Bits, Bytes, Power & Diplomacy

Wriston, Walter B.

2007

A fine American historian once opined that: "Peace is the mastery of great forces; it is not the solution of a problem."[1]  It would be my thesis today that great new forces are at work in the world and if we are to master them, the beginning of wisdom is to recognize that the world is changing dramatically and at unprecedented speed. Indeed we are in the midst of a true revolution. To a large extent the enabling factor - but not the cause - is technology. Because enormous streams of information are being delivered all over the world in oral-visual form, the monopoly of the literate classes has been broken and people who formerly had no idea of how others lived are now aware. The technology is permitting men and women all over the planet to construct a future that is very different from yesterday. The defining event is that more and more people around the globe are demanding more say in their own destiny.

As we live in revolutionary times, so also did our Founding Fathers. It was a very different kind of revolution, but just as traumatic for those who lived through it. They believed Thomas Paine's claim that the revolution marked "the birthday of the new world," and not just a battle for home rule. It was in his words a way to "begin the world all over again." The fact that the revolution played out largely unseen by the great majority of the world's population did not make it any less real. Great national leaders then were virtually unknown to the people as there were no photographs of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, and the powerful Tsar of Russia traveled unrecognized throughout Europe.

Not surprisingly, as a new nation emerged, foreign policy was at the forefront of the new government's concerns. We had a very experienced team to deal with the problem. Every president between Washington and Jackson had diplomatic experience. Four of them served in diplomatic posts abroad and three of them served as Secretary of State. In 1793 when the total Federal budget was less than $10 million, Congress appropriated $1 million "to defray any expenses which may be incurred in relation to the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations." This roughly 10% of the national budget compares to the 1.2% of the budget we spend today on international affairs. Another remarkable fact is that the Founding Fathers exhibited a keen interest in technology. Indeed provision for copyright and patent protection was written into the Constitution itself. This provision was implemented by an act of Congress in 1790 creating a Patent Board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the Attorney General. It was a prestigious group: Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolf. That board is long gone and indeed the schism between the diplomat and the scientist has grown wider over the years at the very time it is becoming more and more important that the two disciplines need to understand each other. Because so much change in the current revolution is driven by technology, our task in mastering these new forces is made more complex by the difficulty of communicating across disciplines. Diplomats, trained in the humanities often tend to validate C. P. Snow's famous lecture on Two Cultures, in which he argued that the scientists not only do not communicate with the humanists, and vice versa, but are ignorant of each other's knowledge and content to stay that way. The two cultures are ships that pass in the night. In a somewhat similar fashion, many diplomatic historians have tended to minimize or even ignore the impact of scientific discoveries on the course of history, preferring instead to follow the great man theory or look for the historical tides that carry the world along. Indeed, the indexes of many standard texts on diplomatic history do not even include the words "technology" or "economics."

Despite this generalization, few would argue that the politics of the world did not change dramatically in the predawn chill on July 16, 1945, near Alamogordo, New Mexico, when the first atomic bomb exploded. Suddenly, old power relationships were changed, military doctrines had to be reexamined, and indeed the world we had known has not been the same since. Little more than a decade later on October 4, 1957, the world was jolted again by the news that the Soviet Union had launched sputnik, and Dr. Edward Teller lamented that the United States "had lost a battle more important and greater than Pearl Harbor." The President of the United States, however, was unperturbed, saying that "So far as the satellite itself is concerned, that does not raise my apprehensions, not one iota." In this case, the scientist was more perceptive than the politician, since this technological breakthrough, combined with the invention of the microprocessor, has dramatically impacted our lives, and in ways that are still unfolding. Taken together, these inventions have been the major enabling forces in producing a massive shift in the way the world works. In today's jargon, we are seeing a paradigm shift in our political and economic landscape. George Gilder put it this way: "The key to paradigm shifts is the collapse of formerly pivotal scarcities, the rise of new forms of abundance, and the onset of new scarcities. Successful innovators use these new forms of abundance to redress the emergent shortages."[2]  This is an ongoing process to which we are all witness.

