Secret Diplomacy: How Far Can It Be Eliminated?Reinsch, Paul S. (Paul Samuel)
Philosophy
Secret Diplomacy: How Far Can It Be Eliminated?
Reinsch, Paul S. (Paul Samuel)
Diplomacy; Europe -- Politics and government
“All letters to sovereign powers, letters of credence, plans of
treaties, conventions, manifestoes, instructions, passports, safe
conducts, and other acts of Congress relative to the department
of foreign affairs, when the substance thereof shall have been
previously agreed to in Congress, shall be reduced to form in
the office of foreign affairs, and submitted to the opinion of
Congress, and when passed, signed and attested, sent to the
office of foreign affairs to be countersigned and forwarded.”
Congress therefore retained a very close control over this matter; a
control which under the Constitution passed to the Senate, though in
a restricted form. In no other country did a legislative committee
participate in the conduct of foreign affairs with similar power and
influence. The policy of the arrangements under the Constitution is
explained by John Jay in the _Federalist_ as follows:
“It seldom happens in the negotiation of treaties, of whatever
nature, but that perfect secrecy and immediate despatch are
sometime requisite. There are cases where the most useful
intelligency may be obtained, if the persons possessing it can
be relieved from apprehensions of discovery. Those apprehensions
will operate on those persons whether they are actuated by
mercenary or friendly motives; and there doubtless are many
of both descriptions, who would rely on the secrecy of the
President, but who would not confide in that of the Senate, and
still less in that of a large popular assembly.”
Jay’s explanation is dominated by the conception which the eighteenth
century had of the functions of diplomacy and the conditions of its
work. The constitutional system as conceived at that time implied
(1) Full power of negotiation in the President, (2) Taking counsel
with the Senate, (3) Formal ratification of treaties by the Senate,
and publication thereof as parts of the law of the land. The system
has been highly praised by European publicists as reconciling the
maintenance of confidential relations with publicity of the results, in
that treaties are given the character of laws.
In the course of the nineteenth century there occurred many instances
resulting in a growing practice of making special agreements by the
Secretary of State alone, without the advice and consent of the Senate.
When President Roosevelt in 1905 attempted to deal with the Dominican
situation in this manner, the Senate objected and insisted that all
international agreements of any kind must be submitted to its action.
The system of the United States, however, actually permits of the
current conduct of foreign affairs without information to the people or
even without constant and complete information to the Senate which is,
moreover, usually preoccupied with matters of internal legislation.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account