1316 



ity_but one of unique proportions in the contemporary era. Forces of 

 progress and poverty are in contention; professional trained man- 

 power is the object of struggle. Causes of this problem lie deep in the 

 nature of scientific-technological civilization and m the nature ot 

 newly developing and aspiring societies in the Third World. H^ttects 

 are virtually predetermined by forces turned loose in the struggle tor 

 international development : the gap between rich and poor widens dan- 

 gerously and the potentialities for tension and conflict between ad- 

 vanced and developing societies magnifies. And though the United 

 States may be the gainer in the drain-off of professional manpower 

 from the LDCs, the gains may prove to be more apparent than real as 

 the potential power of the LDCs is brought to bear on the interna- 

 tional scene. For while the effects of the brain drain problem intrude 

 on the Nation's domestic policy and make their presence known m 

 many ways, it is in the realm of foreign policy where science, tech- 

 nology, brain drain, and national policy interconnect in a way that 

 can produce serious implications for the foreign policy goals of this 

 Nation. These implications include economic dislocations, denial of 

 overseas markets, tensions with the "Third World," the withholding 

 of needed raw materials, and eventually a global compartmentaliza- 

 tion of a "Spaceship" that needs to unite to survive. 

 Brain Drain at the Juncture of Science, Technology, and American 

 Diplomacy 



Brain drain is a symptom of underdevelopment; solutions lie largely 

 in the realm of international development; the most essential mecha- 

 nism is nation-building through science and technology. As a foreign 

 policy problem, therefore, brain drain raises the basic question of this* 

 Nation's stance towards international development. 



Brain drain is essentialljr a foreign policy problem of low visibil- 

 ity ; but even so, it is a testing ground for the vitality of a policy of 

 much larger significance, namely, the Nation's commitment to develop- 

 ment. Solutions for brain drain may be the primary responsibility of 

 the LDCs. particularly the task of institution-building and establish- 

 ing an intrastructure of science and technology as the basis for mod- 

 ernization, but solutions can nfiither be devised nor development goals 

 achieved without assistance from the advanced countries like the 

 United States. Success in diminishing the "push" factors in brain drain 

 and in resolving the dilemma of development by transforming needs 

 into demands would seem to rest upon acceptance of the principle of 

 interdependence as a contemporary fact of life in international affairs. 



That the United States has an interest in international development 

 on humanitarian grounds goes without saying ; it is a long-established 

 tradition in this Nation's diplomatic history. But development special- 

 ists, among others, urge a more hard-headed appraisal of the national 

 interest, one that requires, out of national interest, rejuvenation and 

 reaffirmation of the Nation's commitment to development. The case is 

 made, in short, from the position of political realism. It would seem 

 beyond dispute that the LDCs, long the cockpit of international ten- 

 sion and conflict in which the United States has not been able to stand 

 aside uninvolved, hold the potentialities for even deeper and rnore dan- 

 gerous involvement. War in South and Southeast Asia, recurring crises 