Information technology affects not only everything we do, but also what we do. The enormous flow of words and images tends to dull the senses and sometimes the sheer volume of detail conceals the true meaning of events. It is almost a truism that history is facts, but facts don't make history. Datum, no matter how prolix, does not arrange itself into useful knowledge. Some observers looking at today's world see only an incremental change as clerk-typists substitute a word processor for the old Underwood and not a real revolution. Despite this, I would argue that we are now living in the midst of the third great revolution in history. A revolution by definition causes pervasive changes in society and alters the balance of power. Old power structures crumble and new ones arise. Each of these three revolutions was driven to some extent by technology. When the principle of the lever was applied to make a plow to break the earth, the agricultural revolution was born, and the power of nomadic tribal chiefs declined. When years later, men learned to substitute the power of water, steam, and electricity for animal muscle, the Industrial Revolution was born. Both of these massive changes took centuries to unfold. Each caused a shift in the ruling power structure. Today, the marriage of computers and telecommunications has ushered in the Information Age that is as different from the Industrial Age as that period was from the Agricultural Age. And it has come upon us with enormous speed.

Information technology has demolished time and distance. Instead of validating Orwell's vision of big brother watching the citizen, just the reverse has happened; the citizen is watching big brother. And so the virus of freedom, for which there is no antidote, is spread by myriad electronic networks to the four corners of the earth. Some experts do not accept the extent of the change that is occurring.

An expert by definition is a person with great knowledge about a legacy system - indeed there are no experts on the future. This being so, it is not surprising that despite overwhelming evidence that we are witness to a real revolution, many "experts" refuse to acknowledge its existence. This reaction is grounded in human nature which is unchanged over the years. When new technology becomes the enabling factor which fundamentally changes the way the world works, the experts' expertise is suddenly in danger of obsolescence, and often they denigrate the importance of change since it may threaten not only their reputation, but even their livelihood. Henry Kissinger put this phenomenon more diplomatically: "Most foreign policies that history has marked highly, in whatever country, have been originated by leaders who were opposed by experts. It is, after all, the responsibility of the expert to operate the familiar and that of the leader to transcend it."[3] 

Examples abound. In the midst of World War I, an aide-de-camp to British Field Marshal Douglas Haig, after seeing a tank demonstration, opined: "The idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd. It is little short of treasonous."[4]  In our country, the ridicule and court martial of Brigadier General Billy Mitchell when he postulated the importance of air power by offering to sink a battleship is instructive. The Secretary of War, Newton D. Baker, thought so little of the idea "that I'm willing to stand on the bridge of a battleship while that nitwit tries to hit it from the air."[5]  It is not hard to find similar statements from legacy experts about everything from oil supplies to school choice. Indeed this recurring phenomenon was encapsulated in Clarke's First Law: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." In the case of our national security, a refusal to open our eyes to real change in the world is a recipe for disaster.

The history of the world is strewn with wonderful inventions, but most of them were designed to solve specific problems. The wheel to move things, engines of all kinds to supply power, and clocks and compasses to tell time and direction. The inventions that made possible the information revolution were of a different sort. They changed the way we solve problems. When Johann Gutenberg pioneered movable type printing in Europe about 1438 and when the little group at Intel designed the integrated circuit in the 1970s, the way we record, store, access and peruse knowledge made a quantum leap forward and affected not only how we do our jobs, but what we do.

These two events are just as important as they sound. In modern terms Gutenberg broke the monopoly of the monks who copied manuscripts by hand and guarded them jealously. They understood with great clarity that knowledge was power and thus not to be lightly dispensed. In some places the books were chained to the shelves. Daniel Boorstin, a former Librarian of Congress, cites an inscription in a 12th century manuscript, "This book belongs to the monastery of St. Mary of Robert's Bridge, who ever shall steal it from this house, or mutilate it let him be forever cursed. Amen." Contrast that mindset with the fact that a researcher with a computer and a modem sitting anywhere in the world can tap into the database of the Library of Congress, the Bibliotheque de France, the British Library, or search the catalogs of thousands of other libraries around the world.

The magnitude of the change information technology has wrought is breath-taking. The contrast in the way statesmen communicate, for example, is illustrated by the fact that when Woodrow Wilson went to Paris to negotiate the Treaty of Versailles he ordered his Postmaster-General Albert Burleson to assume control over all transatlantic cable lines in order to censor the news from Europe.[6]  Today such an action would be an exercise in futility as no one or no nation can block the flow of information across national borders.

