1744 



powerplants. "They will accept international supervision indefinitely, but 'they 

 will not, I think, indefinitely accept mere inspection by another nation";; 

 and 



(3) The United States lacked adequate technical personnel to meet all potential 

 needs for inspection. It would be preferable to avoid this drain by sharing the 

 task with others. ^^^ 



However, AEC Chairman Strauss "clearly favored use of bilateral 

 agreements." According to Dr. Donnelly's account: 

 The United States, [Strauss] testified, 



... should not abandon these direct agreements with other countries^when 

 the Agency came into existence, or at any time in the foreseeable future.liHe- 

 anticipated that the Agency would stress activities in which many nations had 

 a direct interest and in which the greatest progress could be made by a multi- 

 national approach. At the same time, the United States through bilateral agree- 

 ments would be able to extend to individual countries nuclear cooperation 

 which . . . conforms more preciselj^ to our traditional and special relationship 

 with those particular countries." He did acknowledge possibilities of some 

 resistance to bilateral agreements. Some countries, he said, had not responded 

 to U.S. overtures to enter into bilateral agreements with them. However, these 

 nations had shown their willingness to accept from an international agency 

 limitations on their sovereignty unacceptable from the United States.^^* 



CASE three: the political legacy of the international 



GEOPHYSICAL YEAR 



The IGY study dealt with nongovernmental multilateral coopera- 

 tion among scientists in a very large research enterprise. The coopera- 

 tive spirit demonstrated by the participants led observers^to suggest 

 that this spirit might be carried over to the political sphere, and that 

 political problems "might be amenable to scientific principles properly 

 applied. Commented Mr. Bullis: 



Refreshing as the intent underlying such beliefs may be, it nonetheless under- 

 estimates the formidable difi'erences existing between the scientific and political 

 communities.^'^ 



While the central question of the IGY study was whether scientific 

 internationalibm encouraged other forms, the study also raises by 

 inference the possibility that in scientific matters a multilateral 

 approach is more likely to be fruitful than a bilateral approach. 

 Mr. Bullis suggests that this possibility is attributable to the nature 

 of science itself: 



Traditionally, cooperation in solving scientific problems has always appeared 

 immeasurably less complex than cooperation in solving political problems. As 

 pointed out by Astin, since — 



. . . science is concerned with external phenomena which are usually measure- 

 able and whose manifestations are demonstrable and repeatable, there is less 

 cause for disagreement, for controversj^, than there is ... in politics. . . . 

 Furthermore, the preoccupations of . . . scientists are usually less charged with 

 emotion than are those of . . . politican[s]. . . . The consideration of po- 

 litical . . . plans or policies tends to arouse . . . passions, whereas delibera- 

 tions [on scientific matters] tend to proceed more calmly .^'^ 



Thus scientists tend to have fewer social problems since their research is gener- 

 ally focused upon common, well-defined objectives offering "a natural point of 



373 Ibid., p. 183-184. 



3'* Ibid., p. 184. 



3'^ U.S. Concre^, House, Committee on Foreign Affairs, The Political Legacy of the IntcTnatioval Geophysi- 

 cal Year, a study in the series on Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy prepared for the Subcom- 

 mittee on National Security Policy and Scientific Developments by Harold Bullis, Science Policy Research 

 Division. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 

 1973, vol. I, p. 348. 



3" Allen v. Astin, "The Scientific Community and International Cooperation," Department of State- 

 Bulletin 61 (July 14, 1969), p. 33. 



