Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There is a card i'm thinking of that I don't know where it is at the moment, Federoff '08 is the author, if I find it, i'll post it. This is another card that i've heard from a friend's 1AC.   Science diplomacy builds coalitions, creates multilateral applications for soft power and diffuses global conflicts.

Espy Harvard University February 18, 2013

(Nicole, PhD student in Biological Sciences of Public Health at Harvard University, “Science and Diplomacy,” 2/18/13, http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/science-and-diplomacy/ accessed 7-14-14)

 

The daily endeavors of a scientist may seem very distinct from those of a political diplomat. The public may imagine that scientific progress is driven by the work of scientists working methodically and in isolation in laboratories around the world. In contrast, the idea of a political diplomat likely conjures a different image – one that involves groups of politicians forming alliances and guiding negotiations between multiple organizations and nations. But, science is a similarly collaborative effort that often requires coordination between different groups to improve available tools and advance knowledge. Science and diplomacy can even benefit one another. Science can provide the data and frameworks necessary to initiate and inform diplomatic talks while at the same time, diplomacy can create opportunities that improve the way we do science. Science as a topic of Diplomacy Science is at the heart of many international diplomatic discussions. For example, nuclear research has been a hot topic in international politics for the past 60 years. Nuclear research has enabled us to harness the power of nuclear fission for nuclear energy, but it has also resulted in the creation of nuclear arms that have led to a great deal of destruction. To ensure nuclear research continues in a safe and responsible manner, nations have worked together to develop a system of oversight and accountability. These diplomatic efforts have resulted in the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose early slogan was “Atoms for Peace.” This agency provides technical guidelines and assistance to countries for safe use of tools and techniques involving nuclear and radioactive materials. It also attempts to make public the development of nuclear arms programs in countries around the world so that other world leaders can take appropriate action. The International Atomic Energy Agency is a model for how scientists and policy makers can share information and work toward shared interests. Climate change is another major driver of international diplomatic negotiations. The impact of climate change on people’s lives is largely unpredictable and non-uniform across different regions. In response, national leaders similarly vary in their willingness to consent to international agreements concerning means to cut green house gas emissions. While the scientific consensus is that greenhouse-gas emissions are a major cause of global warming, the debate surrounding climate change at the global diplomatic level concerns the methods that should be employed to slow global warming and which countries should carry the brunt of the socioeconomic responsibility. The Kyoto Protocol, written in 1997, was an international agreement that required participating countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The greatest responsibility for these reductions fell on developed countries, like the United States and those in Europe, who emitted much of the greenhouse gas during the 19th and 20th centuries. However, in 2001, the United States withdrew its support of the Protocol, in objection to the quality of the Protocol’s goals, recognizing that rapidly industrializing countries like China and India now emit more greenhouse gases from fossil fuels than high-income countries. Meanwhile, low-income countries, including many island nations soon to be overcome by rising sea levels, want immediate action that will stop climate change and help these countries adapt to future changes. Last November, the United Nations held the Doha Climate Change conference, one of a series of conferences held to devise an internationally supported plan of action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The result was not a consensus on the means and measurements of reducing emissions per country. Instead, the Kyoto Protocol was extended through 2020 and participating countries discussed the right of island nations to be compensated for adaptation costs. Since all 196 countries in the world are a part of this conversation, climate change negotiations are difficult but imperative in the face of the impending effects of climate change. Ultimately, science can help provide the data – models forecasting future climate changes, predicted outcomes of different strategies – that help frame climate change discussions, but decisions on what policy to pursue will require frank and democratic deliberations that balance the needs and interests of all stakeholders. Diplomacy to improve science Sometimes diplomacy is used to make new scientific tools available and to facilitate intellectual exchange. After the Second World War, European scientists in the field of nuclear physics imagined an organization that would increase collaboration across Europe and coordinate cost sharing for the building and maintenance of the facilities this research required. This idea resulted in the formation of the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN. The political negotiations to manage the shared operating costs and the use of CERN facilities, like the Large Hadron Collider, by over half of the world’s physicists from many different nations and academic institutions are now carried out within the CERN framework to manage the shared operating costs and the use of the facilities, like the Large Hadron Collider, by over half of the world’s physicists. This use of diplomacy has enabled many important discoveries, including the most recent discovery of the Higgs Boson. Other organizations that are the result of global collaboration include ITER, former known as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, for the development of nuclear fusion for energy production, the Square Kilometre Array for the design of the world’s largest radio telescope, and the International Space Station for space exploration. All of the above organizations have helped scientists overcome technical (and financial) challenges in their respective fields that they would not have surmounted on their own. Science to improve Diplomacy Beyond the contentious subjects of nuclear proliferation and climate change, science can be a tool to improve diplomatic relations between conflicting nations. The former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University Dr. Joseph Nye, Jr., noted that “soft power,” such as international cultural and intellectual collaborations between international groups, helps maintain a positive global attitude between participating nations and can result in favorable political alliances. Scientific collaborations are a powerful example of soft power, since science is internationally respected as an impartial endeavor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science diplomacy is able to open collaboration on all international issues, especially in countries where the US is unpopular Cathy Campbell 10/27/10 (Cathy Cambell,  president and chief executive officer of CRDF Global, an independent nonprofit organization that promotes international scientific and technical collaboration, Send in the Scientists: Why Mobilizing America’s Researchers Makes Sense for Diplomacy, published by Science Progress.org, October 27th, 2010, http://scienceprogress.org/2010/10/send_scientists/, accessed 9/22/11) CW

