Science diplomacy is the relationship between two or more countries in addressing common problems predicated on scientific knowledge. It is also a good compliment to sustain good relations between two countries in times of strained public diplomatic relations. An excellent example: at the height of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S. (1947-1991) “scientific and technical people-to-people exchanges” continued to be promoted to encourage communication and dialogue. The exchanges had a positive impact on bilateral relations and wider implications on world politics.
Personal contacts between the scientists fostered mutual trust and better understanding, thus eventually encouraging political leaders on both sides to improve relations and sustained a peaceful coexistence amidst the threat of nuclear warfare.
The 21st century presents the world with a myriad of interconnected challenges of sustainable development which could only be solved through a comprehensive effort in multilateralism. These challenges include climate change, biodiversity loss and plastic pollution. The approach to overcome them must be underpinned by science, technology, and innovation. Science has the answer, but it is through a healthy exchange between the scientific community and the policymakers and politicians — the science-policy nexus – that a consensus be built to take the necessary set of actions.
Two recent landmark events are testimonies to the impacts of science diplomacy. The first is the 2015 Paris climate change agreement, in which nearly 200 countries agreed that humans must slow climate change, a view held by virtually all world scientists. It has taken a long time for governments to catch up with the science and to act on their understanding.
The second triumph of science diplomacy is last year’s — Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) agreement adopted by 196 Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to halt biodiversity loss by 2030.
Since it came into being three decades ago, the CBD has never been able to halt biodiversity loss. Only sustained effort by the scientists, including a warning that up to one million species of plants and animals are under threat of extinction, compelled the political leaders to agree to set aside 30% of our earth as protected areas by 2030.
Science in International Relations
In the 19th century, renowned French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur famously said that “Science knows no country, because knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world.” The wisdom of that remark has proven itself often in the many decades since.
Successfully advancing research depends on sharing ideas and knowledge with colleagues worldwide, And the benefits of such cooperation can draw together ever the staunchest of enemies.
Cold War hostilities were put aside, for example, when American Albert B. Sabin helped pioneer the use of a live-virus, oral polio vaccine in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, leading to the vaccine’s adoption worldwide. Since then, the scourge of polio, so dreaded in my childhood years, has all but disappeared from the planet (though not eradicated; occasional outbreaks remind us of the need to be vigilant).
We also have seen tremendous international coalitions formed around the world’s common interest in polar science. The Polar Regions have in many respects been good models for international scientific cooperation. This started with the two so-called Polar Years of 1882–83 and again in 1923–33, during which many nations collaborated in simultaneous scientific measurements at remote polar sites. These investigations focused primarily on the Earth’s climate and its magnetism.
A sequel to the International Polar Years was the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1957-58, which focused on Antarctica and outer space. Despite the Cold War there was good cooperation in Antarctica, which continued well after the IGY. In the Arctic, scientific cooperation proved to be quite difficult, however, because of the military confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States.
Some 15 years ago, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) opened a Centre for Science Diplomacy, and two years later teamed the United Kingdom’s Royal Society on a joint report, which described three forms science diplomacy: scientific collaborations that improve international relations; using evidence and scientific expertise to help formulate foreign policy and, diplomacy that promotes and supports international scientific cooperation.
In addition, a global network of Foreign Ministries Science and Technology Advisers was initiated in 2016. Its initial meeting involved advisers from Japan, New Zealand, the UK and the US, and diplomats from 12 other nations in Africa, Asia, the Americas and Europe.
The network underlines that science and technology advisers to foreign ministries “are not necessarily experts on all scientific matters, but they understand science and know where to find the most appropriate expert on any given topic. They have the skills to explain evidence required for informed decision-making about foreign affairs, serving as evidence brokers in our increasingly trans-boundary world with constantly emerging complexities. They utilise their roles as evidence brokers to reveal options that contribute to informed decision-making by nations across the international landscape.”
More recently, the network teamed up with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)’s Commission for Science and Technology for Development in Geneva. Among the main discussions was the role of science, technology and innovation (STI) in foreign aid. An increasing proportion of foreign aid has a core STI element and research may be specifically funded as a development assistance tool. Indeed, the success of much foreign assistance requires science and technological effort, and donor academic institutions are often involved.
A good example of the role of STI in foreign aid is the Newton Fund established by the UK. Malaysia is among 18 nations chosen to participate in this global initiative (known nationally as the Newton-Ungku Omar Fund) which builds scientific innovation partnerships to support economic development and social welfare. It also develops research and development innovation capacity for long-term sustainable growth. Its national counterpart is the Malaysian Industry- Government Group on High Technology (MIGHT).
