272 



why we took that attitude. But it was an attitude shared by our 

 potential collaborators. On all sides, we found a reluctance to place 

 a dependence upon others in areas that were considered vital to the 

 progress of programs. 



Now collaborations are being considered in areas which have 

 high priority for the success of our program. This evolution is the 

 result of increasing budget stringency and also as a result of the 

 success which we have experienced with the collaborations that are 

 undertaken. 



The Department strongly supports collaboration in high-priority 

 areas in the fusion program, in recognition of the fact that it may 

 be the key to the achievement of our goals in the face of limited 

 resources. 



The key point that I would like to establish with these general 

 remarks is the importance of the policymaking process in the es- 

 tablishment of effective collaboration. Each of the fusion programs 

 with which we deal in the United States, the European Communi- 

 ty, and Japan are structured differently. The government funding 

 process is different; program management is different; institutional 

 arrangements and the underlying perception of urgency and goal 

 are different. 



Furthermore, what constitutes success for a program is not nec- 

 essarily the same thing as success for the institutions involved. 

 Given these nontechnical factors, successful collaboration absolute- 

 ly requires a policy-level commitment over an extended period. I 

 might remark that that period precedes and follows the establish- 

 ment of a collaboration. 



Over the last several years, the administration has provided this 

 kind of support for collaboration in fusion through the Summit. A 

 Fusion Working Group has been established to provide a political 

 framework for developing collaboration. In addition, a Technical 

 Working Party has begun to establish a technical consensus on the 

 nature of collaboration in fusion under the Fusion Working Group. 



It is with real interest, therefore, that we look to the Summit 

 process as a possible means of regularizing political input to the 

 program and developing a technical consensus in all of the partici- 

 pating countries. 



Our years of experience in international collaboration and fusion 

 have led us to appreciate fully the difficulty involved in reaching 

 agreements and implementing those agreements, even among polit- 

 ical allies. 



Among the important lessons that we have learned in this proc- 

 ess are: One, that time spent in understanding foreign institutional 

 relationships and cultural nuances is well spent. Second, confi- 

 dence in the integrity and capability of the partners on both the 

 political and technical level is required by all sides. 



Third, careful planning, preparation and domestic coordination 

 are essential. Fourth, early consultation to identify mutual needs 

 and to develop the best approaches to meet those needs is crucial. 



Fifth, agreements must clearly define objectives, roles, and re- 

 sponsibilities. And, finally, firm commitments, once established, 

 must be honored. 



To illustrate these points, I would like to review and contrast the 

 results of extended cooperation in two areas, one dealing with ma- 