Mobilizing America’s researchers for science diplomacy makes sense for three reasons. First, many of today’s global challenges—food, water, energy, climate, and health—require technical solutions. Scientists, engineers and innovators must be involved in understanding these problems and then designing and implementing the proposed solutions. In a flat world, scientists must work in partnership with colleagues around the world. Very few of today’s global challenges are confined to any single country. Disease, drought, and environmental degradation know no borders. They can be successfully addressed only through cross-border collaboration.

Secondly, U.S. science and technology is highly respected around the world. Recent polling of citizens in Muslim-majority countries shows high regard for U.S. science and technology leadership. This is an area where their citizens seek cooperation with the United States. By building on this interest, the United States can significantly expand opportunities for collaboration.

Third, scientists and engineers speak a common language that transcends political, cultural, and economic boundaries. Whether working in the United States, scientists from Russia, Egypt, or Indonesia understand and apply the same formulas and principles. They are driven by an overwhelming interest to discover new knowledge and find solutions to some of today’s most vexing problems. Their ability to forge new pathways of collaboration, often despite difficult political environments, is a valuable tool for diplomacy. Furthermore, as we have seen all around the world, when science and technology flourishes, so do economies.

 

Science diplomacy spills over to other areas of cooperation and can help solve many global problems Michael J. Miller 3/10/11 (Michael J. Miller, senior vice president for technology strategy at Ziff Brothers Investments, a private investment firm. 1991 to 2005- editor-in-chief of PC Magazine, responsible for the editorial direction, quality and presentation of the world's largest computer publication, Google and USAID Push Science Diplomacy, March 10, 2011, http://forwardthinking.pcmag.com/internet/282353-google-and-usaid-push-science-diplomacy#fbid=PrqMJYKR6VM, accessed 9/22/11) CW

Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations tonight, Cerf said that building relationships with other countries around science helps build trust in other areas, and you can use the consequences of science to build economic engagements as well. As an example, he talked about his work to help the Russian people get on the Internet after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Dehgan said science diplomacy is one of the tools that the State Department and other U.S. diplomats use to engage all sorts of other countries. He talked about how the U.S. has to be thinking about global problems, saying international issues, from global warming to food supplies, affect domestic policy and security.

Dehgan talked about how science gives people a shared culture and a shared set of values, such as openness and meritocracy, and mentioned that many foreign leaders are actually scientists, engineers, and doctors. Cerf made the point that many more foreign leaders had science backgrounds than U.S. leaders, although he said that was changing, pointing out the Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winner.

