1468 



"proper and meaningful consultation" between the legislative and 

 executive branches of government. 



An idea of the possible scope of the "national security," as it might 

 concern such a joint committee, serving as a congressional instrument 

 for continuous foreign policy planning and review, is suggested by a 

 speech by Senator Mark O. Hatfield ^^* who explained to a congres- 

 sional audience that it was a "prevalent and frequent mistake" to 

 equate it with military might. Potency of arms was "a component, 

 but only one component, of what constitutes, in reality, our 'national 

 security'." 



There is [said Senator Hatfield] one central truth we must realize: Protecting 

 and preserving the life of citizens in America is directly dependent upon the 

 conditions that will preserve and nurture life throughout the world. This increases 

 as we realize the finite limitations to the resources necessary to preserve life. 

 In an ultimate but very real way, the conditions for securing life here in America 

 are dependent upon conditions and resources for sustaining life everywhere. 

 We are tied together with mankind in a single destiny.^'^ 



Thus, the Senator continued, it was becoming evident that "the forces 

 shaping our Nation's and the world's real security go far beyond what 

 can even be insured by treaties and arms." He cited the "growing 

 global interdependence of the world," "United States dependence on 

 the mineral resources of the poor countries," and relative consumption 

 of resources by rich and poor countries. And he declared; 



There is no problem faced by this world more likely to breed instability and 

 conflict, threatening our security and that of the entire world in the years ahead, 

 than the disparity in distribution of food and basic resources for sustaining life.'''' 



THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY 



One problem that all institutions concerned with policy analysis 

 encounter is in being believed by those who make decisions on policy 

 issues. There are repeated instances of studies that clearly identified 

 a future danger, or the need to prevent a future crisis, and were 

 neglected until the event occurred. Unfortunately, there are also 

 repeated instances of forecasts of disaster that didn't happen after 

 all. It is worth noting, however, that the confidence level of any 

 technology forecast rises not merely when it is accepted by more 

 critics but when it is subjected to deeper and more comprehensive 

 analysis. But while the confidence level of a study may improve with 

 effort, it is less likely that its political acceptability or credibility will 

 be correspondingly enhanced. Guidance on this problem calls for 

 much further study. 



A related problem is that of distinguishing between technical and 

 normative advice. Professor Rusk, with reference to his own experience 

 as Secretary of State, observes: 



There is one question on which high policy officers need more help. When is a 

 scientist talking science and when is he talking politics cloaked in scientific 

 terminology? A friend once said of Einstein, "he was a genius in mathematical 

 physics, an amateur in music and a baby in politics." I myself have received 

 "scientific" advice which was merely the political advice of a scientist. Obviously, 

 a scientist is as entitled to political views as is the nearest taxi driver. Perhaps 

 each high policy officerlought to have, or have access to, someone he can trust to 

 help him sort wheat from chafif.^^* 



MI U.S. Congress, House, Congrasional Record, 93d Cong., 2d sess., 1974, 120, p. E6365. (Daily edition.) 



MS Ibid. 



233 Ibid., p. E6366. 



»< Rusk to Huddle, March 18, 1975. 



