1790 



Support of Diplomatic Goals by Private Enterprise 



The question is raised as to the ways in which private industry can 

 perform profitably in overseas transactions \\Ai\\ concurrent benefit to 

 U.S. diplomacy. Recent revelations of poUtical interventions, "kick- 

 backs" to influential leaders in forei2;n countries, and like actions for 

 private profit are readily perceived to be diplomatically d3'sfunc- 

 tional. A closer relationship between business executives and the U.S. 

 diplomatic community might help to distinguish courses of business 

 action favorable to both. In particular, objective assessment of the 

 future political course of foreign countries can reduce the likelihood 

 of shaky reliance on leaders or parties about to be deposed. Conversel}', 

 establishment of relationships that enable participation in corporate 

 decisions by local community leaders abroad might contribute to 

 stability even when the national leadership is shaky. 



Exercise of national sovereignty by developing countries over 

 mineral resources in their territories, and over corporate properties 

 and management policies under their jurisdictions, can impose impos- 

 sible obstacles to meeting the necessary constraint of private enterprise 

 that it be profitable. But this is not an absolute consequence; it is 

 amenable to diplomatic adjustment. Moreover, the task of diplomatic 

 adjustment is made easier if the resident corporations seek consciously 

 and overtly to meet the perceived social, technological, and economic 

 needs of the host country. To the extent that they do this, they 

 further their own acceptance in the country, as well as furthering the 

 diplomatic goals of the United States. And finally, the overseas 

 diplomatic representatives of the United States can reasonably be 

 expected to give guidance to U.S. corporations abroad on social, 

 technological, and economic policy. The Department of State can give 

 this help only if it deploys abroad people knowledgeable in social, 

 technological, and economic policy. 



But there is a great danger in the jdelding to short-term economic 

 advantage of private industry in the formulation of diplomatic policy. 

 For example, a foremost national goal of the United States in diplo- 

 macy is world peace. It is difficult to reconcile this goal with the 

 vigorous dispensing of sophisticated weaponry to opposing nations in 

 the Middle East. From the short-range diplomatic point of view, 

 weapons sales or donations may facilitate negotiations and balance 

 opposing forces to discourage war as well as providing markets for 

 U.S. -produced armaments. But it does so at the cost of raising the 

 potential level of intensity of future conflicts and broadening their 

 geographic spread. When diplomacy is linked to private industry in 

 the dangerous world of the 1970s, long-range diplomatic goals neces- 

 sarily ought to take precedence over short-term goals, either diplomatic 

 or commercial. 



Lessons jor the Public j Private Interface Found in the Study 



The 12 topics selected for anal3^sis in the present study were chosen 

 on the basis of their significance for U.S. diplomacy and their repre- 

 sentativeness as parts of the universe of diplomacy, focusing always 

 on science and technology in accordance with the main purpose of the 

 study. Aspects of the public/private interface were touched on, 

 sometimes at length and sometimes only implicitly, in all 12 subjects. 



