VII. Science, Technology, and the Foreign-Policy-Making 



Process 



Up to this point in the study the emphasis has been on the opera- 

 tional aspects of science and technology in the Department of State. 

 The purpose of this chapter is to explore a few of the many problems 

 of policy planning and decisionmaking, as these relate to the subject 

 of the study. To lay the groundwork for the discussion, a brief digres- 

 sion into the mechanisms of international policymaking may be 

 helpful. 



Inherent Incompleteness of State Department Mission 



As the late Dean Acheson pointed out, the Supreme Court has 

 ruled, aiid the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1800 

 reported: The President alone has the power to represent the Nation, 

 to negotiate treaties, and to decide when to do so and upon what 

 subjects^ Accordingly, "neither the Constitution nor the law binds 

 the President to monogamous cohabitation with the Secretary and 

 Department of State in the conduct of foreign affairs." *^^ Acheson 

 traced the influence of the Department through the 19th Century 

 ("not much to do"), through the period of the 1920s when the Secre- 

 tary was given a "free hand" ("not * * * much improvement"), 

 neglect during the Roosevelt years ("horse and buggy"), a brief 

 period of effectiveness under Secretary Marshall ("sound enough to 

 provide policy through the next administration and beyond"), 

 "purges" under Secretary Dulles (leaving "more form than substance"), 

 neglect again under President Kennedy ("no professional depart- 

 mental staff could be trusted"). The substance of the recital is that 

 the role of the Secretary and the Department of State are determined 

 by the interests and style of the President, and the nature of the 

 international problems that confront him. Also, the distinction 

 between "an adviser at the elbow" of the President and a "minister 

 of foreign affairs" m6ans that they can seldom be one and the same 

 person.*^^ 



MINORITY partner IN OVERSEAS OPERATIONS 



The other gap in the mission of the Secretary of State is the in- 

 completeness of his jurisdiction over U.S. foreign operations and 

 contacts. As one analyst has observed: "when the main mgredients 

 of an agenda [in diplomatic negotiations] are military, economic, 

 financial, technological, or legal, the harassed generalists of the 

 Depai'tment can usually contribute so little in the way of substance 

 that they are hopelessly dependent on the experts of other depart- 

 ments." However, the principal limitation is the Department's "lack 

 of control over the overseas programs and activities that are now the 

 real instruments of policy execution." In fact: 



Since the end of World War II, the deployment overseas of large United States 

 land, sea, and air forces has been both a major instrument of policy implementa- 

 tion and a source of involvement in foreign international affairs. Our military 

 and economic assistance programs — now chiefly centered in the less developed 



'21 Dean Acheson, "Eclipse of the State Department," Foreign Affairs 49, no. 4 (July 1971), pp. 593-594. 



122 Tl->irl nn c.i^7~(MU 



122 Ibid., pp. 5C7-€04. 



(I4in 