Years later, Saddam Hussein in the midst of the Gulf War proposed what was viewed in Washington as a phony peace settlement. The problem for President Bush was to convey that judgment to the 26 nations in the coalition. As Marlin Fitzwater remembers the "quickest and most effective way was CNN, because all countries in the world had it and were watching it on a real-time basis...and 20 minutes after we got the proposal...I went on national television...to tell the 26 members...that the war was continuing."[7]  In this and in many other instances the elite foreign policy establishment was bypassed. No highly trained foreign service officer meticulously drafted a note, no Secretary of State signed it, and no American ambassadors called on foreign ministers to deliver the message. We entrusted a vital diplomatic message in the midst of a war to a private television company seen by the whole world.

The contrast between then and now could not be more striking. Wilson's strategy was to control the flow of information by fiat. Bush realized that he had to be a winner in the world information market. All of this rapid communication is made possible by the convergence of computers and telecommunications which has made us, ready or not, into a global community. For the first time in history, rich and poor, north and south, east and west, the city dweller and the peasant, are all linked together in a global electronic net of shared images in real time. Ideas move across borders as if they did not exist, and time zones often become more important than borders.

Information technology creates a without-borders global conversation - indeed the Internet carries real conversations where information is exchanged by millions of people on more than 10,000 bulletin boards without regard to race, gender or color. The implications of the global conversation are about the same as the implications of a village conversation, which is to say they are enormous. Small villages are justly famous as efficient marketplaces of ideas. A village will quickly share news of any advantageous innovation; and if anyone gets a raise or a favorable adjustment of his rights, everyone similarly situated will soon be pressing for the same. And why not? These people are just like you and me, the villagers say. I can see them and hear them every day. Why should I not have what they have?

All this has validated Abraham Lincoln's sentiment expressed on his way to his first inauguration that our Declaration of Independence "gave liberty not alone to the people of this country, but hope to all the world, for all future time." At the time Lincoln spoke, his words were heard by only a handful of people. Today this hope is the subject of the global conversation; it prompts people to ask the same question on a global scale. In the past the educated elites could read about democracy or capitalist prosperity. But hearing or reading of such things is not at all like having them happen in your village, happen to people you can see and hear, people just a few streets or broadcast frequencies away.

A global village will have global customs. In a global village, denying people human rights or democratic freedoms no longer means denying them an abstraction they have never experienced but the established customs of the village. It hardly matters that only a minority of the world's people enjoy such freedoms or the prosperity that goes with them. Once people are convinced that these things are possible in the village an enormous burden of proof falls on those who would deny them.

The global conversation puts pressures on sovereign governments which over time influence the political processes all over the world. The information revolution is thus profoundly threatening to the power structures of the world, and with good reason. The nature and powers of the sovereign state are being altered and even compromised in fundamental ways. The geopolitical map of the world is being redrawn. The elements of the balance of power that has prevailed for the last forty years have already been permanently disturbed and may soon be irretrievably altered or lost. It affects every aspect of government activities.

Much economic theory which was based on national markets is rendered suspect by the reality of a global market. In the world's financial markets, sovereign governments have lost control of their ability to influence the price others will pay for their currency on any but a momentary basis. The market is a giant voting machine that records in real time the judgment of traders all over the world about our, diplomatic, fiscal and monetary policies. It has created what I call the Information Standard which is far more draconian than the old Gold standard and operates more swiftly. Moments after a President speaks in the Rose Garden, the market's judgment of that policy is reflected in the price of the dollar. When I started in the banking business, the total foreign exchange market in New York was only about 50 million dollars. If the Federal Reserve called Citibank or Morgans and instructed them to sell 10 million dollars, an order that size could move the market. Today, the market is a trillion dollars, and central bank intervention becomes an expensive exercise in futility.

As governments could once partially control the value of their currency, they could also to some extent control what their citizens could see and hear. Today, however, the sovereign has totally lost control of what people can see and hear.

