1503 



]ong-range future. As a general proposition, Members of Congress are 

 faced with so many legislative commitments and committee respon- 

 sibilities that they find it difficult to reserve time to monitor in detail 

 the activities of legislative committee staffs. However, a policy com- 

 mittee whose staff issued well-thouglit-out anahses in great depth at 

 less frequent intervals could presumably budget its time to review 

 the product A\ath the attention and care it would merit, and be able 

 to translate such studies into recommendations for legislative (or 

 executive) action. The implications of the present study suggest that 

 the scope of the term "national security" would need to be stretched 

 far into nonmilitar}- areas for the proposed joint committee and its 

 staff to suppl}' the Congress with indepth studies across the whole 

 range of "science, technolog}-, and American diploraacj'." 



A CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE 



Related to this possible approach is still another: the creation of 

 a congressional "Office of International Technology Analysis," pat- 

 terned after OTA and dealing with the nonmilitar}- aspects of na- 

 tional security, tension reduction, and policies for the application 

 xmd control of technology toward U.S. diplomatic goals. 



Whatever institutional arrangement might be judged suitable for 

 the purpose, the fact remains (as shown in Chapter X) that the 

 congressional resources for dealing today with the great and compli- 

 cated issues of science, techiiologv, and American diplomacy are 

 ■sNiideh' diffused: i.e., the need seems to exist for some form of arrange- 

 ment to bring to a focus, and into logical unity, the diverse strands of 

 diplomacy now being separately' pursued by perhaps a dozen com- 

 mittees of Congress. This concentration and focusing of analysis ap- 

 pears to be the purpose of Chairman Zablocki's bill, and could reason- 

 ably apply as well to the study of a future diplomacy under tho 

 growing influence of technolog}'. 



A. Concluding Comment 



To bring to a close this review of the State Department's science 

 policy structure, the discussion returns brief!}' to the role of that 

 Department and to its own needs. Ultimately, the foreign policy of 

 the United States must be one that can be accepted by both its con- 

 gressional sponsors and its e.xecutive implementors. The i)olicy dialog 

 must necessarih' flow between these two centers of governmental 

 power. Technological and diplomatic competence must be shared, 

 along with the substantive information that makes the world of the 

 present understandable and the world of the future manageable. 



By wa}^ of conclusion, reference is made to a 1971 issue of the 

 Foreign Service Journal. Tliis jiarticular issue was devoted to a sym- 

 posium of articles on various technological developments that were 

 perceived to have powerful impacts on U.S. diplomacy: information 

 systems, population growth, automation, nuclear applications, and 

 "Global Changes: Actual and Possible." A brief editorial introduction 

 to the issue contains some observations important for this paper 

 because they express its theme well, and because the source is the 

 JForeign Service itself.^^® The statement declares: "The objective of 



i^ "About this Issue," Foreign Service Journal 48, no. 3 (March 1971), p; 2; 



