1736 



Both the initiative and reactive modes of diplomacy in the modern 

 world require a pooling of the best efforts and skills of technical and 

 diplomatic manpower. Collaboration needs to extend throughout the 

 institutions charged with the formulation and conduct of U.S. foreign 

 policy. But the exercise of initiative is the main point of this essay; 

 it signifies the kind of leadership best calculated to produce movement 

 toward the diplomatic goals at the heart of U.S. foreign policy. 



Some Questions for Further Consideration 



How can a democratic political system operate effectively in the 

 initiative mode? 



What planning institutions are most useful for either the reactive 

 or initiative mode, and particularly for the latter? 



What national goals might be adopted as the targets of a diplomac}^- 

 in the initiative mode? 



Is it realistic to fix goals for the reactive mode and if so what might 

 they be? 



Is it practicable for the United States to move more extensively^ 

 into the initiative mode of diplomac}^ without close coordination 

 between the legislative and executive branches? 



What aspects of the external world require particular attention 

 in the conduct of long-range planning in the initiative mode? 



Can any generalizations be made as to whether leading nations 

 of the world consciously follow either of the two modes? 



How are bilateral and multilateral relations related to the initiative 

 and responsive modes? Do they pair up in any constructive or useful 

 way? 



Is the regional approach to diplomatic goals identified clearly with 

 the initiative mode or could it be a vehicle for the reactive mode 

 (as President Johnson attempted to make it)? 



How does the reactive/initiative dichotom}^ relate to various 

 conceptual power structures of the world: bipolar, multipolar, etc? 



