A few weeks ago in Oslo, Norway, in the company of about 40 other invitees from around the world, I attended an OECD “experts” meeting, sponsored by the Norwegian and German Ministries of Education and Research, on the subject of Science, Technology, Innovation and Global Challenges.

The workshop was predicated upon the shared realization that if  international policy and decision-makers cannot be convinced that a radical course correction is needed, then in the not too distant future the planet may reach a tipping point. Beyond that point, recovery will be difficult, if not impossible.

Think climate change, diminishing biodiversity, food insecurity, resource scarcity, pandemic disease, and so forth.

So… we were talking about the principal threats imperilling life on the planet.

Not your standard bit of bureaucratic process.

Today, I am en route to Otago University in Dunedin, New Zealand, to speak at a conference entitled Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn. Among many other speakers are Murray McCully, the Foreign Minister of New Zealand, Vaughn Turekian, head of  the science diplomacy unit at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, and Dr. Jeffery Boutwell, from Pugwash USA.

Two global gatherings in two months on science, technology, diplomacy and international policy. Is it possible that something’s happening here, even if what is ain’t exactly clear?

Maybe.  I certainly hope so.

Here’s why – let me try and connect the dots.

Guerrilla Diplomacy’s central argument, in its most highly distilled form, is  that if development has in large part become the new security in the age of globalization, then diplomacy must displace defence at the centre of international policy.

In this formulation, diplomacy, which is all about privileging talking over fighting and using non-violent political communication rather than armed force to resolve international disputes, would be placed front and centre in international relations.

Traditional diplomacy involves the representatives of states transacting the business of government among and between themselves. By way of contrast, public diplomacy (PD) involves the use of dialogue, advocacy and other public relations tools by envoys engaging directly with foreign publics in order to influence their governments. PD has become a critical component of statecraft – not just in industrialized countries – and it looms large in the current literature on diplomatic studies.

Science diplomacy (SD) is a crucial, if under-utilized, component within the PD constellation, and it represents a significant source of soft power, that potent form of influence which is based on attraction and harnesses national influence, reputation, and brand. Science diplomacy is significant not only in its capacity to address many of the earth’s most urgent challenges, but also because it is an effective emissary of  important values such as evidence-based learning, openness and sharing.

The use of science to advance diplomatic ends is distinct from international scientific cooperation by virtue of its connection to government interests and objectives. Cooperation in the enterprise of international science is typically a win-win proposition, for instance by pulling together to find ways to produce clean water, improve hygiene or develop disease resistant crops. Science diplomacy might produce similar outcomes, but the results could just as easily be asymmetrical, particularly if there are negotiations involved. Arms control and non-proliferation talks during the Cold War, and a whole constellation of international scientific programs and exchanges undertaken during the second half of the last century come  immediately to mind.

Not all science diplomacy, it must be stressed, is devoted to the achievement of pacific ends. Covert collaboration involving, variously, Pakistan, Iran, China, North Korea and Libya on nuclear explosive and missile propulsion technologies is an illustrative case in point.

But… back to basics, to the idea of science itself. In a contested and competitive world of voodoo economics, bundled derivatives, radical politics and religious extremism, science proceeds from the assumption that misery is not fated: because all events are caused, all problems – eventually – can be solved.

At its best, science might be seen to represent the closest thing we have to universality, perhaps even truth.  In the roiling realm of international relations, science diplomacy  merits considerably more attention than it has recently been accorded.

It may be that the conference in Dunedin, like the meeting in Oslo, will break new ground.

I hope so.

There is much to be done and the clock is ticking.

Fast.

For the past few weeks I have been lecturing and travelling in the UK and Europe with a group of MA candidates in diplomacy and international business. They are studying at the University of East Anglia’s London Academy of Diplomacy, and the subject of my short course is science, technology and international policy.

Even by Canadian standards, the group is exceptionally cosmopolitan and multicultural, with students from Afghanistan and Albania, South Africa and St. Lucia, Spain and Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Kazakhstan and Zambia. It’s a mini-UN, and our exchanges are informed and enriched by the diversity of perspectives brought to bear.