Today, more than 250 joint collaborations are funded in various fields of STI between both countries from programmes and activities such as the Institutional Links, Research and Innovation Bridges and Researcher Links. At least eight technologies and innovations are being co-developed. These products and innovations have significant outcomes in terms of commercialisation and solving global challenges.
Malaysia itself actually put the idea of foreign aid through cooperation into practice 40 years ago when it embarked on the Malaysian Technical Cooperation Programme during the First Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sydney. The programme emphasises human resource development through training in public administration, good governance, healthcare services, education, sustainable development, agriculture, poverty alleviation, investment promotion, banking and other essential areas.
More than 100 short-term specialised courses are offered by not less than 50 training institutions. More than 20,000 participants from 140 countries have benefited so far.
Clearly, science advice and diplomacy are crucial. Developing cross-disciplinary, multilateral responses to global challenges such as the Sustainable Development Goals depends on the interconnected roles they play.
Role of Science Advisers
The COVID-19 pandemic created a demand for science advice, with policy and decision-makers actively reaching out to the scientific community for guidance and solutions. The pandemic highlighted the importance of evidence-based policymaking, and the value of science advice, especially in crises.
In the face of constantly changing situations, with new evidence emerging every second, science advisors must also be flexible and receptive while being able to deliver their advice in a timely manner. Science advice is not only pivotal for policymaking but critical for building diplomatic relations as cross-border and multi-disciplinary challenges can only be solved with collaboration between all stakeholders and sectors of both local and international societies.
The three hallmarks of science advice are credibility, salience and legitimacy. It must be independent and not tied to any political agenda and should never be policy prescriptive, only policy relevant.
As described by Sir Peter Gluckman, president of the International Science Council and founding chair of the International Network for Governmental Science Advice (INGSA), science advice requires a pluralistic synthesis of evidence, prior to knowledge brokerage.
This means that science advisors must be able to not only consider all aspects of science and technology, but also societal cultures and values which relate to public perception, trust, and acceptance, as well as the potential economic implications of any advice in order to ensure that it is both relevant and practical.
They must also play the role of the ‘honest broker’, which means they must be able to disclose both the knowns and unknowns, including any gaps and shortcomings as well as alternative scenarios and solutions based on the best available information, and they must be able to package and communicate their messages in a manner that could be understood by policymakers and political leaders.
The Art and Science of Science Diplomacy
This topic is best described from my personal experience, which began more than 30 years ago as a member of the Malaysian delegation negotiating the CBD. Trained in the biological sciences and more at ease as a professor in Malaysia than in the plenary hall of the UN Environment Programme headquarters in Nairobi, I was thrown into the world of diplomacy and multilateral negotiations as the delegation science adviser. There were times, during the early days of my involvement, that I thought of withdrawing due to the wide difference between the lifestyle of an academic and that of a member of a national delegation, the latter’s credo being, “my country, right or wrong.” But such doubt evaporates when duty calls for King and Country.
There was much excitement and anticipation in the run-up to the Earth Summit (officially named as the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in June 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The world community was at a crossroads; how to balance the imperatives of robust economic growth and the needs of a growing population against the ecological necessity to conserve our planet’s most precious resources — land, air and water.
After two weeks of intense negotiations, Rio delivered and gave added meaning to the phrase, “sustainable development,” first introduced five years earlier by the Brundtland Commission in 4987. The Earth Summit also produced some far-sighted milestones such as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Agenda 21, Forest Principles, and two important legally binding agreements, namely the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Rio had its critics, some pointing out that it has not gone far enough in alleviating poverty or conserving biological resources.
Malaysia played a prominent role at the Earth Summit. We were one of the leaders of the Global South in a category known as the Group of 77 and China, articulating the needs of and protecting the interest of the developing countries. Malaysia’s prominence was neither coincidental nor unplanned. From, 1990 to 1992, a standing committee chaired by the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs met regularly to prepare the country’s stance on various issues to be discussed at the summit. Guided by a strategic document, “The Road to Rio,” the Committee’s members included representatives from related ministries, academia, NGOs and the private sector. As we were dealing with multilateral negotiations, the chief spokesperson was regularly in touch with our missions, in particular those in Brussels, Geneva, Nairobi, New York or Rome, ensuring that the country’s delegation to various multilateral negotiations were always prepared and armed with the latest developments.
The views and contributions of the scientists and experts needed to be well understood so that they could be articulated by the career diplomats and translated by policymakers into policies, programmes and projects at the international and national levels. This is the raison d’etre of science diplomacy and multilateralism.
