317 



realistically, they could be line items in the appropriate domestic agency 

 budgets, and/or dedicated international funds in NSF. In particular, I 

 believe NSF could have a much larger cross agency role in stimulating and 

 supporting the development of international cooperation. 



I have gone into this much detail -- and obviously only lightly touchea 

 many of the issues — because it seems to me that international cooperation in 

 science and technology is increasingly important to the U.S. for scientific, 

 technological, economic and political reasons. We may be the world's 

 strongest scientific nation, but we are being overtaken piecemeal by 

 aggressive competence in many other countries. We need increasingly to work 

 with others for our own scientific purposes, as well as to meet the growing 

 costs of science. Nor have we learned how to use satisfactorily or 

 sufficiently our unparalleled scientific strength for broader foreign policy 

 purposes. The U.S. Government has a large institutional/process problem here 

 that deserves very much more attention than it generally receives. 



Multilateral vs bilateral cooperation 



You have also asked for comments on the relative merits of bilateral ana 

 multilateral cooperation. That would require an extended paper on its own. 

 There are a few key points, however, which I will make almost in list form. 

 One is the obvious one that they are only occasionally in competition — both 

 are required. 



Where there is choice, that selection should be maae in the light of an 

 assessment of both direct and indirect objectives. For example, immediate 

 progress and results on a project are likely to flow faster from a bilateral 

 approach. That may be the overriding consideration. On the other hand, the 

 development of international capacity in particular subjects, which may be 

 important for future progress, is likely to be better served with a 

 multilateral approach. If that is the critical consideration, a multilateral 

 approach would be indicated. 



For some projects, an independent actor is important, perhaps for 

 political acceptability: multilateral organizations are likely to be essential 

 for that role. In other cases, the U.S. may be legitimately concerned about 

 loss of control of a project, or politicization, which v/ould tend toward 

 selecting a bilateral approach. In some cases, it may be possible to get 

 funding more easily for multilateral than for bilateral projects, though that 

 can work in reverse as well, depending on the subject and the country. 



In short, in an ideal policy process, each proposal for cooperation would 

 be examined on its merits, based on the general objectives of the project and 

 the situation in which it is embedded, and with consideration of long-term as 

 well as immediate national objectives. 



There is no such thing as an ideal policy process, but I am afraid that 

 we are particularly far from that situation today; instead, it appears to me 

 that there is a strong intrinsic bias against multilateral projects and 

 organizations, quite independently of the broader interests of the U.S. I do 

 not believe it is possible for any couatry to maintain complete independence 

 of national action, as many would like to believe possible, in a world 

 changing and interlocking as fast as this one is. Iiuch better would be to try 

 to build the multilateral institutions the world does and will need in ways 

 that will make them viable and effective for this country's and everyone's 

 interests. That is a tall and very important task, but I see only negative 

 actions, and very few positive ones attempting to serve that goal. 



Thank you for inviting me to testify. I will be pleased to answer any 

 questions. 