In Prague in 1988 the first protesters in the streets looked into the CNN cameras and chanted at the riot police: "The world sees you." And indeed it did. It is an anomaly of history that the people of Eastern Europe watched the revolution on CNN relayed to them by a Russian satellite and took courage to make their own rebellion against their sovereigns. The entire political process is magnified, and sometimes distorted, by the images that cross your TV screen. When reporting of international events was restricted to the printed word, each of us had to create an image in our mind of the actual event. This mental process has a very different impact than watching say, Yeltsin outside their White House standing on a T-72 army tank denouncing the coup; indeed the only people who did not know what was going on that day in Moscow were in our Embassy which did not have CNN. Here at home seeing in real time the sad, solemn spectacle of unloading the body bags at Dover Air Force Base has a profound effect on the American appetite for foreign adventures. This parade of images thus has an enormous effect on foreign policy agendas. Like some wonder drugs, it has some bad side effects. One down side is that real time pictures, particularly of violent events, tend to destroy the benefit of detachment, of scholarly contemplation and put pressure on policy makers to take some action that may not be fully thought out. As a distinguished editor and journalist put it: "It mobilizes public emotions, influences government policies, and even shapes the events themselves."[8]  Information technology has also altered irretrievably the way nations communicate with each other. The channels through which diplomatic messages moved used to run from Government to Government and the entrance and exit points were guarded by the Foreign Ministers. Today these channels are more and more being bypassed by special interest groups of all kinds ranging from terrorists to human rights activists until, as Andrew Arno of the East-West Communications Institute put it, "...it is often more a matter of strained relations between centers of interest than whole countries.[9]  We have seen these forces at work from South Africa to Korea as one pressure group after another steps around national governments to further their own crusade.

The flood of real time data has also had a transforming effect on economic fundamentals. The substitution of information for physical capital, makes this age fundamentally different from the industrial society. This phenomenon is everywhere in evidence.

Today in America there are millions of square feet of warehouse space that have been closed and are no longer needed as information technology has hooked up individual stores directly to suppliers. At the check-out counters the cash register not only records receipts, but also maintains a running inventory control. When the supply of some product gets low, the light goes on at the supplier's factory and the trucks roll directly to the store. The old interim step of stocking a warehouse and waiting for the store manager to call has been eliminated. Many economists would say that the value of the information that made this possible is equal in value to the physical plant that it replaces, but such value does not appear on the world's balance sheets. We need a whole new system of metrics to measure this new world as old measures tend to give false signals as they were constructed for another age.

Information technology has also produced a new source of wealth which is not material, it is information, knowledge applied to work to create value. When we apply knowledge to ongoing tasks we increase productivity. When we apply it to new tasks we create innovation. The pursuit of wealth is now largely the pursuit of information, and the application of information to the means of production. The rules and customs, skills and talents necessary to uncover, capture, produce, preserve, and exploit information are now mankind's most important rules, customs, skills and talents. The competition for the best information is vastly different from the competition for the best bottom lands or the best coal fields. Nations competing for information will be vastly different from those that once competed primarily for territory and material resources. Indeed many nations' appetite to annex territory has already attenuated and major powers have withdrawn from previously occupied territories.

The new economic powerhouses are masters not of huge material resources, but of ideas and technology. Singapore and Hong Kong, two Asian tigers, demonstrate the growing irrelevance of territory in weighing wealth and power. This shift affects not only nations, but also individual businesses. The changing perception of what constitutes an asset, poses huge problems in expanding or even maintaining the power of government. Unlike land or industrial plant, information resources are not bound to a particular geography, nor easily taxed and controlled by governments. In an economy dominated by products that consist largely of information, this power erodes rapidly. Our laws and systems of measurement are becoming artifacts of another age. A person like Bill Gates with the skills to write and market a complex software system that can produce a billion dollars of revenue can walk past any customs officer in the world with nothing of "value" to declare, but his wife might have to pay duty on her new ring. Bad data produce bad decisions and leaves us puzzled as to why old policies no longer work.

These changes affect not only the civilian production machine on which our economic strength rests, but also our military capabilities. In science there used to be basically two ways to proceed: the first was to construct a theory and the second was by experiment. Today we have a third: computer simulation. In the Gulf War, for example, young, basically inexperienced Americans went up against the feared Republican Guards and beat them. A retired colonel asked one commander: "How do you account for your dramatic success, when not a single officer or man in your entire outfit ever had combat experience...'But we were experienced', said the commander, 'We had fought such engagements six times before in complete battle simulation at the National Training Center and in Germany.'"[10]  Indeed, the military today is a spectacular example of the fact that information has replaced physical assets. Information, to be sure, has always been a vital part of any commander's strength. Where is the enemy located? How many troops are involved? How are they armed - this kind of information has often made the difference between victory and defeat.

