misery, and economic disorder lead to political instability and open the door to subversion.

Both long-term and immediate objectives are dominated by considerations of survival and security; but economic well-being has not been forgotten as a major facet of the national interest. Economic strength is necessary for security; and it is also a good thing in itself. Clearly the long-term purpose should be to bring about such a state of affairs that the requirements of economic well-being could be met without the interference of large-scale rearmament.

FACTORS CONDITIONING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF
OBJECTIVES

Two groups of factors limit the freedom of the United States in the conduct of its foreign relations. One group is external; the other internal; and the two groups interact on each other.

External factors

The external limitations consist of the actions that other states can take to advance their national interests and to achieve their national objectives. The ability of other states to limit the objectives of the United States and to force modifications of United States policy is based on the fact that national power, which is the chief support of action in the field of foreign relations, is never absolute and unlimited, but always relative. This fact must always restrain the United States and the other larger states.

National power is a term that expresses the sum of the economic, military, social, moral, and political forces that a state can project when it acts internationally. Stated in another way it consists of actual and potential productive capacity, military strength, and social coherence with which a state can move toward a desired end. The effectiveness of the national power of any single state is dependent on the prevailing distribution of power in the world at the time and on the character of the relations among states.

The usage has developed in recent years of speaking of the bipolarization of world politics. If this is taken as implying that either the Soviet Union or the United States is so powerful that its freedom of action is unrestricted except in relation to the other, the bipolarization concept conveys a wrong notion of the world structure of power, and particularly so with respect to the position of the United States. The United Kingdom, France, and other leading states may have only limited powers of initiative under present conditions, but they retain positions that give them far more than a right of veto on particular occasions. There are many other states with resources and capabilities that can be decisive in relation to specific situations. Any group of even the less powerful states can usually force a modification

of the policies, if not of the objectives, of the stronger states, by concerting their actions and acting cohesively for a common end, particularly in the international organizations where their voting strength is disproportionate to their strength for other purposes.

The position of the United States is thus not predominant in the sense that American objectives can be formulated without reference to the interests of other states or that American policies can be developed and carried out unconditionally. Accordingly, when national objectives are formulated, they must either be stated in realistic relation to the interests, capabilities, and intentions of other states, or must be expressive of an intention to alter the relationships among those states.

One further external conditioning factor should be noted. The entrance of the United States into the United Nations system has introduced a new element into the conduct of foreign relationswhat amounts to a broad agreement to formulate international policy in conjunction with other states and to act by a set of internationally approved principles. The effect has been to carry the policy-making process one step above the national level. Furthermore, it is more difficult to change a policy or to modify an objective that has been formulated through an international organization than one formulated unilaterally or in conjunction with only one or two other nations. In consequence, new considerations enter into the determination of national policy. On occasion, the effect may be profound, as it has been in connection with various developments since the outbreak of hostilities in Korea.

Internal factors

The place that the United States has come to occupy in the world and the character of international relations at the present time both tend to make the foreign policy of the United States particularly subject to the operation of the external conditioning factors here under review. At the same time, and also in consequence of the central position of the United States, the other peoples of the world are unusually sensitive to the direction and development of American foreign policy. For this reason, the internal or domestic factors that condition American policies can lead to international as well as domestic consequences.

The internal factors are as varied as the composition of the American people and the pattern of American life. The psychological unreadiness of the American people for the great responsibilities that have been thrust upon them has undoubtedly been the most pervasive conditioning factor in operation domestically since the war. The necessity for participating in the war in the first place was a violation of traditional expectations, requiring a departure from historical principles of action. The insistence upon rapid demobilization as

soon as hostilities were over amounted to a reflex action in which deeply imbedded cultural patterns again asserted themselves. The acceptance of the United Nations was an expression of American idealism in the realm of political philosophy, but not necessarily indicative of any widespread perception of the international political problems that the organization was designed to meet.

Deep-seated expectations as to how the remainder of the world should and will behave constitute positive limitations upon all formulations of objectives and upon the methods for achieving them. In the conduct of foreign relations, where so much is relative and so many factors are uncontrollable, such expectations check the processes of adaptation and compromise that are essential to success.

Fortunately, the factor of psychological unreadiness should diminish with the passage of time and with intensified exposure to new conditions. Elements of unpredictability of popular reaction will doubtless persist during this maturing process, but the record of the major foreign policy decisions of the American people in recent years cannot be read without becoming aware of an increasing readiness to assume such responsibilities as are in fact demonstrated to be necessary.

The observations just made relate mainly to the characteristic behavior of the American people as a national group. But within the national group as a whole, there are many subgroups: racial, cultural, economic, and political. The manifold influences of this diversity are among the important factors affecting the conduct of foreign relations, particularly since these influences are directly reflected in the working of the American political system.

