Foreign policy actors
We will describe these different actors and see how they interact over time. The American foreign policy is characterized first of all by an extremely important device and machinery in so far as one has to deal with a diplomacy that became global at the beginning of the 20th century. It is a multi-sectoral diplomacy that is developing in a whole series of areas being one of the absolutely fundamental elements of the concept of superpower. When we talk about superpower, we often take the politico-military aspects, but there are many others with the capacity to intervene in various fields. This diplomacy is taken care of by numerous professional and private actors.
The State Department is not the only player in American foreign policy dealing with transnational history issues. This multipolar character of American foreign policy is the permanent interaction between public and private actors who are not responsible for the diplomatic function. There is an extremely blurred border when it comes to U.S. foreign policy and the distinction between public and private because there is a permanent back-and-forth between the public and private sectors. This phenomenon is a colonization of the public sector by private actors. There is also a proliferation of public institutions whose public nature is sometimes unclear with federal agencies.
One may wonder whether or not American foreign policy is a coherent entity. Even today, the American position is difficult to determine because different actors take the floor and it is difficult to see how they agree. Foreign policy is also permanently between centralisation, i.e. coordination by the state authorities and decentralisation by the fact that the administration and government can be complemented or competing or contradicted by other institutions that will move in a different direction. As long as the United States has an increasingly global policy, we are witnessing a diversification of decision-making centres.
The President/Congress dyarchy
Distribution of original powers
This dyarchy is absolutely fundamental because we have two heads of the executive branch in both domestic and foreign policy. The checks and balances system is a political system that is fundamentally marked by the balance of power. Each power has a counter-power that is made compulsory by the American constitution in order to achieve the synthesis between the strong power to fight against external elements and the respect of freedom within in order to avoid tyranny.
The Powers of Congress
Congress is the dominant power in the United States at first. Congress is the fundamental element in the American political system at first. It is Congress that has the power to declare war and put an end to it through the ratification of treaties, it gives the army the financial and logistical means to function, from the point of view of the implementation of foreign policy it is it that ratifies the appointments in all federal administrations and in particular the Secretary of State who is a key post. On the other hand, Congress and the Senate, through the Foreign Affairs Committee, can deal with a whole series of issues, including the hearing of administrative officials. The Senate and Congress also regulate immigration. It is a fundamental and founding institution that at the beginning of American history has most of the prerogatives.
Powers of the President
Changes in power relations
The bureaucratic maze
Departments
The Department of State
The Department of Defense
The Treasury Department
The Department of Commerce
The Department of Justice
The National Security Council[NSC]: A State Department?
Intelligence services
Government Agencies
Private actors
Lobbying in Congress
Action on the ground
Institutions of expertise: think tanks
First Generation
Second Generation
Institutions of Expertise: Private Actors in the Federal Administration
Institutions of expertise: universities
Annexes
- Casey, Steven. "Selling NSC-68: The Truman Administration, Public Opinion, and the Politics of Mobilization, 1950-51*." Diplomatic History 29.4 (2005): 655-90.