1734 



Success in exploiting these opportunities has not been impressive or 

 rewarding. Yet the opportunities seem to exist in abundance. 



It is not evident whether the general want of success of this effort to elicit fresh 

 ideas for diplomatic initiatives has been attributable to the lack of appropriate 

 organization for creativity, to the uncertainty as to the reception of bold and un- 

 conventional concepts, or perhaps an asserted tendency of the diplomatic com- 

 munity toward a reactive rather than innovative style of thought. Certainly there, 

 exist numerous areas in which opportunity for innovation is offered, and in which 

 the United States has unique competence. For example, the World Health Organi- 

 zation, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and various regional organizations 

 of the United Nations have programs that lag seriously and could be greatly 

 strengthened at relatively modest cost. The staffing of international organizations 

 with technical personnel from the United States as a form of training for their 

 future participation in the technical elements of the Department of State or the 

 Foreign Service might be considered. Positive action on the U.N. university pro- 

 posal, or such aspects of it as studies of the multinational corporation, normaliza- 

 tion of world resources, and seabed management, might warrant exploitation as 

 mutual interest intiatives. One of the more interesting possibilities is an open 

 invitation to foreign technologists to identify and help correct technological lags 

 in the United States as a counterpart to U.S. assistance of this type abroad. ^^^ 



Various other options were also offered, but the study stressed 

 the need for balancing creativity with caution. And it concluded this 

 discussion with a somewhat equivocal observation that — 



Perhaps the best that can be said for this problem is that the study of in- 

 stitutions to promote diplomatic creativity, and encouragement of the U.S. 

 academic community to generate creative thought in this area, might show the 

 way to a higher degree of initiative. The importance of the Department of State 

 in this field, moreover, should not be overlooked. 



(Author's footnote:) For example, in discussing the merits of a proposed con- 

 gressional diplomatic initiative "to facilitate the transfer to certain less developed 

 countries of United States discoveries, inventions, and research develop- 

 ments . . . " to be managed by NSF, Dr. H. Guj^ord Stever, director of NSF, 

 warned: "The close interrelation of science and technologj'^ with other U.S. 

 policies and initiatives in international affairs would seem to argue for the closest 

 possible coordination of aU of these efforts." Accordingly, it was necessary to 

 "take advantage of the capabilities of the Department of State, which I believe 

 are essential to the success of such an undertaking." (U.S. Congress, House, 

 Committee on Science and Astronautics, International Cooperation in Science 

 and Space Subcommittee, International Science and Technology Transfer Act of 

 1974, Hearings, 93d Cong.,_2d sess., May 21-23, 1974, p. 21.).363 



A distinction is suggested between science and technology as re- 

 gards utility for diplomatic initiatives. Thus, science ". . . is basically 

 an international activity, with a world network of communication 

 among practitioners of the separate scientific disciplines." 



Government funding is generally welcomed but government direction is not. 

 Science per se has little impact on diplomacy, and that mostly beneficial, while 

 diplomacy can pave the way for expanded scientific exchanges of persons and 

 joint or multinational projects. Scientific programs are rarely the subject of serious 

 diplomatic controversy. They tend mostly to low-cost activities.^" 



Thus initiatives in science tend to be long-range in effect, low-key, 

 and pervasive rather than specific. However — 



In contrast with science, the impacts of technology on diplomacy are numerous 

 and powerful. While many of these impacts are loosely identified as "scientific," 

 it is more precise to refer to them as the technological applications of new scientific 

 principles. The spread of technology is increasingly global, tending in the process 

 to infringe national sovereignties. The inroads are caused by such technical 

 effects as satellite overflights and penetration of the deep oceans, and by such 

 institutional developments as the multinational corporation and multination 

 cartels/ On the other hand, both the uses of technology and the scarcity of re- 

 sources consumed in these uses may encourage a more intense nationalism. 



362 Ibid., pp. 1488-1489. 



363 Ibid., p. 1489. 

 361 Ibid., p. 1493. 



