Our Foreign Service. The A B G of American Diplomacy. By Frederick Van Dyne, LL. M., American Consul at Kingston, Jamaica, formerly Assistant Solicitor of the Department of State of the United State, author of Citizenship of the United States, Van Dyne on Naturalization, etc. The Lawyers’ Co-Operative Publishing Co., Eochester, N. Y. 1909.

1910 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 244-246
Author(s):  
Charles Noble Gregort
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Foreign Service ◽  
United State ◽  
American Diplomacy

Distinctive Characteristics of American Diplomacy

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 235-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Wiseman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
The Us ◽  
American Diplomacy ◽  
Domestic Influence ◽  
Multilateral Diplomacy ◽  
High Degree

My central claim is that the United States has conducted a distinctive form of ‘anti-diplomacy’, accepting in practice many diplomatic norms and practices while remaining reluctant to acknowledge the fact. To support this claim, this article argues that since its rise as a world power, the United States has participated in international society’s diplomatic culture in a distinctive way and that this distinctiveness stems from seven interconnected characteristics of American diplomacy: (1) America’s long-held distrust and negative view of diplomats and diplomacy, which has contributed to the historical neglect and sidelining of the US Department of State in the United States’ policy-making process; (2) a high degree of domestic influence over foreign policy and diplomacy; (3) a tendency to privilege hard power over soft power in foreign policy; (4) a preference for bilateral over multilateral diplomacy; (5) an ideological tradition of diplomatically isolating states that are considered adversarial and of refusing to engage them until they meet preconditions; (6) a tradition of appointing a relatively high proportion of political rather than career ambassadors; and (7) a demonstrably strong cultural disposition towards a direct, low-context negotiating style. A consequence of these distinguishing characteristics is that American diplomacy tends to be less effective than it might otherwise be, not only in advancing the United States’ own interests, but also in advancing wider international cooperation. A goal here is to provide a working framework with which to evaluate any US administration’s relationship to diplomacy as the country’s interests and identity evolve.

Records of the United States Diplomatic and Consular Posts in West Africa, 1856-1935

1964 ◽  
Vol 2 (01) ◽  
pp. 18-32
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
West Africa ◽  
Slave Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
African Slave ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Foreign Service ◽  
Record Group

The records described in this inventory belong to Record Group 84, Records of the Foreign Service Posts of the Department of State. They are both complementary and supplementary to records in Record Group 59, General Records of the Department of State. Both record groups contain communications and other papers transmitted between the Foreign Service posts and the State Department in Washington. In Record Group 45, Naval Records Collection of the Office of Naval Records and Library, are materials dealing with the African slave trade and Negro colonization. Papers relating to the slave trade and its suppression are to be found in Record Group 21, Records of the District Courts of the United States; Record Group 48, General Records of the Department of the Interior; Record Group 60, General Records of the Department of Justice; and Record Group 118, Records of the United States Attorneys and Marshals.

Congress, the Foreign Service, and the Department of State

1930 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-366
Author(s):  
Irvin Stewart
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Executive Committee ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Order ◽  
Service Personnel ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Foreign Service ◽  
Secretary Of State

On July 1, 1924, there became effective an act for the reorganization and improvement of the Foreign Service of the United States, popularly known as the Rogers Act, which had been approved on May 24. That act combined the hitherto separate diplomatic and consular services into a single Foreign Service. Admission to the Foreign Service was for the most part to be upon competitive examination, and promotion was to be based upon merit. The act left to the executive the establishment of the system for ascertaining merit.Pursuant to the Rogers Act, an executive order of June 7, 1924, created a Foreign Service Personnel Board. The composition of the board was slightly changed by an executive order of February 25, 1928, under the terms of which the board was to be composed of three assistant secretaries of state to be designated by the Secretary of State, and three Foreign Service officers. The three Foreign Service officers, representing both the diplomatic and consular branches, were to constitute the executive committee of the board.Among other things, the Foreign Service Personnel Board was charged with the duty of submitting to the Secretary, when vacancies should arise in the Foreign Service, lists of officers whose records of efficiency entitled them to advancement in the service and who were therefore recommended for promotion. A departmental order directed the executive committee to take possession of all records relating to the personnel of the diplomatic and consular services and to keep the efficiency records of all Foreign Service officers.

The Withdrawal of the United States from Haiti, 1928-1934

1963 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald B. Cooper
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Crisis ◽  
Military Dictatorship ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
High Commissioner ◽  
Military Background ◽  
Local Politicians ◽  
United States Occupation ◽  
Self Rule

The United States occupation of Haiti — despite benevolent intentions — was a thinly-disguised military dictatorship. The official view of the Department of State that the numerous U. S. officials there were merely advisers to the legitimate Haitian government, acting in accordance with limitations prescribed by treaty, was a polite fiction. It deceived no one, particularly the large number of Haitians who resented foreign experiments in benevolent despotism in their land.The real ruler of Haiti, as the system had evolved by the pivotal year of 1928 — the last “normal” year before the political crisis which precipitated withdrawal — was General John H. Russell, United States Marine Corps, the U. S. High Commissioner. The nominal ruler, President Louis Borno, generally relied upon his U. S. advisers. In Russell's own words “[Borno] has never taken a step without first consulting me.” When differences arose, usually as a result of pressures exerted on Borno by local politicians, General Russell was free to make appropriate concessions. But his will prevailed in any showdown conflict. The General was noted for his fairness, however, and his relations with Haitian officials were usually harmonious. Yet his military background, combined with his devotion to efficiency and economy, was not well-suited to preparing a dependent people for enlightened self-rule.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document