Centrality of the Negotiations to High-Level Strategy

How critical are the negotiations under consideration to the achievement of the high-level strategy serving the basic aims associated with the negotiations? Continuing with the example of analysts “A”, “B”, and “C”, and considering those negotiations that deal with arms control, the conclusion is that, for all three analysts, the negotiations play a central role in the high-level strategies for both the Soviet Union and the United States, even though the three will see these strategies very differently. These negotiations, therefore, will be a matter of concern for top decision makers. With regard to negotiations relating to the seabed, however, the three are not likely to see the negotiations as critical to the high-level strategies they would see as relevant—and, as indicated above, these will, in each case, result in different strategies. Thus, the seabed negotiations will be less in the public eye and much more in the domain of diplomatic technicians.

High-Level Strategy Seen in Terms of Trend Alteration

High-level strategy, as discussed here, is essentially the summation of responses designed to achieve basic foreign policy objectives. Only rarely is it the conscious concern of an individual or set of individuals. For the academic analyst seeking to infer and to describe high-level strategies, the problem is how best to depict them conceptually. If strategy is viewed as the summation of incremental policies that together have the implicit purpose of achieving a desired future, it amounts to a design for manipulating change in a desired direction. Thus, the conceptual problem is one of pro­viding a scheme for examining the elements of change with which political strategy will be primarily concerned.

Thus, what is needed is a description of change as relates to relevant trends and the types of alterations in those trends that will be necessary if the desired future is to be achieved or approximated.⁸ A necessary first step is to advance a reasonably inclusive typology of trends that are likely to be of concern in high-level political strategy. The goal of inclusivity will have been achieved if the essence of any high-level strategy can be captured by a description of that strategy in terms of the trends that are suggested. The typology proposed is as follows:

•trends in actor capability;

•trends in governing elite composition;

•trends in mass/elite relationships;

•trends in prevailing perceptions (i.e., world view);

•trends in policy-relevant attitudes; and,

•trends in actor values (i.e., degree of satisfaction with the existing world configuration of power).

Of course, not all of these trend types will be relevant to any particular strategy, but if the typology is, in fact, inclusive, no additional types need be advanced. Deterrence strategy, for example, is described within the above terms. In the view of “A” and “B”, deterring the Soviet Union is the primary strategic concern of all U.S. administrations since World War II. In the view of “B” and “C”, deterring the United States is the primary strategic concern of the Soviet Union. The immediate objective of deterrence strategy, whether that of the United States or of the Soviet Union, is the reversal of a capability trend that, should it persist, would lead to the enemy's acquiring superiority (trends

1