Now military intelligence is much more complex. It even has a new name: "Information Dominance." Today Apache helicopters flying over Bosnia uplink their detailed pictures of action on the ground to a satellite, record them with a video camera or beam them directly to local headquarters. Videos taken from the air verify the Dayton Accord. Major General William Nash observed that in Bosnia "We don't have arguments. We hand them pictures, and they move their tanks."[11]  This is a long, long way from 1943 when analysts were hunting through the stacks of the Library of Congress for maps and photographs of possible German targets for allied bombers as few if any existed in the War Department. "The substitution of massive information for massive firepower also lies behind the development of Battlestar, the operations command headquarters at Eagle Base."[12]  Today even the ground troops on patrol are equipped with night vision goggles and use a hand-held Global Positioning System from the satellites to pinpoint their exact position on the ground. Because the soil is strewn with mines, knowing exactly where you are is often a matter of life and death. Mines that have been located by an airborne mine detection system are exploded by drone Panther tanks which are remotely controlled. And so in the military as in civilian life, information in all its forms is replacing hard assets.

This reliance on information technology and the remarkable things that can be achieved by using it, also has dangerous down sides. Our information infrastructures, in the words of the recent Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Information Warfare, is "vulnerable to attack" and "creates a tunnel of vulnerability previously unrealized in the history of conflict."[13] 

Although we in the United States are, in the words of Owen Harries, "enemy deprived" in the sense the former Soviet Union was defeated in the Cold War and we no longer can concentrate our efforts on a single major adversary, there are many rogue states and groups who even though they command no huge military establishment, can nevertheless conduct information warfare. Today we are experiencing guerrilla warfare, ethnic conflicts and active terrorists groups, not unlike the Middle Ages when soldiers fought for individual war lords. As the Task Force noted: "Offensive information warfare is attractive to many because it is cheap in relation to the cost of developing, maintaining, and using advanced military capabilities. It may cost little to suborn an insider, create false information, manipulate information, or launch malicious logic- based weapons against an information system connected to the globally shared telecommunications infrastructure. The latter is particularly attractive; the latest information on how to exploit many of the design attributes and security flaws of commercial computer software is freely available on the Internet."[14]  Such adversaries, both real and potential, have a lot to work with since the Department of Defense has over 2 million computers, over 10,000 local area networks, and over 100 long-distant networks which coordinate and implement every element of its mission, from weapons' design to battlefield management. During the calendar 1995, up to 200,000 intrusions may have been made into the DoD's unclassified computer.

These intruders "have modified, stolen and destroyed data and software and shut down computers and networks."[15]  Since at the end of the day, effective diplomacy at critical junctures in any age is backed by the knowledge that if all else fails, military force exists that can be used to attain national goals, vulnerability to an attack on our information infrastructure is something that should attract serious attention.

All of this puts pressure on our national security team to master these forces set loose in the world. In the absence of a visible threat to our vital national interest, attention tends to be focused elsewhere, but this would be a mistake. It is more important than ever that our foreign policy be grounded on American national interest. The recent report by The Commission on America's National Interests is a good starting point.[16]  The new technology will not go away - it will only get better in accordance with Moore's law which postulates that microchips will double in density and speed every 18 months. Bandwidth will grow even faster. All of this has had and is having a profound effect on both national and international politics. Although the essence of sovereignty is the power to exclude others from interfering in one's internal affairs, the concept is rapidly eroding. It reaches its ultimate end point when sovereign governments call in outsiders to validate their own elections. The Council of Freely Elected Heads of Government, headed by former President Carter, has traveled to Panama, where they denounced voter fraud by General Noriega, to Nicaragua where it validated an election and so on around the world to governments seeking world approval. Such action must have Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbs turning in their graves.

We also see daily the intrusion of the media into all kinds of negotiations, symbolized by the fact that when Anwar Sadat made his historic trip to Jerusalem he invited Barbara Walters, Walter Cronkite and John Chancellor to come along, but left his wife at home. He understood with great clarity that in today's world one must marshal both domestic and foreign opinion to achieve national goals. More and more one sees heads of state performing that role as in the case of the President and Prime Minister creating public support first for Mikhail Gorbachev and lately Boris Yeltsin. Indeed we see constantly actions by governments and interest groups across borders that are of the same nature as those which got Citizen Genet in such trouble with George Washington.