There are few other countries in which political power is as widely dispersed internally as it is in the United States. The major political parties of the United States are loose federations, held together to some extent by the responsibilities of office and the influence of their respective leading figures, but not effectively subject to any central source of discipline that would be capable of bringing dissenting elements to terms. Every important group within the population therefore expects to be treated as sovereign so far as its own major preoccupations are concerned. Many of these groups have a special preoccupation with some particular facet of foreign policy; and on such matters their voice may momentarily be more powerful than that of the national interest as a whole. Many politically active bodies of opinion must therefore be taken into account in the conduct of foreign relations, and policy often takes on a special emphasis for reasons not readily apparent to the uninitiated.

That institutions of government have a conditioning influence upon all aspects of foreign relations has frequently been noted. Three features of the American system are perhaps of greatest importance:

the single-member constituency, the fixed terms of office, and the separation of powers.

The general absence of systems of proportional representation and the corresponding acceptance of the principle of the single-member constituency are so much a part of American Government that the consequences are seldom noticed. Coupled with the single-headed Executive, which does not lend itself as a prize to success by more than a single party or to effective competition by more than two, the single-member constituency is a safeguard against the development of a multiplicity of political parties and the instability of government that sometimes results.

The fixed terms of office for the legislators and the President and the scheduling of these terms in relation to each other are other features of the American system. These features could be expected to combine stability between elections with the possibility of sweeping change when elections are held. To some extent these possibilities can be documented historically.

The separation of powers is the most celebrated feature of the American system, and its consequences need little exposition here. The actual conduct of foreign relations is firmly fixed by the Constitution in the hands of the President, but the Congress has the last word on legislation and appropriations, even aside from the executive powers of the Senate with respect to treaties and appointments. The constitutional structure thus divides authority for the determination of foreign policy, thereby leaving responsibility diffused and somewhat uncertain.

Interaction between internal and external factors

The attributes of power of a great modern state, even when not used deliberately for the ends of foreign policy, remain nonetheless a central element in international relations because such attributes cannot be exercised even domestically without producing repercussions in other countries.

The interaction of domestic and external factors on the foreign policy of the United States is particularly significant when that policy seeks by positive action to achieve defined objectives. For reasons previously outlined, domestic factors can directly affect the vigor and success with which any course of action can be pursued. The uncertainties introduced into the foreign relations of the United States by these factors, as well as the compromises and modifications to which they lead, produce repercussions throughout the international system.

Conversely, the actions of other states produce repercussions within the United States. The simplest reaction is the adjustment of American policy and action to the actions of others. A more complex reaction takes place when a foreign state, by its actions, disappoints

the expectations of American public opinion and that opinion then makes itself felt politically in antagonistic forms. Since the policies of other states are also conditioned by their own domestic factors, a prolonged chain of actions and reactions can be initiated. The consequences can spread far and wide through the international system.

The foreign relations and the foreign policy of the United States have always been conditioned by external and internal factors similar to those here discussed, but the operation of these factors has rarely been as significant as it is at present. The international community of nation-states has never before been so sensitive to the presence and actions of the United States. And at no previous time has the United States been so comprehensively sensitive to the actions of so many other particular states. To this must be added the increased speed with which situations now develop and the extent to which the resulting actions and reactions make themselves felt throughout the entire fabric of international life.

The consequences may be of special importance for the United States. The separation of powers together with accepted procedure based on legalistic and conventional points of view makes for a situation in which the United States would prefer to act on many matters only with great deliberateness. When concessions are made to the necessities of rapid timing as they sometimes arise, the conduct of foreign relations becomes less like a meeting under parliamentary rules and more like the operations of a football team on the field. Whether or not this is a fair analogy, some adaptation to the rapid timing which has come to be a feature of international relations appears to be unavoidable.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION

The Government of the United States is continually faced with international situations to which it must react. Situations develop in various ways: from positive efforts of the United States, from positive efforts of other states, or, more frequently, from the continuous and complex interaction of such efforts upon each other. In all cases, the parties are under the necessity either of seeking to modify the situation that will follow or of making adjustments to it.

Unless foreign policy is to consist merely of reactions to international situations as they come along one after another, it must have a sense of direction, and it must provide for the taking of initiative for the purpose of molding events. A sense of direction is usually developed and expressed by the formulation of objectives. One may ask the question: What kind of a world is it in which the United States could expect to achieve maximum security and maximum opportunity to develop further in ways in accord with its social and economic traditions? The answer to such a question, by furnishing a measure