1754 



•assured of yielding more good than harm. Only if programs are carefully planned, 

 on a joint basis, toward explicit and useful tasks, with assured leadership, person- 

 nel, and funding, can the product justify the eSoTt*°^ 



The study dealt much less extensively with the subject of multi- 

 lateral agreements and institutions, mainly because these receive less 

 -close attention of the Department of State. On this matter one opinion 

 as expressed by Herman Pollack, former chief of the Science Bureau of 

 the Department of State, was that existing relationships between the 

 United States and U.N. technical agencies were "fundamentally 

 sound" but that in "coordination as among U.N. technical programs 

 and in oversight" U.S. performance was "weak." Manpower was 

 "entirely insufficient to get on top of the problem." *^^ A similar view, 

 expressed by a study for the United Nations Association, proposed the 

 "development of a high-level evaluation and planning unit in [the 

 State Department's Bureau of International Organizations Aifairsl — 



. . . devoted to the evaluation of the effectiveness of international institu- 

 tions and their programs, to the development of specific initiatives for strengthen- 

 ing these institutions, and to enhancing U.S. participation in them. This would 

 include an evaluation of any need for creation or elimination of organizations in 

 particular problem areas, as well as the formulation of major reforms in existing 

 institutions and their mandates. It would also involve encouraging international 

 organizations themselves to perform much of this program evaluation, (pp. 

 85-86) *« 



The study concludes with an observation provided from the Foreign 

 Service Journal that called attention to the essentially multilateral 

 character of the large technological problems confronting the world's 

 nations. Said the statement, in part: 



What then does this new proximity of nations, brought about by rapid techno- 

 logical change, require of diplomacy? It seems to ask for something more than 

 traditional bilateral ironing out of differences and development of cooperative 

 arrangements. Technological advance has created problems which affect all of 

 the world's nations, and require their cooperation for the solution. For example, 

 arrangements to prevent the pollution of the seas cannot be made bilaterally. 

 What is necessary is a new innovative multilateralism.^"* 



And the statement concluded: "The diplomats of the future will 

 require all of the tools they can get if they are to succeed in this new 

 multilateral diplomacy." 



Some Concluding Observations 



It appears from the evidence of the 12 studies reviewed above 

 that both bilateral and multilateral agreements on scientific and 

 technological subjects have a legitimate place in the apparatus of 

 "diplomacy. 



The policy governing bilaterals seems to call for considerable 

 strengthening and the application of more restraint. Procedures should 

 be standardized. Criteria of establishment should be more explicit and 

 less adventitious. Sound technical justification is needed for subjects 

 of agreement, as is sound technical management of ongoing programs. 

 Factual reporting of costs, operations, and results is essential not only 

 for improvement of management but also to facilitate congressional 



*<>^ Ibid., the Department of State, p. 1410. 

 «03 Ibid., p. 1429. 

 <o< Ibid., p. 1477. 

 «« Ibid., p. 1504. 



