Abstract
When political relations between two countries are fraught, or even non-existent, could science be in the vanguard of diplomacy? What this chapter endeavors to show is that particular situations exist in which this question is answered to the affirmative—exchanges between researchers can represent a special relation and, sometimes, even the only form of dialogue between countries sharing awkward relations, or not officially communicating any longer. Scientific relations will therefore be a substitute to usual diplomacy. However, in the very different context of spaces that escape national sovereignties (such as Antarctica) or that are in the process of supranational integration (the European Union), science also provides evidence of its capacity to open up the way to diplomacy. It is to this “science for diplomacy” that this fourth chapter is devoted.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
See for instance de Cerreño A. L. C. and A. Keynan (eds.) (1998), Scientific Cooperation, State Conflict. The Roles of Scientists in Mitigating International Discord, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 866.
- 2.
The role of CISAC extended to China from 1988 and to India from 1999, in order to address technical and potentially sensitive questions such as international security, arms control and disarmament. Its action originates from informal diplomacy (Track II Diplomacy) and is based on the direct interaction between scientists within an international consortium of Academies of Sciences, thus allowing the Committee to have direct ties with heads of states, parliamentarians and military authorities from many countries.
- 3.
“Nixon and Kissinger wanted to offer something concrete and substantial to the Chinese, going beyond political change that was at the core of their visit. In the remarkable Shanghai communiqué signed at the end of the visit, they included science as a domain of future cooperation between the US and China” (Turekian and Neureiter 2012).
- 4.
Following the events at Tiananmen, the Bush administration suspended top-level political visits. The bilateral science and technology commission did not meet. But the exchanges between researchers continued anyhow—in 1990, all 11 top-level Chinese delegations which went to the US were scientific delegations (Xiaoming 2003).
- 5.
A statement by J. Miotke, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science, Space, and Health, Bureau of Oceans, Environment, and Science (U.S. Department of State) at the hearing before the sub-committee for research and scientific education (committee of science and technology), House of Representatives, 110th Congress, second version, 2 April 2008.
- 6.
- 7.
Salomon J.-J. (1989), Science et politique, Paris: Economica, p. 321.
- 8.
It is Glenn E. Schweitzer, director of the bureau for Central Europe and Eurasia of National Academies, and who in 2010 was the Science Diplomacy prize of AAAS “for his outstanding record of achievements in demonstrating the powerful role that high calibre science cooperation can have in building international relations”. But this American expert points out what is misleading in the phrase “scientific diplomacy”, which spontaneously leads, in his view, to the image of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and not to that of the Ministry of Science (Badger 2009).
- 9.
French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development (2014), France and the Promotion of Archaeology Abroad.
- 10.
The “Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire”, a temporary organ established in 1952, preceded the establishment of the organisation. The initial acronym remained the most used to name it, be it in French or in English.
- 11.
Belgium, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia.
- 12.
It is during the European Conference for Culture, held in Lausanne in 1949 by Swiss philosopher Denis de Rougemont, that Louis de Broglie presented his ideas. A resolution by UNESCO in 1950 started the process which was to lead to the creation of CERN 4 years later.
- 13.
The political dimension of CERN should be remembered, substantiated by the writings of historians and the testimonies of physicists who took part in this adventure. Was the establishment of CERN first a “foreign policy initiative”, closely linked to the objectives of the foreign policy of the US, according to critical observers (Gsponer and Grinevald 2008)? These authors point out that the creation of CERN had far less to see with the Marshall Plan (1948–1952) than with the “Atoms for Peace” initiative by President Eisenhower in 1953. CERN would have then been “trapped in an Atlantist dynamic”, which enabled the US, not a member of the international organisation, to gain access to the results of the research conducted in Europe and to indulge in scientific espionage. Cf. also Gsponer A Grinevald (1984) and Krige (2004).
- 14.
Just as CERN, SESAME also includes countries which have a status of observer (there were 16 in 2015).
- 15.
MISTRALS: Mediterranean Integrated STudies at Regional And Local Scales.
- 16.
Associated countries and third party countries.
- 17.
These fellowships finance the individual mobility of researchers over a period of 2 years. More than 4000 Marie Curie fellowships were granted between 2007 and 2013 to researchers working in 50 countries and representing more than 90 nationalities.
- 18.
European programmes for the mobility of students and of teachers and researchers.
- 19.
One should also remember that European science diplomacy has at its disposal a network of five specialised advisers based outside Europe. Many countries also appoint a science counsellor to their Brussels embassies. Many research institutes and universities have permanent representation in the capital of Europe too.
