1407 



Prolijeratloa of Bilateral Programs 



The niiineroiis bilateral science and technology arrangements to 

 wliich the United States is a party pose substantial j)roblems of 

 administrative coordination. Undoubtedly, a well planned and stoutly 

 implemenied cooperative science program yields both technical and 

 di])lomatic benefits to the participants. However, as bilateral commit- 

 ments increase in numbers, with more and more U.S. agencies called 

 upon to participate, many problems arise; e.g., coordinating all these 

 diffused activities, funding conferences and travel, detailing personnel 

 to plan and staff a myriad of operations here and abroad, and relating 

 each separate set of bilateral ])rograms to the particular (and shared) 

 di]»iomatic and technical purposes for which it is intended. 



A number of "bilateral science and technology agreements" are 

 managed by the National Science Foimdation. (See Table 4.) Otlier 

 less formal relationships also exist at varying levels of intensity with 

 Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela, and 

 Guatemala. NSF also funds international activities of the National 

 Academy of Sciences."^ 



THE JOINT COMMISSIONS 



More recently, further cooperative devices called "joint commis- 

 sions" have come into play. A letter from the Department of State to 

 Congressman Lee H. Hamilton, December 31, 1974, listed six "bilateral 

 commissions" as having been organized or agreed to in 1974. These 

 were "at the cabinet level," and were with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, 

 Jordan, Israel, India, and Iran. Other proposed commissions are cur- 

 rently under study. The letter describes the commissions as "diverse 

 in character and . . . tailored to the particular interests and require- 

 ments of each partner." A general intent common to all agreements is 

 "a mutual desire to develop a special relationship which goes beyond 

 normal diplomatic discourse." 



With certain of these countries, we have long enjoyed close and friendlj' ties; 

 we want to strengthen them. With other countries, we want to move to a new- 

 relationship of greater amity and greater maturity. We intend under these com- 

 missions to encourage connections between all elements of our society and theirs, 

 while broadening cooperation in such fields as cultural exchange, economic and 

 social development, and science and technology. i^' 



The letter transmitted a "summary of Joint Commission Activities 

 During 1974," indicating that some of these Commissions were still 

 in theprocess of development. Excerpts from the summary follow: 



"« National Science Foundation, Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1974. 



The objectives of these programs, as described by NSF, ere: 



To improve coordination among Federal and private scientific and technical information services; 



To conduct an annual assessment of the health of the scientific and technical information enterprise 

 in the United States; 



To arrange for the dissemination of the results of research supported by the Science Information 

 Activities program; 

 To increase benefits from United States participation in international science information activities. 



While administratively complex, the NSF-managed agreements do not entail very heavy management 

 costs. The 1976 budget authorization recommendation for this activity was $8 million mainly for "coopera- 

 tive research projects, seminars, and exchanges of scientists with 19 countries." (These inc'uded the 14 

 bilaterals managed by NSF, cooperative activities with 5 other countries, and support for the NAS inter- 

 national program.) (Source: U.S. Congress, House, Conmiittee on Science and Technology, Authorizing 

 Appropriations to the National Science Foundation, House Report No. 94-66, 94th Cong., 1st sess., 

 March 14, 1975, pp. 121-123.) 

 II* U.S. Congress, House, Congressicmal Record, 94th Cong., 1st sess., 1975, 6, p. E148. 



