We Need Science Diplomacy!

 My colleague, Professor Paul Berkman, has launched a Science Diplomacy Center at Tufts University. This is a campus-wide initiative coordinated through the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.  I look forward to working with him. We are going to offer a two day workshop this August for PHD students in Boston area universities interested in learning more about ways of ensuring that their dissertation findings are presented in a compelling way to policy-makers. To do this, we will try to equip them (including natural and social scientists) to function as “science diplomats.”  There has been lots written about the need to enhance the “policy literacy”of technical specialists; we are not talking about that.  That is mostly focused on the clarity and understandability of technical communication.  Rather, science diplomats jump into the PROCESS of managing change, particularly when common resources are involved (i.e. oceans, the atmosphere, the Arctic, Antarctic, outer space, ocean floor, great rivers, and more), especially those that cross as well as extend beyond the boundaries of nations. This involves taking action with an eye toward balance and inclusion. Being helpful requires taking account of the interests of all, not just voicing an (informed) opinion.

The science diplomacy process hinges on (1) the acquisition and presentation of evidence regarding the way socio-ecological systems have changed, are changing and might change in the future; (2) attention to the records of government agreements and commitments (i.e. constitutions, laws, treaties, regulations, contracts, etc.) that spell out the rights and responsibilities of citizens, corporations, non-governmental actors, state and multi-state agencies; (3) the voices of stakeholders, both those who are already organized and those who are not; and (4) negotiation, or problem-solving, aimed at reconciling the conflicting interests (of stakeholders and governments). From my standpoint, such negotiations need to be facilitated or mediated by professional process managers.   The output of these negotiations can be used or ignored by those with decision-making responsibilities. 

What do potential science diplomats neeed to know to be effective? With regard to evidence, they need to know how to model complex systems and explain the dynamics of socio-ecological systems. When they present forecasts, they need to know how to acknowledge uncertainty and explain the sensitivity of their historical explanations and prospective forecasts to non-objective assumptions scientists are obliged to make (e.g., what time frame or geographic area to use for purposes of forecasting). Finally, they need to know how to gather, sort and “clean” many kinds of data gathered in the field and turn these data into evidence for decision making.  With regard to government records, they need to know how to read and interpret official agreements and operating rules. This is not so straightforward as many people imagine.  There are often multiple agreements, at different scales, that all apply in the same situation. And, often, (as Justice Holmes once said) general principles don’t decide concrete cases. Interpreting which rights and responsibilities apply requires learned interpretation. With regard to interaction with stakeholders, science diplomats must learn how to engage in stakeholder assessment (i.e. figuring out which groups have a legitimate claim to be involved in particular decisions and who can speak for them). They also need to know how to present the views of hard-to-represent stakeholders (like future generations!). Helping stakeholders clarify their interests, especially when they are part of fractious groups, is difficult, but it is the science diplomats job to do so.

Science diplomats need to be “at the table” when negotiations begin.  We know that this is too often not the case.  Typically, each “side” comes with evidence prepared by “its” scientific advisors. At that point, the battle of the print-out begins. We are not talking about this kind of advocacy science.  Rather, we believe that science diplomacy requires the involvement of interdisciplinary teams of scientists as process advisors – at the table.  Most scientists have never received ANY instruction about how to function in this context.  We need to enrich the repertorie of individual science diplomats so they can help to craft case-appropriate ways of participating in the process of guiding change. 

Many scientists have no interest in serving as science diplomats.  That’s fine.  There is plenty of work for them as disciplinary specialists. But, we need a growing cadre of scientists who want to engage in the interdisciplinary process of science diplomacy. This becomes increasingly urgent, as decisions made now are foreclosing our ability to protect, preserve or renew the sustainability of our world on a planetary scale. We are mindful of the horrors of “world wars” and the acceleration of human population growth from one billion people at the start of the industrial revolution toward eight billion by end of this decade.    

Science diplomats can convene dialogues among allies and adversaries alike, pointing out common interests, and reminding everyone that we are a globally-interconnected civilization facing the fundamental challenge of balancing national interests and common interests for the benefit of everyone on Earth.

The Sovereignty Claims of Indigenous Peoples

Think about it from their perspective. Assume you are part of a group that has inhabited a place for at least a thousand years. Your ceremonies and traditions date back a lot farther than those of the interlopers who now control every aspect of your life.  Your people have been connected to that particular place for all of recorded history.  Yet, now, the national government that surrounds you wants to dictate what you can and cannot do with your land and how your children should be educated.. That national government has sold the mineral rights out from under you (and kept all the money), polluted the waters you depend on, and stripped the forest that has always been your primary source of food. Wouldn't you be angry?

