1496 



and benefits;"^ on the other hand, there is substantial participation 

 by the Department of State in coordinating bilateral science programs, 

 and in assisting in arrangements for overseas space tracking stations 

 and other remote scientific deployments. 



In summar}^ the primary emphasis of the Department in these 

 categories appears to be operational rather than pohcy-oriented. 

 Under these conditions, it would be unhkely to expect the Department 

 to propose new diplomatic initiatives to advance U.S. diplomatic 

 objectives when these involve overseas (or domestic) research and 

 development activities of other agencies. An assessment by the Na- 

 tional Academy of Sciences of the "complex" policy process for 

 "international aspects of programs in which science and technology 

 are closely involved" observes that "many of the subjects relevant to 

 science and technology receive little leadership or effective guidance 

 until they reach crisis proportions or cause major political problems." 

 (In the assessment quoted here, no reference was made to initiatives, 

 and only the monitoring function was discussed.) Accordingly, the 

 report recommended as one of the functions of a proposed Council 

 for Science and Technology, in the Executive Office of the President, 

 a "strong coupling" between this Council and the Department of 

 State, in consultation with the National Securit}^ Council. Said the 

 report : 



That coupling would enable the council to provide in international matters the 

 early warning and coordinated attention to crisis management and selective 



2'i On this point Dean Brooks comments: 



Although I see its disadvantages I do not see how State can avoid being the coordinator and 

 defender of the U.N. agency budgets. This is because the relative emphasis on the various U.N. 

 specialized agencies is a ciuestion of U.S. foreign policy, and consequently State must have a hand in 

 determing the overall priorities. The real problem is, I think, that U.N. affairs generally are accorded 

 too low a priority within State, and within the Government as a whole. The reasons are under- 

 standable, but 1 think not correct, especially insofar as they pertain to the specialized agencies. We 

 are going to have to come to terms with the multilateral mode of dealing with the world, unsatis- 

 factory as the present mechanisms are. I do not think the situation is helped by the U.S. signalling 

 its generally low opinion of U.N. agencies to the world. Our policy should be to constantly seek ways 

 to make them work better, and keep them as non-political as jsossible. If the U.N. agency budgets 

 were coordinated and defended by the relevant U.S. specialized agencies, our national posture 

 with respect to the U.N. would be even more uncoordinated than at present, a step in the wrong 

 direction. I do not see why State could not make better use of the assistance of the si)ecialized 

 agencies in defending U.N. budget contribution^, but the process should be orchestrated by State. 



(Brooks to Huddle, February 10, 1975.) 



In response to a question as to "state and agency relationships to U.N. organizations," Mr. Beckler con- 

 sidered it "one of the most di IRcult and troublesome problems in delivering on our commitments and realiz- 

 ing the opportunities for science and technology to contribute to our foreign policy objectives." He 

 continued: 



The government's scientific and technical resources and capabilities reside in substantive mission 

 • departments and agencies that, for the most part, have neither the statutory mandate nor the 

 budgets to caiTy out international cooperative actiyities. The Department of State has the mission 

 but lacks both the technical capabilities and the financial resources. For this reason, the U.S. 

 now finds itself overcommitted in ability to provide scienti "c and technical follow-through of major 

 initiatives by the President and Secretary of State expressed in the U.N. and bilateral agreements. 

 How to redress this imbalance requires special study. My preference is to seek legislative authority 

 and budgets for the operating departments and agencies to engage in international activities as an 

 integral part of their missions under the general policy purview of the Department of State. 



Your questions fi.il to point up an equally troublesome problem of coordination within the- De- 

 partment of State. Typically, IQ concerns itself with the funding and operation of U.N. agencies, 

 regional desks such as ARA with the substantive work of those agencies, and the Bureau of Oceans 

 and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs with the science and technology aspects. 

 Innovative procedures and organizational arrangements need to be instituted to facilitate a coherent 

 and coordinated approach so that the expertise of the Department can be marshalled in support 

 of the Secretary. One possible mechanism for doing this would be to strengthen the Policy Planning 

 Staff so that it could operate in the mode of the NSC staff— formally delning the terms of reference 

 for studies of major issues (in the name of the Secretary) and assigning responsibilities within the 

 Department for the conduct of the studies, drawing where necessary on outside contributions. 

 Through such mechanism, the issues and the pros and cons of alternative approaches could 

 systematically be developed and placed before the Secretary. Although this may now be done to 

 a limited extent, the process could be institutionalized with advantage and offers the possibility of 

 generating more guidance and leadership from the top of the Department. 



(Beckler to Huddle, March 5, 1975.) 



