“A post-affirmative era in science diplomacy”

Written By George Thomas

Irek Suleymanov

International Cooperation Adviser

Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (International Intergovernmental Organization) in Dubna, Russia

Thoughts on the instruments and geometry of science diplomacy: the discovery of the “negative half-plane”

In mathematics there is the following definition: a line on a plane (or a plane P in space) has a side selected if one of the half-planes into which the straight line divides the plane is selected. If one of the half-spaces into which the plane P divides the space is selected, the selected half-plane (half-space) or corresponding side is called positive, and the other half-plane (half-space) is called negative. 

Until recently, there was broad consensus that we were in the “selected” plane – or the “positive” plane, if we follow the mathematical definition above – of science diplomacy. This belief was often expressed in an idealistic, affirmative approach in the discourse of science diplomacy. Science diplomacy has become a fashionable superstructure over, or in addition to, scientific cooperation and dialogue. Its starting point is the axiom of “positive action” – namely that through science diplomacy we are building something new and better, we are working together, we are growing understanding of each other, and we are opening channels of interaction in science and research.  

Today, science diplomacy ranges from reflection to a transition towards the plane of negative action. This move of course does not negate the practice of the traditional affirmative approach, but it has acquired a regionally focused orientation towards so-called good partners. As a result, the idea of this transition – perhaps echoing Christopher Columbus’ dramatic, breakthrough discovery of the “New World” and the subsequent science diplomacy – can be formed and understood simply by looking at science diplomacy events or a selection of their key players. 

We can also single out examples of topics in academic courses which reflect the concerns of experts about the new reality, for example: ‘Introduction to Science and Tech Diplomacy: the new geopolitics of technology,’[1] ‘Science Advice under Pressure,’[2] ‘Science  Diplomacy: between scientific collaboration and realpolitik,’[3] and, of course, the title of a workshop dated April 2022 which clearly reflected the main challenges facing science diplomacy, ‘Science diplomacy in times of war.’[4]  

The current military conflict in Ukraine has pushed all of us as participants in the science diplomacy community to that very straight line of the mathematical definition, or, more accurately, the border line that divides the plane into positive and negative. Some of us have found ourselves not quite in the part we expected. This straight line represents not only a political watershed, but also the opening of a new stage in the development of science diplomacy, namely an expanded space for science diplomacy.  

We have come to realize, not least due to the political situation, that science diplomacy can act with more than simply the tools of the positive half-plane. In particular, a constructive analysis of sanctions in science diplomacy in the EU-Ukraine-Russia arena is provided by Luk Van Langenhove and Eric Piaget.[5] Everything that older types of diplomacy invented were used by their “scientific sister,” namely sanctions, severance of contacts, non-recognition, and non-dialogue.  

Theoretically exciting is the way in which science diplomacy has matured and undergone change. It has become possible to use tools not only to develop cooperation and dialogue but also to reduce and even block them. This dynamic has broader impacts. In the confrontation between conflicting parties, when diplomats stop communicating and parties take up arms, so in science diplomacy the dialogue between scientific diplomats of those conflicting parties is actually, with rare exceptions, blocked – notwithstanding the face that it is precisely their dialogue that is called upon to maintain, or rather find, the path to peace. 

These changes probably reflect the fact that scienсe diplomacy can be considered as a key part of the national toolkit in diplomacy and foreign policy. In its early days, scienсe diplomacy claimed to be an emancipation from politics and to represent the voice of the scientific community, with somewhat cosmopolitan overtones. Leo Eigner[6] very aptly speaks about the tension inherent in that concept of scienсe diplomacy. On the one hand, there is the national valence suggested by the concept, and on the other hand, there is its supranational, global nature. This tension – and sometimes plain contradiction – begins early when the state finances science and defines scientific priorities, branches and institutions while backing the principles of academic freedom. 

Researchers in most cases think of science only as an international effort, guided by the priorities of rigorous scientific results and knowledge. Their desire to find answers to long term global challenges – most likely not today or tomorrow, especially when it comes to fundamental research – has a unifying effect. At the same time, politics will not fail to adjust the cooperative activities of scientific actors, and this is what we are faced with in the current crisis (as Luk Van Langenhove and Eric Piaget have described in the context of the EU, Russia and Ukraine). It is precisely at this point that the question arises: is the transition to a post-affirmative plane a reflection on the lack of independence of science, as an input alongside economics, politics, and culture? And is it a reflection of its role as something other than ‘first among equals’? 

These are exactly the questions I have encountered when conducting interviews with representatives of the scientific community. Over them hangs the obvious question, how ‘self-determinated’ is the scientific community? If taken formally, then the answer is probably based on the principle that “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” However, the range of interacting views observed so far – rather than a blind acceptance of sanctions as the right approach in scientific dialogue – suggests the community itself (the scientific workshop itself) has “grown” to its own interests, to the need for their adequate communication in accepted forms, all within the framework of a social contract. 

Global science that formalized, for example, in international scientific organizations, can obviously articulate its interests and positioning through a number of channels, including its diplomats and its diplomats from science. In this a way we can add to the combinatorial logic of the main types of science diplomacy activity defined by the Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2010[7]; so that to the famous triad of “science in diplomacy”, “diplomacy for science”, and “science for diplomacy,” one could add “diplomacy in science.” 

Of course, ‘crash testing’ of the concept of science diplomacy can be done in various ways. But the contradiction inherent in the DNA of science diplomacy would inevitably lead to some of the conflicts indicated above. Nonetheless, conflict, however painful it may seem, often indicates development – which in turn can of course be both positive and negative. 

The pessimistic attitude of a number of science diplomacy actors who talk about the collapse of illusions is justified. But let's believe in the light at the end of the tunnel, as rightly formulated in the conclusions of the one of the ‘Diplo WebDebates’ in July 2022: “Finally, idealistic notions associated with science diplomacy have been challenged by recent events and emerging scholarly discussion. We have seen how easily geopolitics can dominate the best intentions towards scientific cooperation. Science itself is not apolitical. Yet, the speakers agreed that we should not become disillusioned, even when geopolitics dominates the best intentions.”[8] 

Like any pendulum, the practice of diplomacy and science diplomacy will oscillate and sometimes fade in prominence until a new tsunami of events which will be quite capable of expanding the range of extremes. But this process, and awareness of it, are important from a theoretical and conceptual position, as well as from a practical one, as we get closer to understanding the essence of science diplomacy. Even as we move into a post-affirmative era of science diplomacy, we must remain optimistic and hold firm to the unifying nature of science diplomacy along with the enduring value of maintaining dialogue. 

Discovering new spaces (just think about great voyages of exploration) is a process of overcoming, sometimes a painful movement and an intricate enterprise. But these dynamics open up new perspectives. It seems that the matured concept of science diplomacy will not only expand its tools (in that article we talked about the “negative half-plane”), but should also inevitably lead to a more responsible use of these tools especially by politicians. Confrontation with the results and reflection of unjustified use of tools should lead to the surgically precise use of the “scalpels” of scientific diplomacy. A transparent and mutually enriching interaction of politicians and scientists, diplomats and academics, practitioners and theorists of science diplomacy should ensure the optimal course of adaptation to the new post-affirmative instrumentalization of science diplomacy.

Science diplomacy should walk the talk and foster dialogue in all circumstances. This is not easy and takes a lot of political courage, but the grand challenges that humanity faces, urge for more international scientific collaborations that should transcend the geopolitical differences amongst nations.

George Thomas
Previous

Rethinking science in the 21st Century: Universities need to be meadows 
Next

Open Science during the COVID pandemic: Temporary boost or durable contribution to a more open world?