1719 



— in the appearance of technologies of clearly global reach 

 requiring analysis as to their meaning for diplomacy? 



— in the assessment of minor shifts in the world power 

 balance? 



Attention in the Literature to the Initiative and Reactive Modes of 

 Diplomacy 



Various assertions have been made, some of them cited later on in 

 this essay, of the desirability of "taking the initiative" in diplomacy. 

 It is also frequently observed that the diplomatic mode of the United 

 States tends to be reactive rather than initiative. 



It is observable that nations pass through "activist" periods in 

 their relations with neighbor states. For example, France under 

 Louis XI and XIV, and under Napoleon; Germany under Frederick 

 the Great, under Bismarck's Chancellorship, under Kaiser Wilhelm 

 and Adolph Hitler; England under Elizabeth I and Victoria; and 

 the United States at various times, most notably before 1850, and 

 after 1940. 



The factors that impel some nations to be more activist than others, 

 or to be more diplomatically aggressive at some periods than at 

 others, do not appear to have been deftnitivel}' identified. Are they a 

 product of especially dynamic leadership? Popular motivation? 

 Styles of child-rearing? The educational system? Pohtical structure? 

 Central organization? Are there differences in one or another of these 

 factors which create instability that a more (or less) coherent, and 

 more dynamic, state is tempted to exploit? To what extent do science 

 and technology motivate national diplcmatic activism and to what 

 extent do they provide the tools to give force to its directions? 



Indeed, measurement of the activist versus the reactive mode of 

 diplomatic conduct seems virtually impossible except in terms of the 

 broad canvas of historical perspective. One difficulty in measurement 

 has already been mentioned : that the two modes in practice overlaj). 

 That is, an initiative can be reactive in its origin; a reactive mode 

 can result from a completed initiative, or one which at any stage 

 has provoked a response; and a reaction can be so positively innovative 

 and powerful in its impact as to interrupt the continuity of diplomacy 

 and thus appear to be a fresh initiative. 



Discussion of Initiative and Reactive Alodes in Earlier Parts of the Study 

 Special attention was not addressed to this question in the opening 

 chapter that provided the prospectus for the entire study of Science, 

 Technology, and American Diplomacy. It was not recognized at the 

 outset as a major or significant dimension of diplomatic st3'le. Hew- 

 ever, as the work progressed, its significance became increasingly 

 evident. Granting that diplomacy can never be wholly geared to 

 either mode, the question still needs to be answered as to what propor- 

 tion of actions in foreign policy are undertaken in response to external 

 pressures (oil embargo, Sputnik, missiles to Cuba, etc.) and what pro- 

 portion are seen to have been directly aimed toward achievement of 

 U.S. foreign policy objectives without previous compelling foreign 

 pressures (United Nations, establishment of World Bank, President 

 Kennedy's proposal for joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. Moon mission, etc.). 



Direct references to this question in the six cases and six issues 

 making up the study series and recapitulated in this summary are 

 sparse. Nevertheless, the few which occur are significant. They add 