 

US science diplomacy creates cooperation between India and Pakistan

Saleem H. Ali and Bharath Gopalaswamy 11/24/10(Ali, Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Vermont's Rubenstein School of Natural Resources, and on the adjunct faculty of Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies, Gopalaswamy, senior research scholar at Cornell University and a researcher in SIPRI's Arms Control and Non-proliferation Programme, Science Diplomacy in South Asia, published November 24, 2010 by Policy Innivation.org http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/innovations/data/000181,  accessed 9/22/11) CW

The regional political dimensions of President Obama's trip to India remain shrouded in secrecy. There was no obvious signal that the United States managed to exert any pressure on India regarding rapprochement with Pakistan, nor was there a clear sign of how India's role in Afghanistan might be better aligned with U.S. interests.

Perhaps a missing link in all these conversations is science—an underutilized means of diplomacy worldwide, and particularly in South Asia. This is especially ironic since the subcontinent is perhaps the most "geek-friendly" place on Earth! Science and engineering are deeply ingrained in South Asian culture as the primrose path to success.

Unfortunately, the context of science in South Asian relations has been overwhelmed by competitive defense technologies. While art and music groups are frequently allowed to cross borders between India and Pakistan for performances, scientists have a much more difficult time. In 2007, the U.S. National Science Foundation supported a series of collaborative workshops between Pakistani and Indian environmental scientists, but both countries were resistant to grant visas and the organizers were forced to arrange separate domestic meetings and one joint meeting in Kathmandu, Nepal, where neither side needed a visa. Moreover, the goal of collaborative fieldwork still eludes us.

Even though environmental scientists have little interest in nuclear secrets, the perception of scientists as a security risk remains strong on both sides. The United States could and should play a more active role in building trust between India and Pakistan around nonpolitical issues.

Collaboration on climate change science in the glaciated headwaters of the Indus basin river system, especially following the devastating floods of 2010, makes practical and political sense. It is understandable that India will once again be reluctant to accept any "outside interference" on this but the threat of climate change is a global concern and the Karakoram glaciers are a pivotal natural laboratory for understanding these dynamics. Scientists from Pakistan and India have a clear and present interest in collaborating on this matter as part of their obligations to international environmental agreements.

 

Science diplomacy can be used for all conflict resolution, especially in India and Pakistan

Saleem H. Ali and Bharath Gopalaswamy 11/24/10(Ali, Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Vermont's Rubenstein School of Natural Resources, and on the adjunct faculty of Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies, Gopalaswamy, senior research scholar at Cornell University and a researcher in SIPRI's Arms Control and Non-proliferation Programme, Science Diplomacy in South Asia, published November 24, 2010 by Policy Innivation.org http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/innovations/data/000181,  accessed 9/22/11) CW

Of course, security concerns accompany any data-sharing agreement. A working group on sharing these resources could very well serve as a starting point for engagement. However, in order to address shared concerns and future challenges in South Asia, meaningful facilitation from a major interlocutor such as the United States would be essential. Sixty years of bilateral conversations between India and Pakistan have shown the utter failure of leaving such matters to the adversaries themselves.

All major territorial dispute settlements in the twentieth century such as the East Timor conflict or the Northern Ireland conflict have involved some external facilitation. Science diplomacy offers the gentlest form of such facilitation. Political capital, beyond state dinners and economic delegations, needs to be expended to move India and Pakistan to accept such assistance.

It is high time that the United States and all interested international players consider novel strategies for securing peace in South Asia. Science and ecology hold great promise as a tool of diplomacy in this region and should be given priority in sustainable conflict resolution.