Continuous learning and compelling conversation.

Last week at Nyenrode Business University just outside of Utretcht, Holland, we received a very interesting lecture on “Commercial Diplomacy”. The subject also came up a few days later during a briefing at the Dutch Foreign Ministry, where we learned that in response to the Great Recession, the new emphasis for Dutch representatives abroad  is “Economic Diplomacy”. Some missions are being closed (mainly in Latin America), and a few new ones opened (mainly in Asia) with that priority foremost in mind.

My preoccupations have always tended towards the analysis of world politics and global issues, and I have never spent much time reflecting on how best to use diplomacy to advance commercial and economic objectives. Most of what I have seen of this sort of work on my postings abroad seemed rather garden variety and uninspired – organizing visits, delivering programs, participating in trade fairs, making presentations, pitching inward investment. Arranging run-of-the-mill itineraries for business visitors which consist mainly of set-piece, pro forma and predictable encounters with the usual suspects may in some instances be necessary, but will rarely be sufficient to ensure tangible gains.

Obtaining results usually requires something more.

My overall impression, I might add, was that those companies who wanted help with exports generally weren’t ready, and those enterprises who were ready – and often already active in foreign markets – generally didn’t want or need the support or assistance of the state.

From those observations I concluded that while responsibility for the formulation of trade policy should likely stay within government, trade promotion might usefully be privatized, and offered as a service only to those businesses who were prepared to pay. Some countries, such as Denmark and New Zealand, are already experimenting with this sort of model.

That said, many governments are still providing trade and investment services abroad at public expense, so the main issues are value for money and performance improvement. In that respect, I see considerable scope to applying the principles of guerrilla diplomacy to economic and commercial work overseas.

Guerrilla diplomacy is about agility, acuity, and outside the box thinking. From that it follows that effectiveness and results at the end of the day will often have little to do with knowing where the meeting rooms are at the best hotels or having an inside line on VIP room reservations at the airport. What counts most in terms the ability to add value and provide strategic advice will be the quality of networks and contacts – key players, opinion-leaders, facilitators, potential partners. The guerrilla trade commissioner will be expert at cross cultural communications, a source of macro-economic analysis and grass roots market intelligence, and have a sophisticated understanding not only of how their territory works, but or how to work their territory.

Elsewhere I have remarked that the explosion of global issues – climate change, pandemic disease, resource scarcity – has eroded the monopoly of the foreign ministry and implicated the work of line government departments in the management of many critical international policy files. Just as such as the capacity and expertise resident in ministries such as Environment, Health and Natural Resources has made a real contribution to addressing the range of issues rooted in science and driven by technology, responsibility for various aspects of commercial diplomacy is similarly widely dispersed.  Departments such as immigration (recruiting of new members of the labour force), transport (negotiation of air service agreements and infrastructure  links), development assistance (transition from donor-recipient relationship to economic partnership) and industry (process and product innovation) all have an important role to play. So, too, with various regulatory bodies.

Take aways?

Technology, human resources and knowledge are crucial, and highly mobile factors of international production. They will play a major in determining who will prosper in the highly competitive precincts of the 21^st century.

That elevates the place and role of commercial and economic diplomats, and positions them to make a real difference.

Secondly. To ensure a degree of policy coherence in the face of such complex and multi-faceted challenges, there will need to be a focal point for  government-NGO -private sector coordination, and a locus for inter-departmental decision-making.

With a mandate to manage the cross-cutting issues which define globalization, the Foreign and Trade Ministry could be just the place to situate that function.

It’s nobody else’s job, and it is one which desperately needs doing.

“Libya is engaged in a civil war. New protests have broken out in Oman, Bahrain and Yemen. The uprising in Tunisia, the pioneer state of the so-called “Arab Spring,” is entering a second phase. As usual, the amateurish Obama administration has no idea what to do about any of this.

…America has established that its national policy in Libya is regime change. The question now is whether our inexperienced president will take concerted steps to back up that policy.

Gadhafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, boasted that the regime in Tripoli is not fazed by the prospect of U.S. intervention. “We are ready, we are not afraid,” he said Tuesday. “We live here, we die here.” Maybe that can be arranged.”

Editorial, Washington Times, 01 March 2011

Slowly but surely, the sound of sabres rattling is growing louder. Amidst a looming humanitarian crisis and incipient civil war, and denials notwithstanding, there are tell-tale signs of the ground being prepared. In the US and UK there is talk of establishing a no-fly zone, of sending in special forces, of arming and training the rebels…

As Western military assets are deployed to the Eastern Mediterranean and politicians are speaking increasingly of the possibility of some sort of  intervention, my sense of dread intensifies.

Where is the diplomatic offensive? Yes, the foreign holdings of the Qaddafi  family have been frozen, an arms embargo applied, and legal proceedings are being investigated by the International Criminal Court.  But this does not constitute anything like the full court diplomatic press purported to be underway. In fact, it reveals diplomacy’s displacement. Why is no one other than Hugo Chavez calling for immediate negotiations, offering mediation and good offices, dispatching special envoys, demanding that the UN Security Council act to separate the combatants before the onset of full blown hostilities…?

Have we not seen this movie – the one with the tragic ending – before?

Do governments ever learn?

* * * * * * * * * *

Muammar Qaddafi has undoubtedly  many faults, and in recent interviews he appears completely out of touch and at least partially unhinged. In face of the eruptions of popular unrest currently washing over the Greater Middle East region, it is not in the least surprising that Qaddafi’s position is threatened, and perhaps lost.

The fact that the Colonel so richly deserves to go makes it all the more import to recall that not long ago Western leaders, keen to expand trade and acquire newly available oil concessions, were lining up to see him. His decision to turn over suspects and offer a financial settlement for the Lockerbie bombing, dismantle Libya’s nuclear program, denounce al-Qaeda and stop supporting international terrorism had the effect of transforming his status from that of pariah to something approaching a new-found friend, a figure emblematic of burgeoning business opportunities in emerging markets.

Now, that rapprochement is history, and Qaddafi  is again characterized as a dangerous buffoon, an obstacle to democracy, and an enemy of the people.

* * * * * * * * * *

It is all quite dizzying. Excruciating, even.

Consistency has never been one of the hallmarks of international policy, but what we are witnessing now represents an exceptional, if not unprecedented case of incoherence. For decades, corrupt, unrepresentative, illiberal and often very nasty despots and autocrats and were recognized as allies, and often actively courted in the name of stability and commerce. Today, some of those same figures have become the subject of scorn, derision and ridicule.

It is little wonder that those with a preference for religious extremism and political violence find the contradictions inherent in Western policy such an easy propaganda target.

* * * * * * * * * *

Duplicity is distasteful, but more serious problems persist.  Massive arms spending, a reliance upon the military as the international policy instrument of choice, and the imposition of coercive solutions to disputes worldwide remain the norm in Western political culture. The continuing priority accorded the Global War on Terror, though little in evidence at present, is the foremost example of this flawed prescription. Despite abject failures in recent years, government messaging and the mainstream media continue to portray military action as both morally justified and strategically essential. Policy has become an instrument of war, rather than the reverse. Fears have been conjured and insecurity instilled.

The effect has been to undercut support for alternative approaches to the management of world order.

In response to this widespread militarization of foreign policy, acute since 9/11, there exists an urgent, and unmet need to debate, interpret and engage international affairs and global issues through the lens of non-violent political communication. Events unfolding across the Greater Middle East underline the need to encourage long term, broadly based development and to resolve disputes through diplomacy. Power is shifting, and ways will have to be found to accommodate fundamental change without repeating the mistakes – which led to two world wars and a Cold War – of the last century.

Simply put, the military is both too sharp, and too dull and instrument to deal with the challenges of globalization, and governments today desperately need to find other channels through which to deliver international policy. Shooting their way to victory won’t work, and no amount of resources devoted to existing conceptions of “national security” can ever produce the outcomes required.

