378 



International Orsanizations and Programs account of the Foreign Aid Bill, are 

 indeed important (3, pp. 32-34). However, the administration has yet to 

 respond to a number of pressing questions, among which are the following. 



(a) How will the U.S. commitments referred to be met for the year 1985, 

 given that the United States has ceased to contribute to UNESCO effective 

 December 31, 1984? 



(b) How was the $2.75 million figure arrived at? Mr. Newell has stated 

 that 8511 of State's $47 million proposal was intended for Third World 

 development. Even if this 85% must all now be considered nonessential to U.S. 

 interests (as defined by some unspecified criterion), by what criteria was the 

 remaining $7 million pared down to $2.75? 



(c) Will the Department allow the recent negative decision of 0MB to 

 neutralize its commitment, so often stated in the months prior to the 

 announcement of the U.S. withdrawal on December 19, and indeed in Secretary 

 Shultz's letter of that date to Director General M'Bow, to "continue to make a 

 significant and concrete contribution to international cooperation in 

 education, science, culture, and communications?" Put more optimistically, 

 how will that commitment be pursued in the wake of the 0MB action? 



2. Planning for future U.S. participation in international scientific 

 cooperation 



The Department of State apparently plans to circulate a letter among other 

 federal agencies in an attempt to locate funds for "UNESCO-like" activities. 

 Reportedly, State intends seek out and to identify loci of "excess" funds and 

 expertise within various agencies (NSF, AID ...) which the Department could 

 then coordinate and guide in accordance with some as yet unstated view of 

 priorities in international scientific cooperation. Again, questions arise. 



(a) How realistic is it to expect that in the present budget climate the 

 agencies will volunteer funds? At what level of funding? $47 million? 



(b) If funds and in-kind contributions are indeed collected, who will 

 coordinate and oversee their administration? Can the State Department now go 

 beyond the role of "check writer" for which it is already set up and fill in 

 for the UNESCO bureaucracy? Instead, should not the responsibility for 

 international science (or education, culture, etc.) be clearly identified as a 

 normal part of the operation of the relevant federal departments and agencies, 

 or else effectively concentrated within some entity created for this purpose? 

 Most would agree that State is not set up for this purpose, that if anything 

 it has moved further away from this role in recent years (e.g., in abolishing 

 the secretariat for the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO in 1981). 



(c) What set of priorities will be used to determine how any collected 

 funds are to be used? Has the administration been able to rank science 

 activities in priority order? Has it been able to determine whether a given 

 science program benefits the United States in equal or greater proportion to 

 its costs? If so, have the policies underlying such calculations been spelled 

 out clearly so that they can be debated? 