 

Scientific diplomacy key to international relations

Climate Loop.com 7/4/11 (website dedicate to providing information about climate change, Science Diplomacy and Climate Change, July 4, 2011, http://www.climateloop.com/2011/07/science-diplomacy-and-climate-change.html, accessed 9/22/11) CW

 

The main idea is that whether you’re communist or capitalist, scientific method is consistent. It's this consistency that enables trust between parties. We know that water boils at 100 degrees not because Adam Smith thought it would be a good idea to mention that in The Wealth of Nations but because scientists of all creeds can empirically test and confirm this. Since results don't discriminate, strengthened scientific ties could pave the way for improving future international relations. For example, the US has very poor relations with countries such as Iran. The theory is that if the two were to engage in science diplomacy, the objective nature of scientific cooperation between the two could build the foundations of a bridge to improve their relations. After all, something is better than nothing. As you’ve probably realised, international scientific cooperation is hardly uncommon and the only new thing about it is the fancy name. Whether or not something like the IPCC is an example of science diplomacy is another debate, depending on your definition.

 

 

 

 

Scientific diplomacy is key to building relations with hostile countries, empirics prove EDWARD P. DJEREJIAN, NEAL F. LANE and KIRSTIN R.W. MATTHEWS  3/19/11(Djerejian, the founding director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, is a former U.S. ambassador to Syria and to Israel; Lane is a senior fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute as well as the Malcolm Gillis University Professor and a professor of physics and astronomy at Rice University; Matthews is a fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute and a lecturer for the Wiess School of Natural Sciences at Rice University. Science, diplomacy and international collaboration: ESTABLISHING DIALOGUES, March 19, 2011, accessed 9/22/11) CW

The recent dramatic events taking place in the broader Middle East pose major challenges for the United States, making it all the more important that the Obama administration craft policies that respond to the dynamics of change in the region. One often-neglected but powerful diplomatic tool is known as "science diplomacy," the sharing of scientific information and establishing scientific collaborations with nations in which the United States has limited political relations. Polls show that American scientific research is widely respected throughout the world, even in nations whose citizens do not, overall, have a positive opinion of the United States. For instance, a 2004 Zogby poll showed that only 11 percent of Moroccans have a positive view of the United States, but 90 percent had a favorable view of U.S. science. Of 43 countries surveyed, U.S. science exceeded the general favorability of the United States by an average of 23 points. For this reason, it is often possible to establish constructive discussions and cooperative scientific efforts, especially ones that relate to food, water, health, energy and other human needs, when other channels of communication are closed.

The very nature of scientific investigation encourages interactions between researchers, regardless of where they happen to live and work; hence, research collaborations spontaneously arise regardless of the political climate between host countries. These one-on-one or small group contacts are sometimes one of the few avenues for communication between the United States and a particular country and can provide a platform for industrial partnerships, educational outreach and global community development. At its best, science diplomacy is a means to create opportunities for civic engagement in difficult political environments.

Science diplomacy, even if not widely recognized as such, has been an effective diplomatic tool since World War II. U.S. scientists engaged Soviet scientists throughout the Cold War even when relations between the two governments were severely strained. During President Richard Nixon's visit to China in 1972, the two countries identified science as an area of cooperation. Now, President Barack Obama is engaging Muslim-majority nations by sending prominent scientists as science envoys to talk with scientists, students and policymakers in the broader Middle East as well as Southeast Asia. Their mission is to explore opportunities for collaboration as well as encourage scientific research and science, engineering and technology education to engage countries in a dialogue as well as find new opportunities for scientific partnerships.

 

 

Science diplomacy has historically created solutions to proliferation

Lois Kazakoff  2/22/11 (writer for San Francisco Chronicle, Lois Kazakoff: Global security depends on sharing scientific progress, Feburary 22, 2011, http://blog.sfgate.com/opinionshop/2010/02/22/lois-kazakoff-global-security-depends-on-sharing-scientific-progress/, accessed 9/22/11) CW Some of the most important work done on nuclear security happened far from the negotiating table through unofficial scientific diplomacy, and it’s time to revitalize those unofficial channels. “We tunneled beneath government bureaucracy,” Siegfried Hecker, former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, told the group in describing his meetings in 1992 through 1994 with Russian nuclear scientists. Those meetings led to a program to keep track of nuclear fissile material during the years the USSR was dismantling and the Russian economy was collapsing. Perry said scientists working in similar scientific exchanges will be key to the success of future foreign policy endeavors.

Edited by foucault0ff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...