Guns will never get us there.

A well-honed capacity for genuine dialogue, supple analysis, knowledge-based problem-solving and complex balancing just might.

* * * * * * * * * *

Prior to the latest events in North Africa and the Middle East, if the diplomatic representatives of Western governments  had found their way closer to the grass roots and were more effectively networked, they would have been better  positioned to engage in guerrilla diplomacy. Were that to have been the case, what is going on today might not have come as such as surprise, and the under-performance now on display might not have been as severe. Among other things:

• Contacts in civil society, and especially among students and youth, would likely have provided ready conduits into newly established opposition groups;

• Intelligence would have been better;

• International policy responses could have been ahead of, rather than so far behind the curve.

Mainly, though, decision-makers would have access to a range of political alternatives to the provision of emergency humanitarian assistance in combination with the threat or use of hard power.  Negotiations would be front and centre rather than marginalized and sidelined.

Flailing about and falling back on the familiar combination of band-aids and bullets is certainly disheartening. But it will be a disaster if Libya – as with Iraq (shock and awe)  and Afghanistan (counterinsurgency) before it – becomes yet another testing ground for new thinking on defence policy and practice.

* * * * * * * * * *

The current crisis is growing, not ebbing, and it is showing every sign of a meltdown in the making. While the future cannot be foretold, as long as oil remains the lifeblood of industrial economies, the stakes will remain enormous.

Even with overwhelming military power, the arrival of the heterpolar age has made it impossible for any one country to control events in Libya – or anywhere else. Absent a collective commitment to diplomacy and development, governments will face grave difficulties pursuing their interests and achieving their objectives in the complex and turbulent world of the 21st century.

Because failure is not an option, a change in course is essential.

The following commentary, based in part on my “Ferment in North Africa” entry, was posted by the University of Southern California’s Public Diplomacy Blog 02 February:

This is one of those rare, defining moments in world history. In Egypt – as well as Tunisia, Sudan, Yemen and elsewhere – change is unfolding at almost blinding speed. The reactions of the USA, EU, and UN  so far have succeeded mainly in positioning the international community well behind the curve, scrambling to catch up. Developments on the ground continue to outpace responses by a wide margin.

In Washington, Brussels, Paris, and London, the deepening crisis, with Cairo at its epicentre,  underscores the difficulties inherent in trying to balance values – democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law – and interests, and in expressing that balance through the articulation of coherent international policy. When autocratic regimes have been supported for decades, and even when the status quo becomes obviously untenable, it is difficult to know how best to react.

Stand-off in Tunis.

Riots in Khartoum

Cairo burning.

In the erstwhile global village, which today looks more like an island patchwork of  heavily guarded, gated communities surrounded by an angry sea of seething shantytowns, the relentless forces of globalization continue to transform world politics. Cairo is the current, and increasingly turbulent epicentre, but many countries in the region are susceptible to similar rebellions.

In Egypt, Tunisia, Sudan and elsewhere, change is unfolding very rapidly. The reactions of the USA, EU, UN, and certainly Canada have positioned the international community well behind the curve. Developments on the ground have outpaced responses by a wide margin, and an anti-Western backlash, which could carry major economic and political implications, cannot be ruled out.

What, then, are the the broad strategic considerations which decision-makers could usefully take into account?

Several of the principal arguments advanced in Guerrilla Diplomacy may offer insights useful in interpreting the larger meaning and impact of these breaking events. The following thematic survey is offered to that end.

Globalization has become a driver of instability and a major contributor to insurrection.

As the defining historical process of our times, globalization generates wealth and creates opportunities, but not for all. The benefits tend to be uneven, which can result in increasing inequity and polarization within and between states. A few beneficiaries are squeezed upwards, while those less fortunate are forced down. Some win, more lose, and few are left untouched. Under certain circumstances, such as rising unemployment or food and fuel price increases, this volatile combination can trigger the collective release of anger and disaffection, often expressed through revolt. That dynamic, destabilizing response to globalization is one of the major forces animating today’s news.

Science and technology is a two-edged sword which cuts all ways.

