Science Diplomacy: Science for Diplomacy, Diplomacy for Science
Almanac: Globalistics and Globalization StudiesCurrent and Future Trends in the Big History Perspective
Science and diplomacy have been interacting for decades and, perhaps, even centuries. These two realms of human activity may seem alien and their reciprocal relationship seems vague. But, if we consider the history of the last century, it becomes clear how science has been guided by politics. And if we consider the previous century, the role of religious policies in determining the history and evolution of sciences is undeniable. So we can affirm that these two realms are interconnected and may promote (or delay) multilateral responses to global challenges. If considered as a unique discipline, science diplomacy may promote both national and global interests, tackling several issues and challenges. This paper is aimed at exposing the cumulative point of view of a scientist and a diplomat on the subject.
Keywords: science, diplomacy, Covid-19, key, global.
Zoran Vitorovic, VSTIM Collegue Bosnia and Herzegowina more
Luigi Santacroce, Aldo Moro University, Bari, Italy more
Marijana Secibovic, VSTIM Collegue, Bosnia and Hercegovina more
Andrei Gorokhov, Lomonosov Moscow State University more
1. Introduction
After the end of the Second World War, the World was confronted with a new accelerated dynamics of development with the Cold War and additional division into two main blocks. That situation would require the development of a whole set of new approaches to resolve numerous political, social, military and scientific matters. But all epochs in human history would generally require some new approaches to solve the accumulated antagonisms or asymmetric relations.
This was the case after the end of Second World War, then after 1989 and the fall of Berlin wall and Iron Curtain, and especially today – when we all live in times of post-Covid-19 crisis, which has changed all basic segments of our life. As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic crisis there arises a question whether we should completely re-start daily life on the planet Earth from zero points of modern human philosophy of life, or just re-construct the current model?
This Covid-19 pandemic has posed the most important question of human existence: ‘Will this pandemic be “the final nail stick” in ark of egoism, greed, and autism of elites (ruled by Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse) that will take us all directly to the abyss of total destruction on the Earth’, or ‘Will this pandemic be the last “wake-up call” for all of us, to change as humans for the real positive benefit of Human Society’?
The dynamics, complexity and interdependence of numerous processes have simply forced human society to try to sublimate different fields of human activity to outline the most adequate answers to the current dilemmas and problems.
Today more than ever in human history, all areas of human labour are in the process of rapid and dynamic transformation. These rapidly unfolding transformations do not always follow the actual development of human consciousness.
2. Transformations in Diplomatic Theory and Practice with Parallel Changes in the Development of Science
2.1. Transformations in Diplomacy
Since the end of the Second World War, along with the development of classical diplomacy, the development of the idea of the ‘preventive diplomacy’ has begun, as informal or diplomatique of the ‘second path’ (compared to the classic one).
The basic concept of preventive diplomacy was promoted by the third UN General Secretary U Thant and elaborated in detail by the UN General Secretary Boutros Boutros-Ghali in his UN Report ‘Agenda for Peace.’ The general idea was to use informal relations between different individuals and groups of people (within one society and between different nations) that should work for two main purposes: conflict prevention and the development of new visions, ideas, and concepts for building bridges between ‘us’ and ‘others’ – where the others are intended here in the sense of national, religious, ethnic, or political affiliation. And the current situation is ideal for preventive diplomacy to go on and to connect simple and ordinary people throughout the world.
Today all these activities, well known as ‘informal forms of diplomacy’ should at least recognize and pay attention to the emergence of ‘smoke’ in order to be able to prevent the outbreak of the ‘fire’ of conflict. This is especially urgent in the light of accelerating challenges which the human society faces on the globe.
In a book titled ‘Preventive Diplomacy’ Vitorovic (2003) pointed out that the mechanism of functioning of the PD is simple: at its core are vertical and horizontal connections between people who share the same ideas and values inside of any given society. A central motive for participants of these informal groups is to spread the idea of communion, unity in diversity and, ultimately, the prevention of conflicts.
From the basic ideas of preventive diplomacy there have emerged, over time, the ideas and concepts of cultural diplomacy, public diplomacy, soft diplomacy, sports diplomacy, and more. Basically, today we are talking about a complex evolution of classical diplomacy.
2.2. Transformation in Science
According to David Held et al., ‘Higher education systems, policies and institutions are being transformed by Globalisation, which is “the widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness”’ (Held et al. 1999: 2; also cited by Simon Marginson and Marijk vand der Wende, in their introduction of a draft document prepared for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ‘Globalization and higher education’ [Marginson and van der Wende 2007]).
It is obvious that the processes of transformation of science and diplomacy have occurred in parallel, and at some point they have ‘crossed’ and reciprocally merged. In fact, classical diplomacy and all derivatives of preventive diplomacy (Soft Diplomacy, Sports Diplomacy, Children Diplomacy, Cultural Diplomacy, etc.) are defined as the field of work with the ultimate goals of peace, cooperation and achievement of the win-win situation, while the goals of science are knowledge, methods and thinking.
