Building bridges through science diplomacy: accelerating progress towards sustainable development

Sir Peter Gluckman, in his role as President of the International Science Council, gave a keynote address on science diplomacy at a side event to the Pact of the Future at the United Nations Headquarters.

In the decades during and after the Cold War, science diplomacy was an important component of the foreign policy toolkit of major countries, a part of international efforts to respond to global challenges and reduce global tensions. The Antarctic Treaty, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), the Montreal protocol and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are all examples of that era.  While often encapsulated within international science cooperation, science diplomacy is something more – it is about achieving diplomatic goals both domestic and global. However, the rationale and the conditions under which science diplomacy blossomed are changing and fragmenting as the linkage between science and technology, geostrategic and economic interests grow. In this paradoxical new context, science diplomacy must evolve. The era of globalisation, and with it the commitment to global interdependence and cooperation on global science issues, is in retreat. It has altered the space that science diplomacy can operate in.

The drive to open science is being replaced in political declarations from many countries with the mantra “as open as possible, as closed as necessary” and greater restrictions on scientific interchange between political poles are emerging.  Yet the world faces common and global challenges which science and technology must address.  The paradox is obvious. We need actions that could help navigate the inherent conflict between the realpolitik of geostrategic tensions and the globalism that many in the global science community espouse.

We are being challenged by new technologies that do not respect national boundaries: rapidly emerging advances in AI, synthetic biology, and quantum to the use of ocean bed, inner space and extraterrestrial resources for example.  Adding to the complexity is that much emergent technology is driven by companies that largely avoid both national and transnational regulation and even challenge the role of nation states.

As the conditions that gave value to science diplomacy change, its practice must evolve. Although science diplomacy has, at times, seemed academic, it is a key linkage between the very different worlds of diplomacy and science for all our futures.

In this confused and conflicted space, we must consider the potential roles of different actors. Formal diplomatic processes must be informed by science and the international science community has a key role in advancing track 2 efforts which, given the context, may take on greater importance.

The International Science Council (ISC) is unique in its membership including the world’s scientific academies and international scientific organisations from the global north, south, east and west and across both the natural and social sciences.  Increasingly it has both seen the need to and been requested to take a greater role in track 2 diplomacy.  

Today we are in an era where domestic science, economic and national security policies can conflict with broader objectives related to the global commons. Diplomats will need to take a multi-stakeholder approach— including governments, business and academia. The global community must give greater support to the international science community allowing it to be an integral partner rather than simply a tokenistic afterthought

Realpolitik demands that first and foremost science diplomacy must serve a nation’s interests. Science diplomacy can do so in domains such as security, trade, environmental management and technology access. But it must also be recognised by governments that it is in every nation’s interest to advance the global commons. Here science diplomacy has a critical domestic role to ensure nations understand their interests are served by acting collaboratively. Track 2 science diplomacy can be a valued partner to a somewhat stuttering multilateral system.

Too few countries have embedded science diplomacy within their diplomatic toolkit. Only with science advisors within foreign ministries connected to domestic science communities, can the two-way interplay between track 1 and track 2 approaches become more effective.

The world has sadly slipped on its commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals. The Summit is intended to reboot this global commitment. The science community must play its role in ensuring progress is in fact made.  As I said last year at the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), unless we use science wisely and urgently, we are all at risk.