1755 



oversight. Budgeting of bilaterals requires advance estimate of costs 

 of proposed programs and assurance that participating U.S. agencies 

 are properly supported in overseas assignments. 



The poHcy governing multilateral warrants much further study. 

 The politics of the United Nations is taking on a reality separate from 

 that of the participating nations, and the emergence of large numbers 

 of new voting states complicates the process of policymaking in 

 multilateral institutions. Lessons from the World Health Organization 

 experience are relevant here: the recognition of the need to achieve 

 solid technical results, to coordinate programs by technical expertise 

 rather than by political influence, and the general elevation of the 

 substantive element over the diplomatic relationship. The suggested 

 principle seems to be that technical advances can help pave the way 

 to resolution of political differences. In this connection, the adoption 

 of the regional approach to multilateral organization offers attractive 

 opportunities for exploitation as well as economy of means. 



Probably the most important neglected element of multilateral 

 program management for the United States is that in neither the 

 multilateral agencies nor in the Department of State nor even in the 

 U.S. mission agencies concerned with multilateral programs is there 

 a clear mandate for accountability to the U.S. Congress. In simplest 

 terms, the Congress needs to know what the individual programs cost 

 in total, and the cost to the United States, and also what benefits 

 accrue generally to the participating nations and particularly to the 

 United States. It is not now apparent that this kind of information is 

 available to the Congress, from which funding support is expected. 

 At present it is not evident whether in the interest of U.S. diplomatic 

 goals particular programs should be maintained at current levels, 

 reduced, or expanded. 



Some Questions jor Further Consideration 



Perhaps to explore further the dimension of bilateral versus multi- 

 lateral diplomacy, the following questions may be helpful. This 

 dimension is central to the future management of the interface of 

 science and technology with diplomacy. And, as has just been ob- 

 served, the diplomats of the future will need "all of the tools the}' can 



get. 



QUESTIONS 



What are the special advantages and disadvantages of each form of 

 relationship? 



What are the advantages of combining the two forms in various 

 ways, such as for example: a bilateral agreement between a nation 

 and a multilateral institution; a bilateral agreement between two 

 multilateral (e.g. regional) organizations, a bilateral agreem.ent be- 

 tween two nations to implement program elements of a regional or 

 global multilateral organization, a multilateral consortium to coor- 

 dinate a variety of activities developed under a number of different 

 bilateral agreements, and so on? 



What particular characteristics or consequences of agreements, 

 should be addressed in order to test the relative efficacy of bilateral 

 versus multilateral forms of agreement? 



What differences in sanctions are there as between bilateral and 

 multilateral agreements? To what extent is either of the two forms, 

 able to incorporate self-enforcing elements? 