Today, in the post-Covid-19 era, we have all these challenges in much larger and faster exposition which requires more input from the side of science and experts, because a political leader needs to know how to handle the current situation which is full of fear and insecurity. This present situation is sometimes called New Normality. In such New Normality one part of population keeps on asking: Do we need to restart the whole global economic and political system or just delete it all and completely re-invent it?
3. Science Diplomacy – What is It?
Science diplomacy is globally becoming a crucial issue at the times of major crises such as COVID-19 Pandemic.
3.1. Science Diplomacy in Europe, USA, New Zealand and Australia
Prof. Luk Van Langenhove in his study ‘Tools for an EU Science Diplomacy’ writes that ‘Science Diplomacy’, contrary to ‘Cultural Diplomacy’ for instance, is a relatively new concept and thus not yet widespread in national policy-making circles (Van Langenhove 2017: 13).
Science diplomacy globally becomes a crucial issue in the times of major crises, but it is still slightly known and, perhaps, not optimally used. Europe, in particular the EU, has a high level of scientific excellence and should therefore be able to mobilize its scientific potential as a main means of action within its external policies.
But if we accept the old Russian thesis that ‘History is not a history of personalities, but a history of ideas’ (Popov 2004) then we would understand that the ‘Science diplomacy’ is an entirely new field of knowledge, which has recently become the subject of university programs, articles and conferences. This is an important diplomatic tool taking into account the role that science can play in the development of multilateral and bilateral relations between countries (Ibraghimova 2017).
The Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Prof Sir Peter David Gluckman said, ‘In a formal sense Science Diplomacy is young (From a Western theoretical perspective! – The authors' note). It is becoming increasingly obvious that science can be and must be an inherent part of our international strategic thinking’ (Gluckman 2015).
Richard P. Suttmeier, from University of Oregon, also noted that
Cold War concerns no longer drive the relationship, the distribution of scientific and technological capabilities around the world has changed, and science-based technologies affecting competitiveness and national security are never far from political agendas in ways that were not true thirty years ago. Science diplomacy still involves negotiation and mutual adjustment among nation states (...) But, it also involves the development of strategies for managing multiple interactions in a world of internationalized research and innovation networks (Suttmeier 2009: 31; emphasis added).
3.2. Science diplomacy in Russia: main subjects, studies and practice
The authors of the book ‘Science Diplomacy’ (Gorkhov and Vitorovic 2020) discuss science diplomacy in Russia primarily from two points of view: on the one hand, as a theory (diplomacy as a science), and on the other hand, as a practice of the Russian researches to establish and develop international relations (science for diplomacy).
As for the theoretical part, in a number of publications in Russia in recent years they try to conceive science diplomacy. Let us single out a few articles and studies that are worth attention. First, the article ‘Scientist as a Diplomat: Science Influences the Solution to International Conflicts and Problems’ (Panchenko and Torkunov 2017). There is also an interview with Anatoly Torkunov and Vladislav Panchenko during the Global Research Council (GRC). [1] Science expertise and science diplomacy were chosen for the GRC summit held in Moscow in 2018 as two main themes. The second theme was proposed by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research.
Secondly, in 2018, the RFBR Bulletin published a special issue including eleven articles devoted to science diplomacy.[2]
Thirdly, in addition to articles, one can refer to special studies analyzing the cooperation between the scientists from the USSR and Russia and the scientists from other countries. For example, in the book Spain and Russia: Diplomacy and Dialogue of Cultures. Three Centuries of Relationships (España y Rusia: diplomacia y diálogo de culturas. Tres siglos de relaciones) (Volosyuk 2018) there is a chapter entitled ‘Science diplomacy in the Soviet-Spanish dialogue’, which examines the scientific and educational communication between the USSR and Spain in the 1970s and 1980s.
Fourthly, one should pay attention to the fact that the concept of science diplomacy appears not only in scientific publications, but also is already determined in official documents of the Russian state bodies. Thus, in the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation on 01.12.2016 № 642 ‘On the Strategy for Scientific and Technological Development of the Russian Federation’, science diplomacy is noted as a type of public diplomacy in the list of mechanisms of international scientific and technical cooperation.
The analysis of the above sources brings us to the assumption that at present there is conducted a search and comprehension of the concept of science diplomacy as well as revision of the experience of international relations of scholars in the historical past and in modern Russia.
It is important to mention a few ideas that Russian researchers express today when analyzing the features of science diplomacy both in Russia and abroad. Therefore, science diplomacy dates back to 1899, when the International Union of Academies was established, whose successor now is the International Science Council (Kissilyov and Nechaeva 2018: 18).
