DEVELOPMENT

Scope of this book. In considering the broad subject of foreign relations, it is of primary importance to establish a clear distinction between policy and instrumentality, or in other words, between those organs of the government which determine the objects to be accomplished, and those the duty of which it is to provide the means of accomplishment. Lord Bryce, in referring to this distinction, which he terms "Ends and Means," points out that "though it exists in all branches of administration, it is less significant in the domestic branches, because in them Ends, if not assumed as generally recognized, are and must be determined by the people through their representatives." 1

1

2

In our system of government, foreign policy may originate in several ways, but its application, or execution, is confided to the President, who acts through the governmental agencies provided him for that purpose. These agencies are the Department of State, and the Foreign Service, which is composed of a diplomatic and a consular branch.'

The title of this book, therefore, refers to that part of the established governmental machinery of administration commonly known as the Diplomatic and Consular

1James Bryce, "Modern Democracies," vol. II, p. 868.

2"Foreign policy," as here employed, refers to the normal, peaceful intercourse of nations, as contrasted with measures involving the use of force.

Sec. 1, Act of May 24, 1924.

1

2 FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES

Service collectively, the Foreign Service-which comprises our foreign representation. In one sense, the Foreign Service may be described as the eyes, the ears, and the mouth of the Department of State; but in a broader sense, it is an integral part of a vast system for the control of our international relations through which the sovereignty of the nation expresses itself to the foreign world.

Periods of diplomatic importance.-There are two periods in the life of a nation when its foreign affairs, and consequently, its Foreign Service, assume a rôle of almost transcendent importance: in infancy, during its struggle for recognition, for security, and for a permanent international status; and secondly, in maturity, when its social, economic, and political interests have overleaped their domestic boundaries and assumed a world importance. It is natural, then, after a century of adolescence and growth in which the attention of our country has been wrapped in its own national development, that the sudden surge of the United States to the forefront of international prominence should recall to us that earlier, or infant, period in our history when diplomacy was an arm of chief reliance.*

The early task of diplomacy.-The first great task of the Foreign Service of the United States was that of

"During the Revolution and the Confederation diplomacy was recognized by the intelligent to be as essential to the establishment of our national existence, as arms, diplomats were as carefully chosen as generals; the news of the negotiations of Franklin, Adams, and Jay was as anxiously awaited as that from the army, and their successes brought almost as great a reward of popular acclaim as did those of commanders in the field. *** Foreign affairs absorbed attention that was needed for domestic problems, the fate of administrations came to hang upon their foreign policy. Dissertations on diplomatic problems created political reputations. Of the five presidents who succeeded Washington all had had diplomatic experience and four had served as secretaries of state. Practically devoid of a permanent army or navy, we relied for defense upon our diplomats and the ocean."-Fish, "American Diplomacy," pp. 1-2.

winning friends when friends meant all; of effecting the transition from bondage to freedom of a group of loosely confederated States, whose bond of unity was a new theory of government, and whose permanence as a nation was yet to be proved.

The gravity of international relations in such conditions was obvious. A diplomatic blunder might have involved a national catastrophe. The situation was too serious for political tampering with untrained and inexperienced representatives, where the foremost talent of the land was required.

Nor was there a dearth of trained diplomatists among the colonists. The problems of the colonial struggle and the agitated international relations of ante-revolutionary and revolutionary days had afforded an almost unrivaled atmosphere for the development of sagacious diplomatic minds in the school of practical negotiation."

The use of trained diplomatists.—But there is sometimes a tendency to lose from mind the realities of an historical period, and to draw erroneous lessons from the record of its achievements. This has proved true with respect to certain factors in the early successes of American diplomacy. Thus in the hearings on the recent foreign service reorganization bill, when the subject of a trained diplomatic service was under discussion, Representative John Jacob Rogers of Mas

5“Of men trained in the more essential elements of diplomacy, the colonies had a greater proportion than any other country of the time. They had been engaged in continual negotiations, almost independently of Great Britain, with the Indian tribes, and frequently with the French and Spaniards. Every colony had had semi-diplomatic disputes with its neighbors, and all had supported agents in England whose functions included virtually all the elements of a diplomatic mission. Almost continuously from 1758 to 1774 Benjamin Franklin, as general agent, had occupied a post in England essentially equivalent to minister to that government. Moreover, the whole movement toward union between the colonies was diplomatic in its character, and constantly involved the most delicate questions of management."-Ibid., pp. 21-22.

sachusetts, by way of eliciting instructive testimony, observed:

"We frequently hear Benjamin Franklin mentioned as a pretty good type of the untrained diplomat and as some one whom we should emulate for all time because of his success."

To this, Honorable Hugh Gibson, then United States Minister to Poland, now Minister to Switzerland, replied:

"Benjamin Franklin is frequently cited as an example of a wholly untrained man who made a brilliant success in diplomacy. As a matter of fact, Franklin was one of the best-trained diplomats we ever had. From an early age he concerned himself with political and diplomatic languages, French, Italian, Spanish, and Latin-a remarkably good equipment. In 1757 he was sent to London by the Pennsylvania Assembly to negotiate with the English Government. This was purely a diplomatic mission, involving questions of great importance, and lasted for five years until 1762. From 1764 to 1775, a further period of 11 years, Franklin represented in London not only Pennsylvania, but New Jersey, Georgia, and Massachusetts and handled a wide range of subjects calculated to develop his powers of negotiation and persuasion. He had to develop these powers as he had nothing else to help him achieve success in his mission. These two missions, extending over a period of 16 years, are really Franklin's period of training, although it is the custom to look upon France as his only diplomatic experience. Upon Franklin's return to America at the outbreak of the Revolution, he was entrusted with several diplomatic missions, such as that to Canada to invoke the support of those colonies in the Revolution, and again when he

was appointed by the Congress to negotiate terms of peace with Admiral Howe.

"In 1776 Franklin was appointed commissioner to France. He was chosen for this highly important mission precisely because he was the most experienced and successful negotiator who could be found in other words, because he was our most highly trained diplomat. He was chosen for exactly the same reason we should like to have our men chosen to-day. Franklin remained in France until 1785, a further period of nine years. There is perhaps nobody in our service to-day who had such a good background of experience and training as Franklin had when he went to France, and it is wrong to speak of him as an untrained diplomat."

Foreign affairs under the Articles of Confederation.Under the Articles of Confederation, the control of foreign relations was vested in the Congress, which had the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, of sending and receiving ambassadors, and of entering into treaties and alliances.'

There being no central governmental authority other than the Congress, our diplomatic representatives suffered the severe handicap of functioning under the direction of a numerous body which possessed none of those elements of decision, consistency, and continuity of policy so essential to the successful conduct of foreign relations."

"Hearings before Committee on Foreign Affairs on H.R. 17 and H.R. 6357, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 20.

7Art. IX.

8" And since the Confederation showed itself so disastrously inefficient in the conduct and direction of foreign affairs, it was natural that the alert and far-seeing foreign secretary should take the lead in seeking a new order of things which should give us a government worthy of the name. There was no more earnest and efficient advocate of Washington's ideal of a strong national government than Jay, especially when speaking from the fulness of his bitter experience as an ill-treated diplomatic agent of