In previous postings I have noted that even as science and technology (S&T) provide solutions to some of the world’s most difficult problems, they can also generate new ones. This has been illustrated clearly in the case with the WikiLeaks revelations. In North Africa, technology has until now allowed for ever more efficient repression, but today is fuelling and abetting resistance. Negative perceptions have been exacerbated and protest planning facilitated by widespread and relatively inexpensive access to information and communications technologies, such as cell phones and the internet. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, for example, are said to have figured centrally in the Tunisian uprising; efforts by the Mubarak regime to forestall similar developments in Egypt by shutting down network access have not been entirely successful. In the age of globalization, S&T makes possible the formation of virtual communities almost instantly and represents a critical new variable.

Underdevelopment breeds insecurity.

Development is a somewhat amorphous concept, but it occurs where individuals are able to attain some semblance of their full economic, social and political potential without undue or unjust constraint. From development flows security, which flourishes when people are able to meet their basic needs in the absence of want and fear. Security and development, therefore, are joined at the hip, two sides of the same coin. In North Africa, however, growing income disparities, an expanding youth demographic, and skyrocketing unemployment have conspired to ensure that neither are much in evidence. This combination of underdevelopment and insecurity, as we are witnessing,  can be explosive.

Religious fanaticism and political violence are symptomatic mainly of deeper problems

To date, most of the action in the streets has been non-violent in nature and secular in orientation. Given the chance, and particularly if strides are made towards democracy, good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law, it is my experience that most people would rather pursue economic and educational opportunities than resort to jihad or seek violent retribution. But if already pronounced conditions of exploitation and injustice are ignored or exacerbated, then desperation may grow, especially if disorder spreads and shortages become epidemic. Should real reform be thwarted or material circumstances worsen, everything could change, with those offering extreme solutions moving into fill the void.

Western military power is largely irrelevant

In many underdeveloped countries, the bureaucracy is reviled and the military is respected, if not revered as one of the few national institutions that functions. In the industrialized world, however, although the civilian agencies of government work passably well, what really sets the armed forces apart from other international policy instruments is their receipt of the lion’s share of available resources. Given that bombs and guns can’t be used to address the variety of real threats and challenges facing the planet – climate change, pandemic disease, poverty, environmental collapse – this represents a serious misallocation. We seem to have forgotten the main lesson that should have been learned from the Cold War, namely that armies work best when they aren’t used.  Similarly, today in the southern Mediterranean, sending in the marines, blockading the ports or calling in an air strike will not encourage the desired outcomes. Besides being costly to maintain, hard power is of very limited utility in a heteropolar world.  Nuanced understanding and effective civil assistance are more likely to produce laudable results.

Diplomacy could make a difference

In Washington, Brussels, Paris, London and elsewhere, the current crisis underscores the difficulties  inherent in trying to balance values and interests, and in expressing that balance through the articulation of coherent international policy. When autocratic regimes have been supported for decades, and even when the status quo becomes obviously untenable, it is difficult to know how best to respond. This is precisely where engaging the negotiating, knowledge-based  problem solving, and complex balancing capacities of diplomacy should be invaluable. Conventional, state-to state representational mechanisms can be used to help ease former friends from office and into exile. Public diplomacy may be used to support peace and progress, and to communicate the views of concerned governments directly to foreign populations. Guerrilla diplomacy is ideally suited, among other things, to the cultivation of ties with the emerging resistance leaders, and to generating intelligence at the grass roots level. Unfortunately, guerrilla diplomacy remains next to non-existent, and foreign ministries most everywhere, under-funded and struggling to adapt, are ill-equipped to perform.

Looking ahead? A demonstration effect is roiling the region, and more extensive turmoil can be anticipated.  The events unfolding in Tunis, Cairo, and Khartoum illustrate that in the age of globalization, governments need desperately to find a better way to deliver international policy. In that respect, a focus on diplomacy and development could be used to address the root causes of insecurity, and in a way that works without the manifold costs associated with the threat or use of armed force.

Security, after all, is not a martial art.