The UN's Role in the New Diplomacy
Juma, Calestous, Issues in Science and Technology
As a new form of international diplomacy develops to deal with a number of emerging issues in which science and technology play a central role, the United Nations (UN) risks being relegated to the sidelines. The influence and effectiveness of diplomats and international civil servants will increasingly depend on the extent to which they can mobilize scientific and technical expertise in their work. This need not require the UN to acquire extensive in-house scientific competence, but the organization--especially the office of the secretary general--must learn to tap advisory services to identify, mobilize, and use the best available expertise.
Although a large number of UN agencies, programs, and treaties rely on scientific and technological expertise for their work, they are not designed to receive systematic science advice as a key component of effective performance. In most cases, science is used in the UN to support special interests and political agendas that do not necessarily advance the goals of the organization. But this should not come as a surprise. The UN was founded and grew to prominence in the era of the Cold War, when much of diplomacy was devoted to dealing with threats arising from external aggression. Today, attention is turning to issues such as infectious diseases, environmental degradation, electronic crimes, weapons of mass destruction, and the impacts of new technologies, which in the past would have been the concern of individual nations but have now grown to international stature. The UN's capacity to deal with these questions must also grow.
What is notable about the UN is that it includes organizations that cater to a wide range of jurisdictions but not to the growing community of science advisors. Even agencies such as the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) have done little to provide a platform for the world's science advisors. Specialized agencies such as UNESCO, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, and the UN Industrial Development Organization relate to the UN secretary general's office through a bureaucratic hierarchy that is not responsive to timeliness. They are generally accountable to their governing bodies and are heavily influenced by the interests of activist states.
Even UN programs that deal with science-based issues such as the environment have yet to place knowledge at the core of their operations. They have failed to take into account the long-term implications of scientific advancement for their operations. Much of the attention in these programs is devoted to territorial aggrandizement and not to the role of knowledge in global governance. They are vestiges of Cold War institutional structures.
In effect, national bodies that provide scientific advice do not have a clear focal point in the UN system. But as scientific and technological issues start to dominate global affairs, ways will need to be found to provide a forum for global consensus building on scientific issues, and the UN's ability to convene states and other actors makes it a good candidate for the task. Such a forum will not be a substitute for the activities carried out under the various specialized agencies of the UN, but it will support the work of national academies as well as other science advisory bodies.
Making room for science
Innovations in global governance are likely to occur on the margins of the UN system, especially in forums that allow for creative participation of the scientific community and civil society. Forums that assume that states are the only actors will hold onto their traditional roles but will contribute less to the emerging diplomatic scene. Treaties that provide space for the participation of nonstate knowledge-based actors have been able to rally the input of the scientific and technological community to the benefit of their goals. …