1802 



— Progress of teclinology having special international signifi- 

 cance, e.g., satellite communications, weather forecasting, re- 

 source surveys, and mihtary surveillance; strategic weapons; 

 weather modification; deep seabed mineral mining; and the like; 

 and 



— Transnational and oceanic enAdronmental threats posed by 

 refineries, irrigation projects, large tankers, supersonic aircraft, 

 deep sea mining, offshore oil drilling, and the spread of toxic 

 agricultural and other effluents. 

 The traditional pattern of diplomacy does not appear to provide the 

 kind of alert perception and early readiness needed to deal with such 

 matters as these. Contacts are necessary not only with the diplomats 

 of other nations but also with technological leadership in the United 

 States. The diplomatic impacts of technology must be assessed in ad- 

 vance, and remedial action devised to meet future needs. An important 

 fact aloout technological — i.e., industrial — change is that it takes time. 

 Industry may indeed be adaptable to shortages of materials or en- 

 vironmental regulation, but not without time delays. Diplomatic 

 resolution of problems arising out of technological change must be 

 sensitive to this constraint. 



It is not evident that the Department of State, and in particular 

 the science bureau, is structured to collect, analyze, and use tech- 

 nological information inputs for diplomatic policy guidance. For 

 example : 



— The Advisory Committee on Science and Foreign Affairs was 

 permitted to lapse.**^ 



— Although the "scientific attaches" were restyled several years 

 ago as "scientific and technological attaches," and attempt to keep 

 abreast of technological matters, they are not adequately staffed 

 to do very much in this direction. 



— Technological resources of the Department in the functional 

 bureaus are modest to nonexistent. 



— While the Department's science bureau has recognized the 

 importance of "technology," the word itself was removed from 

 its formal title and the heavy load of operational chores makes 

 difficult any substantial attention to this complex subject. 



— The Secretary of State has been generous in his commitment 

 of the United States to international programs to advance 

 technology, but the ability to implement these commitments is 

 in doubt. 



— No significant effort appears to have been made to search 

 out or coalesce the views and advice of the U.S. technological 

 community on present or future impacts of technology on U.S. 

 diplomacy. 



— Significant technology-based diplomatic initiatives of the 



United States have been few and far betweci, despite U.S. 



technological preeminence. 



The main point of this recital appears to be the need for a closer 



coupling of diplomats and technologists, and between private industry 



and the formulation of foreign policy. 



<« Ibid., p. 1365. 



