Panel 3: Canada's Role in Science Diplomacy: Applying Science to International Challenges

Panel 3: Canada's Role in Science Diplomacy: Applying Science to International Challenges

Video:

Moderator: Valérie La Traverse - Deputy Director, S&T Relations, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada

Panellists: Naser Faruqui - Director, Innovation, Policy, and Science, International Development Research Centre (IDRC)
Daryl Copeland - Author, Professor, and former Diplomat, University of Toronto
Nina Fedoroff - Willaman Professor of the Life Sciences, Evan Pugh Professor, Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State University


Summary:
Daryl Copeland started his talk by saying there is something unique about the way science diplomacy works, for there is a disconnect between how science works on one hand, and how diplomacy works on the other. He argues in his book Guerrilla Diplomacy that if development has become the new security, then diplomacy must replace defence at the center of international policy. Copeland defines “diplomacy” as an approach to international relations characterized by dialogue, engagement, and communication to implement world order without war. In this formulation, public diplomacy in particular is placed front and center, meaning that science policy, when a component, is also front and centre.

Traditional diplomacy differs from public diplomacy, Copeland claimed, for traditional diplomacy is when government bodies speak to each other, whereas public diplomacy directly connects the government with the public. In order to demonstrate Canada’s role in this kind of diplomacy, thinking in terms of hard vs. soft power proves useful, where hard power is the ability to bring about one’s wishes through coercion, and soft power is getting what you want through attraction, influence, or persuasion. Soft power, in short, is about getting what you want because people like you, rather than through threats and strong-arming people.

Canada does not have many hard power options, so soft power and public diplomacy are really our only option, Copeland claimed. Canada enjoys a significant advantage in terms of soft power, Copeland argued, as we do not carry significant colonial baggage, and we have an overall positive global reputation as nice and non-threatening. Canada has the soft power elements, the capacity, and the representational capacity in the Foreign Service necessary to make a contribution to science and technology development and security. In order to achieve this, the Foreign Ministry must be re-imagined so it will be able to handle science and technology issues.

Since the real threats to world order reside in a global suite of challenges driven by technology and rooted in science, science diplomacy needs to be used to solve them. What is necessary, Copeland said, is the ability to generate and absorb science knowledge in diplomacy to help avoid underdevelopment and insecurity. He went on, saying that science policy should obviously occupy a central role in this. Yet science and technology remain unfortunately alien to many governments and institutions, for science is often seen as complex and impenetrable. Few diplomats are scientists, most diplomatic agencies are woefully under-trained and under-prepared to handle scientific issues, and most governments are spending far more on defence and security than on science, technology, and R&D.

To meet these challenges, the department of foreign affairs will need to create a science advisor, and we also need to create a new bureau dealing with science and technology issues, located between the trade side of the house and the political side of the house. Professor Copeland summarized and concluded his talk by saying that Canada could address these global challenges through the soft power of science diplomacy. Given our resources and political will, these investments could pay handsome returns.

Although he does not describe himself as a diplomat, Naser Faruqui has spent a significant amount of time on the ground in developing countries working on scientific based outreach. His talk focused on the role the IDRC has played in scientific diplomacy in developing countries, where they cooperate with developing countries to solve practical problems with science and technology. Many problems in today’s world flow freely between borders, and we all have a stake in solving them, claimed Faruqui, meaning solutions can come from anywhere. Hence, the IDRC promotes global collaborations to facilitate cutting-edge research. IDRC also aims to build local capacities to meet challenges in the developing world, e.g. regarding the impregnation of bed nets with insecticides. A pilot program for these bed nets appears to have lead to significant decreases in diseases like malaria.
The IDRC also goes beyond simply funding research. IDRC staff scientists, for example, engage and mentor scientists in the field. They also have a responsibility to broker knowledge, i.e. to make sure that researchers and policy makers have access to the necessary information. Additionally, the IDRC supports programs like the Young Einstein program, which takes the highest achieving university students from across Africa and places them in a one year intensive mathematics course in the hopes of unlocking scientific talent in Africa. This support should help to alleviate local problems by supplying locals with mathematical tools needed to solve them. Such investments are the right thing to do, Faruqui stated, but it is also an investment in Canada’s future prosperity as it assists Canada’s strategic interests. Development aid allows Canada to create highly skilled partners with whom we can communicate and innovate. Furthermore, Faruqui claimed, Canada can also learn from less developed countries, e.g. from Jordan’s innovative greywater technologies.

In conclusion, Faruqui reiterated three reasons to collaborate with developing countries: to tackle shared challenges, aid development, and to build trust and openness. All three of these enhance global stability while helping Canada achieve its own interests, so “science collaboration with developing countries is cost effective with high returns.”

Nina Fedoroff started her talk by saying that she was excited to take part in a panel where the global vision of science diplomacy was already being borne out. Science has been used historically to gain a competitive advantage in the military sphere, economic sphere, and most recently in space, but US science diplomacy is moving away from its focus on weapons towards supporting scientific collaboration.

Focussing on her own experiences with collaborative programs as part of the US State Department, Fedoroff stated that the basic mission of the US Science Advisor is to increase literacy about science and technology in the State Department. In particular, when acting as US Advisor, Fedoroff worked to provide a science background to those entering the Foreign Service. The program connected diplomats with scientists and alerted them to the problems that occupy the intersection of science and policy. Her office also organized workshops and hosted scientific briefings, such as an international conference that brought university presidents together to talk about the university’s role in science policy and diplomacy.

Fedoroff closed by mentioning President Obama’s recent speech in Cairo, Egypt, which promoted collaborative communication with Islamic countries regarding science and technology. The program that was referenced in that speech, the Science Envoy program, has recently been gaining a lot of traction, as the first two envoys have been well received and a third will soon depart.