As a consequence of the extreme fragmentation of American policy-making and diplomacy, ambassadors of the United…

1 “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
4 fragmentation of American policy-making and diplomacy
in recent years.

Effective diplomacy in the traditional European
7 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
10 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
13 assumption that some single coherent and responsible
center of power—a crowned head, a president, or an all-
powerful prime minister—in the diplomat's own country
16 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
19 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
22 successful diplomacy.

Application of this principle to a democratic society
would always present difficulties, since it is plainly
25 incompatible with the diffusion of authority that
democratic rule usually requires. The incompatibility was
bound to be particularly acute for the United States, where
28 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
31 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
34 had passed muster in the Senate.

As the American political system matured and the
powers of individual states, courts, and even municipal and
37 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
40 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
43 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
46 (…) abroad”.

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