- 20.
A first-hand testimony on the cooperation between Russian, French and American researchers is offered by Jean-Robert Petit (2008).
- 21.
This treaty has no limit in its duration and is renewable by tacit consent. It was initially signed by 12 countries. In 2015, there were 53 states party to it.
- 22.
Namely, the claims of France over the Adélie Land; of the UK, Chile, Argentina over the Antarctic Peninsula; and of Norway, Australia and New-Zealand over other portions of territory in the name of more or less established historical precedents.
- 23.
SCAR is an interdisciplinary authority under the aegis of the International Council for Science (ICSU). It oversees the whole of the research conducted in Antarctica and provides the different organs of management of the Antarctic Treaty with its advice.
- 24.
These tensions are notably expressed within the Arctic Council, an organisation without any binding force and whose role is mainly about making recommendations to the member states. It is composed of the five bordering countries, of three countries with no direct access to the Arctic Ocean (Finland, Iceland and Sweden), of six indigenous representations and of 12 other countries having the status of observer.
- 25.
The expeditions LORITA-1 between April and May 2006 and LOMROG during the International Polar Year (2007–2008) were formed in order to support the Danish project.
References
Badger, E. 2009. Science Diplomacy: Trading Frock Coats for Lab Coats. https://psmag.com/science-diplomacy-trading-frock-coats-for-lab-coats-6b2cf0434dae
Berkman, P.A., M.A. Lang, D.W.H. Walton, and O.R. Young. 2011. Science Diplomacy: Science, Antarctica, and the Governance of International Spaces. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. 337 p.
de Cerreño, A.L.C., and A. Keynan, eds. 1998. Scientific Cooperation, State Conflict. The Roles of Scientists in Mitigating International Discord, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 866, vii–xiv, 1–280.
Doel, R.E., and Z. Wang. 2002. Science and Technology. In Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy, ed. A. De Conde, R. Dean Burns, and F. Logevall, 443–459. New York: Scribner.
Gsponer, A., and J. Grinevald. 1984. La quadrature du CERN (1984). Lausanne: Editions d’En Bas. 188 p.
———. 2008. CERN—la physique des particules piégée par l’OTAN. Horizons et Débats, August.
Hsu, J. 2011. Backdoor Diplomacy: How U.S. Scientists Reach Out to Frenemies. innovationnewsdaily, April 8. http://www.innovationnewsdaily.com/196-science-diplomacy-soft-power.html
Krige, J. 2004. I.I. Rabi and the Birth of CERN. Physics Today 57 (9): 44–48.
Ministère de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche et Ministère des affaires étrangères. 2014. La coordination de l’action internationale en matière d’enseignement supérieur et de recherche, 142 p. http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/
Petit, J.-R. 2008. Vostok—Le dernier secret de l’Antarctique. Paris: Editions Paulsen. 237 p.
Ratchford, T. Jr. 1998. Science, Technology, and U.S. Foreign Relations. The Bridge 28(2). http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/EngineeringinChina.aspx
Salomon, J.-J. 1989. Science et politique. Paris: Economica. 407 p.
Suttmeier, R.P. 2010a. From Scientific Tourism to Global Partnership (?): Thirty Years of Sino-American Relations in Science and Technology. In Sino-American Relations—Challenges Ahead, ed. Y. Hao, 23–40. Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
———. 2010b. From Cold War Science Diplomacy to Partnering in a Networked World—30 Years of Sino-US Relations in Science and Technology. Journal of Science and Technology Policy in China 1 (1): 18–28.
Turekian, V.C., and N.P. Neureiter. 2012. Science and Diplomacy: The Past as Prologue. Science & Diplomacy 1 (1): 3.
Victor, P.-E., and J.-C. Victor. 1992. Planète Antarctique—Nouvelle terre des hommes. Paris: Robert Laffont. 273 p.
Whitesides, J.G. 2010. China is Using Scientific Agreements as an Effective Diplomatic Tool—Better Diplomacy, Better Science. China Economic Review, January 1.
Xiaoming, J. 2003. The China-U.S. Relationship in Science and Technology. Paper presented at the conference “China’s Emerging Technological Trajectory in the 21st Century”, Lally School of Management and Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, September 4–6, 35 p. http://china-us.uoregon.edu/papers/php
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ruffini, PB. (2017). Science in the Vanguard of Diplomacy. In: Science and Diplomacy. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55104-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55104-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55103-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55104-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)