During this period the tools of the trade came into regular use: aligning with the positions of ASEAN, the G77 and China, and the Like-Minded Megadiverse Developing Countries; appreciating the historical context of climate change and biodiversity loss, appreciating the Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities, and the need for funding, technology transfer and capacity building for countries in the Global South.
Malaysia’s Pivotal Role in the Negotiations of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Biotechnology has the potential to bring about dramatic changes in our lives by addressing food and health problems as well as poverty. While conventional biotechnology has been with us for a long time, modern biotechnology (including genetic modification) is relatively new, and its judicious application is necessary. Effective protection and management to ensure environmental health is paramount, however, for human well-being. It is in this context that the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) was created.
The CBP has its roots in the CBD, especially Article 19.3, which obliged Parties to consider appropriate procedures in the field of the safe handling and use of any living modified organism (LMO) that may adversely affect biodiversity.
At the 8th meeting of the CBD process in November 1991, Malaysia tabled a proposal which later became a core element of the CPB: prior informed consent from countries where genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are to be introduced. At that time, there were already several reports that emerged describing plans to conduct tests involving GMOs in developing countries that have little knowledge of this new technology. In a report to Plenary concluding the meeting, the negotiation chair, Viet Koester congratulated Malaysia for having taken this initiative in respect to biosafety, not knowing, of course, its implications for future negotiations.
Climate Change as a Case Study of Science Multilateralism
In March 2023, the Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tried again to shake the world out of its lethargy with powerful language in its new report.
This latest work summarises six previous reports over the last few years involving 700 expert authors from 95 countries, including Malaysia. It comprised thousands of pages gleaned from publications produced by the scientific community and reviewed and endorsed by expert representatives of governments. The report confirms the indisputable direct role humans play in causing climate change. And the problem is getting worse. Already global temperatures are 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels and experts predict it will reach 1.5°C in the early 2030s.
Eight years after the watershed Paris Climate Agreement of 2015, national governments have not done enough to address a problem creating untold harm to lives, livelihoods and natural systems. The report cites evidence that “global warming drives extreme and deadly climate disaster like heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts and tropical cyclones”.
For example, according to the World Bank, the October 2022 floods in Pakistan resulted in economic losses of US$15.2 billion, with rehabilitation and reconstruction in a resilient way estimated to require around US$16.3 billion. The floods killed over 1,700 of the 33 million people affected, and more than 2.2 million houses were damaged or destroyed.
Malaysia is no stranger to devastating floods. The “once in a century” floods of December 2021 left at least 54 dead, displaced 400,000 people, and resulted an estimated RM6.1 billion in losses.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described the climate as a “ticking time bomb” that requires developed countries to “decarbonise” their economies by 2040 and developing countries by 2050. The report maintains “the 1.5°C limit is achievable… but it will take a quantum leap in climate action”.
As Malaysian Tan Sri Michelle Yeoh’s Oscar-winning movie title suggests, our world needs climate action “everything, everywhere, all at once”. That means making sure that global use of coal is eliminated, oil declines by up to 90 per cent, and gas by up to 85 per cent by 2050. But, as someone recently remarked, “the lack of progress toward those cuts since the Paris Agreement isn’t stymied by the science but by political and economic considerations.”
Several years ago, James Gustave Speth, a former administrator of the United Nations Development Programme, commented: “I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change.”
“I thought that 30 years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”
The challenge was also well summed up by Heidi Steltzer, a US climate researcher who said, “more reports aren’t going to do it. We have already done that. Reaching global climate goals may require a transformational vision of science that starts to consider values, like love and hope, because they aren’t easily measured.”
“Whatever goals the world sets, we don’t get there without love,” she said. “We can’t get to 1.5°C or whatever target we set without love for ourselves, without knowing ourselves and without connecting to, and caring for one another, our planet and the universe.”
To complement this, we also need hope, that ingredient which can spark societal changes. I was a victim of the December 2021 floods that struck Bentong. I still recall the anguish and horror watching the water rapidly rise to the ceiling of our house in the middle of the night and inflicting major damage to our property.
Conclusion
My youngest grandson, Leo Mateen, was born at the start of spring this year. I shudder to think that, without a change of course, he is likely to suffer several times as many climates extreme events in his lifetime as I have. We all need to find it in our hearts to love this planet as much as we love our children and their children and act accordingly.
This article was originally published in Foreign Relations, Issue 03, September 2023, by the Institute of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations (IDFR).