There are more than 300 million indigenous people in the world in this situation. There are at least 5000 different first nations in more than 70 countries. Most of these groups are fighting for their survival -- arguing that they should have control over their ancestral lands and be allowed to decide what happens within their borders.  In most instances, though, their sovereignty claims have been rejected.  In the United States, many Native Americans live in the worst economic conditions in the country.  They do not control what happens in their lives. While some Americans blame the tribes for their current circumstances, there can be no question that the American government has refused to allow the Indians to control their land and water and has not lived up to the promises that the American government has made over the past several hundred years.  In Australia, Latin America, Asia and in parts of Europe, First Peoples struggle for recognition and fair treatment.  While the United Nations has, after 25 years of discussion, finally passed a non-binding Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, all with significant indigenous populations voted against it.  While the Declaration talks about recognition, it provides no imperative for the recognition of  the sovereignty claims of First Nations.

In Canada, First Nations control the land (reserves) on which they live.  They have rights of various kinds (both through treaties and constitutional mandates) that fall short of sovereignty, but guarantee greater independence than almost anywhere else in the world.  The Sarayaku in Ecuador, the Mapuche in Chile, the Amerindians in Guyana, the Adivasi in India, and the Yonggom in Papue New Guinea have far fewer protections.  In Israel, the 46 Bedouin communities in the Negev are not even listed on official government maps and their long-standing  land claims have never been addressed by the Israeli Supreme Court. 

Sovereignty (i.e. full recognition of their status as independent states) may be beyond what

First Nations can hope for in this era, but greater autonomy -- and perhaps even independence with regard to a range of resource, education, and justice issues-- ought to be negotiable.  

I don't see, though, how the sovereignty claims of First Peoples can be resolved in the courts of the very countries that have preempted their rights.  And, I don't think it is very likely that existing national governments will agree to have these claims adjudicated in international courts. To do so would mean allowing international bodies to contravene national sovereignty. (We've heard that argument a lot in the United States whenever questions of the World Court's jurisdiction are raised). That leaves the entire burden on individual First Nations to mobilize political support (both locally and globally). Given their lack of financial resources and their unwilling to engage in domestic politics (which would put them in the same position as any other interest group in a country when what they want is recognition of their sovereign rights), this is not a promising strategy. An international mediation approach might be worth considering.  In the same way that mediation has been used to resolve war and peace issues between contending nations as well as among waring factions within a country, it could be used to provide an in informal context in which national governments and First Nations could explore alternatives to full sovereignty.   

See Lawrence Susskind and Isabelle Anguelovski, Addressing the Land Claims of Indigenous Peoples published by the MIT Program on Human Rights and Justice for case studies of efforts by 14 indigenous peoples around the world to pursue their land claims.

(This can be downloaded for free at http://mit.edu/phrj/publications-phrj/indigenous-peoples.pdf)

International Treaty Negotiation

International treaty-making is one area in which consensus building is the rule.  Because countries are sovereign, a majority vote by other nations can not bind a country that doesn't want to sign a treaty. Thus, there are hundreds of treaties, but very few bind all the nations of the world. This means that any multinational coalition that wants to win support for a new treaty (like another climate change treaty) must propose something that countries will accept voluntarily.  There are three ways to do this.  First, countries can be drawn in on a step-by-step basis.  An initial "convention" might just ask countries to agree that there is a problem that needs attention. They'll sign that. Leaders who sign can get political credit for "doing something," even though signing is just symbolic. Then, that initial treaty can be followed by more detailed "protocols" spelling out who needs to do what by when. Although some countries that signed the original convention might not endorse the subsequent protocols, many will feel obliged to follow, especially if each small step is not too burdensome.  Second, a treaty can offer sweeteners -- financial incentives or other linked benefits (like access to technology) -- that make signatories better off.  Third, a coalition can "shame" recalcitrant countries, either at home or in the world media, if they don't sign.  

Bringing together 190+  delegations to negotiate a complicated legal agreement is no small chore.  A group-appointed chair is usually tapped to lead such multi-year efforts -- although it is rare that treaty-drafting is professionally mediated.  Lots of unofficial meetings are often held along the way to get the ball rolling or to generate new treaty elements. Within countries, non-government interests can bring pressure to bear on their official delegations to accept or reject proposed treaty provisions.  Indeed, multilateral networks of non-governmental organizations have become increasingly important in global treaty-making.  In general, it takes many years to win support for a global treaty. Each time the leadership in a country changes, treaty-makers have to regroup. Often, scientific or technical questions require special attention. And, since there is rarely an established worldwide group of experts ready to step in, technical debates often cause delays. 

The consensus building approach to treaty-making puts more emphasis on getting early input from a wide range of official and unofficial parties in the treaty drafting process.  It puts a premium on the mediation skills of the individual or group leading the effort.  Ongoing input from a representative team of experts, chosen by all the countries involved, can overcome dramatic differences in technical understanding. And, linking restrictions that one treaty regime wants to impose with benefits that another treaty has to distribute, can help to generate agreement.  For more on how these dynamics work see my articles in the 2008 National Academy of Science and Engineering's Issues in Science and Technology (www.issues.org/25.1/susskind.html) and International Negotiation Journal, 8 (2), 235-266, 2003.