1854 



The results are measured in terms of amicable and constructive 

 relations with neighboring countries, shared objectives with the rest 

 of the world, and evidences of lowered tensions generally. 



Short-range planning in the diplomatic sphere tends to be action- 

 oriented, narrow in scope, and secret. It is inherently limited in 

 participation, administered by an exclusive elite, and accordingly, 

 when disclosed, is likely to elicit criticism from nonpar ticipants. Such 

 criticism can be based on the fact that the values of competing alter- 

 natives to the plan adopted are readily perceived by the outsiders, 

 while those conducting the planning have insufficient time for assess- 

 ment of these alternatives and tend to be committed to their own 

 chosen course. Thus there is an inherent divisiveness in short-range 

 planning for diplomatic programs. Above all, there is no time or 

 opportunity to win consensus in support of the plan adopted. 



Another weakness is that short-range planning tends in its approach 

 to be reactive, rather than initiative. The weaknesses of the reactive 

 mode in diplomacy were discussed in a previous essay. Anticipating 

 all the possible actions and trends in other countries that are likely 

 to require U.S. response, and designing such responses, tends to over- 

 load the planning and decisionmaking structures. 



A great danger in short-range planning is that the execution of a 

 reactive plan conceived in haste with narrow participation can set in 

 motion a chain of circumstances that becomes progressively and ir- 

 resistably disadvantageous. 



Finally, there needs to be taken into account the special problem 

 of the conduct of diplomacy in a country with a democratic tradition, 

 universal suffrage, and a popularly elected leadership. Education of 

 the electorate to the evolving needs of the Nation for diplomatic 

 change, overcoming locjalized or specialized pockets of resistance to 

 otherwise popular courses, and achieving a general understanding 

 and acceptance of proposed diplomatic programs, can be impossible 

 in a short time frame. 



Difficvities Imposed by Extended Time Frames 



Long-range diplomatic planning is not without its obstacles. Plans 

 need to take into account the circumstances at the time they are to be 

 implemented; the more extended the time frame, the more uncertain 

 the circumstances will be. Public attention may wander if the issue in 

 question is perceived to be of insufficient moment or if there are 

 conflicting demands for public notice. A program long in development 

 can lead to entrenched positions in conflict, with resultant indecisive- 

 ness and inaction. Then, too, the leadership may grow impatient and 

 resort to quicker, if less promising, alternative solutions, expecially 

 when sensing the political necessity to produce a diplomatic success 

 for the public. Even when a diplomatic initiative has been well planned 

 and effectively implemented, there is a danger that the leadership, 

 having scored one diplomatic success, will feel the need to sustain the 

 momentum by a following succession of related action, each less care- 

 fully prepared than the initial stroke. Plans long in maturing are, of 

 course, unlikely to remain undisclosed and when they assume a change 

 in future normative values they can give rise to great controversies. 

 For example, had the Department of State undertaken a study in 1950 

 of the desirability of recognizing the People's Republic of China or 

 acceptance of the de facto Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe, severe 

 criticism might well have been expected. 