Perhaps the most startling event in our time is the breakup of the Soviet Union. The explosion of information technology played a huge part in this drama, as documented so completely by Gladys Ganley.[17]  We have the witness of former Secretary of State George Shultz, corroborated by historian Marshall Goldman, that when Ronald Reagan envisioned the use of the microchip to build what came to be called Star Wars, the leaders of the Soviet Union realized they could not compete with the United States without modern technology which their system could not produce. Mr. Shultz put it this way: "The Soviets were genuinely alarmed by the prospect of American science 'turned on' and venturing into the realm of space defense. The Strategic Defense Initiative in fact proved to be the ultimate bargaining chip."[18]  Michael Rothschild echoed these words saying that: "To argue otherwise was to suggest that nineteenth- century France could have remained a European power without adopting the steam engine invented in England. The profound economic and military consequences of the microchip - a technology far too complex and fast moving for the Soviet system - forced the hand of the Soviet elite."[19]  It was the first time in history that a technology not yet in existence, and ridiculed by many, furnished a powerful lever to change the world.

As with all revolutions, we are moving into unknown territory for which there are few maps or guides. "The future," said Arthur Clarke, "is a foreign country; they do things differently there."[20]  Knowledge, which at one time was a kind of an ornament to be displayed by the rich and powerful at conferences, is now combined with management skills to produce wealth. The vast increase of knowledge has brought with it a huge increase in our ability to manipulate matter, increasing its value by the power of the mind and generating new products and substances unhinted in nature and undreamed of only a few years ago. Contrary to the doomsayers who postulated that the world would run out of resources by the year 2000, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find a single community that is worth more in real terms today than it was ten years ago. In the past when the method of creating wealth has changed, old power structures have lost influence, new ones arose, and every facet of society has been affected. As we can already see the beginning of that process in this revolution, one can postulate that in the next few decades the attraction and management of intellectual capital will be the decisive factor determining which institutions and nations will survive and prosper, and which will not. But despite all of the advances of science and the ways in which it is changing the world, science does not remake the human mind or alter the power of the human spirit. There is still no substitute for courage and leadership. What has changed dramatically is the explosive increase in the information which is available to our policy makers in coping with this new world. Hopefully that data processed by the minds of trained diplomats will produce real knowledge, and with enough experience even wisdom. Wisdom has always been in short supply, but it will be sorely needed in the days and years ahead because in the words of a former president, "Only people can solve problems people create."[21] 

 
 
Footnotes:

[1] Wriston, Henry M., Prepare for Peace, Harper & Bros., 1941, p 237

[2] Gilder, George, Over the Paradigm Cliff, ASAP, Feb. 1997, p 29

[3] Kissinger, Henry, Years of Upheaval, Little Brown and Company, 1982, p 445

[4] Cerf, Christopher and Navasky, Victor, The Experts Speak, Pantheon Books, 1984, p 244

[5] IBID, p 246

[6] Langsam, Walter C., The World Since 1914, Macmillan, 1940, p 90

[7] Hernandez, Debrag, "From Insider to Outsider," Editor & Publisher, Dec. 7,1996, p 11

[8] 0'Neill, Michael J., Terrorist Spectaculars, Priority Press Publishers, 1986, p 2

[9] Arno, Andrew, "The News Media as Third Parties in National and International Conflict," in The News Media in National and International Conflicts, Westview Press, 1984, p 237

[10] Quoted in Kevin Kelly's, Out of Control, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1994, p 246

[11] Rapaport, Richard, ASAP, Oct. 7, 1996, p 125

[12] IBID

[13] "Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Information Warfare," Nov. 1996, p 8

[14] 0p Cit, p 23

[15] 0p Cit, p 35

[16] Co-Chairs, Robert Ellsworth, Andrew Goodpaster, Rita Hauser, "America's National Interests," 1996

[17] See Ganley, Gladys D. Unglued Empire. Ablex Publishing Corp., 1996

[18] Shultz, George, Turmoil and Triumph, Scribner's, 1991 p 264

[19] Rothschild, Michael, Bionomics, Henry Holt, p 106

[20] Clarke, Arthur C., Profiles of the Future, Warner Books, 1985, p IX

[21] Nixon, Richard, 1999, Simon and Schuster, 1988, p 16

Description
  • The document was created from the speech, "Bits, Bytes, Power & Diplomacy," written by Walter B. Wriston for the United States Institute of Peace 1 April 1997. The original speech is located in MS134.001.013.00006.
This object is in collection Subject Temporal Permanent URL
ID:
9k41zq89m
Component ID:
tufts:UA069.005.DO.00331
To Cite:
DCA Citation Guide    EndNote
Usage:
Detailed Rights