1499 



the extent to which the same leadership group turns up in different 

 pohcy group mee tings. ^^^ 



Somewhere in this poHcy complex, perhaps most logically in a 

 cooperative venture of OES and the Polic}^ Planning Staff, it would 

 seem desirable to initiate a number of policy studies of such subjects 

 as the following : 



— An 'understanding of the diplomatic implications of the 

 multinational corporations ; 



— Assessment of the comparative diplomatic merits, problems, 

 potentiahties, and future action implications of multilateral 

 science and technolog}' programs and institutions versus bilateral 

 programs ; 



— Examination of the implications for U.S. diplomacy of the 

 effects of technology that simultaneously weaken sovereignty 

 and intensif}' nationalism — and as to whether these combined 

 effects point toward increased tensions and instabilities among 

 nations ; 



— Resolution of the conflicting assertions about the m.erits of 

 U.S. sales of technology abroad and the relatively more rapid 

 rate of economic development of nations purchasing U.S. tech- 

 nology — including the diplomatic policies appropriate to the 

 situation; 



— Analysis of the adverse or potentially adverse consequences 

 for international amity and stability of such technologies as 

 seabed mining, Vv^eather modification, and atomic power; and 

 — Analysis of the diplomatic and policy aspects of the un- 

 balance between global food supply and populations. 

 The kinds of technology-oriented foreign policy studies listed above 

 are urgently needed to chart future courses for both U.S. diplomacy 

 and science polic3-. Other items could readil^^ be added. The results 

 of such studies would be of value not only to the President and his 

 diplomatic corps, but also to the Congress and particularly those 

 committees with concern for foreign affairs, science and technology, 

 or both.^^^ However, to the extent that such studies and anal3'ses 



S-' For example, in an interview with Business Week, Dr. Kissinger was asked: 



Is there any chance of coordinating better U.S. international econcvvc policy, particularly since the 

 Council for International Eccnomic Policy seems to be losing its power? He responded: 



"You can't look at policies of a government in terms of organirational mechanisms. The CIEP 

 was created at a time when the National Security Council was essentially divorced from economic 

 policies. Then it became clear that every economic policy had profound foreign policy implications 

 and really required political inspiration and leadership to make it effective. You could never imple- 

 ment the energy policy as a purely economic matter; it has been a foreign policy matter from the 

 beginning. 



"When that happens, the issue tends to be pulled back into the orbit of the National Security 

 Council What you have had is a greater foreign policy involvement in economic policy decisions. 



"On the other hand, I think the relations between the State Department and Treasury have 

 never been better, despite the occasional disagreements that surface in the newspapers. You expect 

 disagreements. The issue is not whether there are disagreements but how they are settled. And 

 they are always settled in a constructive positive way. 



"On energy, we have a group which I described before of Arthur Burns, Simon, myself. Robinson, 

 and a few others who meet regularly to set the basic strategy in thp interna' ional field. Whether we 

 meet a's the Council for International Economic Pohcy or the National Security Council, the group 

 has essentially the same membership." 



(Source: "KJssinger on Oil. Food, and Trade," Business Week, January 13, 1975. n. 76.) 



282 Both Dean Brooks and Mr. Beckler see the newly formed Commission on International Belations of 

 the National Research Council as a useful resource in this context. Dr. Brooks suggests that it would be- 

 "desirable if State could provide the Commission with some relatively unencumbered funds in order that 

 it could explore and develop new initiatives in the international science and teclinology area, rather than 

 merely respond to government requests in a problem-solving mode." (Brooks to Huddle. February 10. 

 1975.) And Mr. Beckler suggested "strengthening the cooperative relationship between the Department of 

 State and the NAS-NAE-NRC structure: (a) to draw upon the NRC in ways that can serve the Depart- 

 ment as-a-whole (this will be particularly facilitated if the Policy Planning Staff mechanism is strengthened 

 along theUnes suggested above); and (b) to make broader and more systematic use of the NAS-NAE-NRC 

 studies through direct dialogue between the authors of the studies and the responsible officers of the Depart- 

 ment." Beckler to Huddle, March 5, 1975. 