The following international scientific forums, organizations and initiatives have made a huge contribution to the development of science diplomacy (see Science Diplomacy… 2018: 40).
• Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. The Pugwash Conferences started from the Russell-Einstein Manifesto announced in London in 1955. The authors of the Manifesto proposed to hold a meeting of scientists to consider the threats posed to the world by nuclear weapons. The first Pugwash Conference with scientists from ten countries was held on July 7–10, 1957 in Pugwash (Cumberland County, Nova Scotia, Canada). The success of the first conference in Pugwash was largely due to the participation of leading Soviet scientist-physicist Dmitri V. Skobeltsyn (1892–1990), chemist academician Alexander V. Topchiev (1907–1962) and biophysicist and radiobiologist, future Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences Alexander M. Kuzin (1906–1999).
The academician of the RAS and one of the active participants of the Pugwash movement Yevgeny M. Primakov (1929–2015) wrote in his memoirs, ‘The Pugwash movement has become <...> the most important communication channel for influential representatives of the USSR, the United States, and Western Europe. When there were almost no contacts at the state and government levels, this “vacuum” was filled by the Pugwash and some other channels establishing contacts between two “camps” that were aligning nuclear-armed missiles against each other’ (cited in Lebedev 2017). Such conferences are an example of high-level science diplomacy.
The participants of the Pugwash Conferences made calculations and proved that in the case of a nuclear war on earth, a ‘nuclear winter’ will come, which will destroy all life on the planet and no one will be able to survive. In 2020, these scientists' calculations became particularly relevant and they should be repeated to those who initiate and conduct military exercises that work out scenarios of a nuclear war.16 A possible response to such exercises is a consolidated response from scientists that there are no winners in a nuclear war as all forms of life will die.
• Dartmouth Conferences (or Dartmouth dialogue). The first Dartmouth Conference took place in October 1960 at Dartmouth College in the United States. Norman Cousins (1915–1990), the editor of the Saturday Review, is considered one of the founders of the Conference. Among the participants from the USSR there were such scientists as Viktor M. Chkhikvadze (1912–2006), Director of the Institute of State and Law of the USSR Academy of Sciences; Modest I. Rubinstein (1894–1969), one of the leading Soviet economists, a member of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences (IMEMO of the USSR Academy of Sciences). Yevgeny M. Primakov also took part in Conferences and described them in his memoirs.
As for the Dartmouth meetings, they were regularly held to discuss and unite the approaches of the two superpowers on the issues of arms reduction, finding a way out of various international conflicts, and creating conditions for economic cooperation. Two institutions played a special role in organizing such meetings: IMEMO and ISKRAN from Russian side, and from the Americans: a group of political scientists, former leaders of the US State Department, the Pentagon, the administration, the CIA, current bankers, and businessmen. For a long time, the American group was led by David Rockefeller, with whom I had a very warm relationship. Our team was joined first by Nikolay N. Inozemtsev, and then Georgy A. Arbatov, Vitaly V. Zhurkin, Mikhail A. Milstein, and Grigory I. Morozov[3] who actively participated in the Dartmouth meetings. Me and my partner, Mr. Saunders, a former US Deputy Secretary of State, were co-chairs of the working group on conflict situations. I must say that we have made significant progress in developing measures to normalize the situation in the Middle East. Naturally, all the projects were reported by both sides to the very ‘top’ (Primakov 2015).
Today, when relations between Russia and the United States are at a very low and dangerous level, the Dartmouth Conferences are more relevant than ever. We can appreciate the fact that the conference resumed its work in 2014 after a 24-year break. The 18th Dartmouth Сonference took place in Dayton, USA, on November 4–5, 2014. The conference was co-chaired by Yevgeny Primakov from Russia and Henry Kissinger from the United States.
The participants did not make public statements in their entire history, but in 2019, such a statement was finally pronounced. The participants of the Dartmouth dialogue made a public appeal to the governments of Russia and the United States, stating the need to extend the Treaty on Measures for Further Reduction and Limitation Strategic Offensive Arms. The Treaty is valid until 2021, and if not extended, there will be no official international legal restrictions on the restraint of the arms race in the world. The officials in Russia have already mentioned that they are ready to extend this agreement.
As for practical activities, in addition to the above-mentioned conferences and organizations, Russian scientists carry out extensive work in the field of international communication on a regular basis, thereby helping diplomats to develop cooperation with various countries, both in the field of science and education, as well as in economic and political issues.
4. Challenges of the Covid-19 Pandemic – a Good Example of Effective Science Diplomacy at Work
The Covid-19 pandemic completely paralyzed business, political and everyday life on Planet Earth in just a few days. Covid-19 is like X-rays that at high speed scans the entire Global Village and shows all its weaknesses. And the most important issue which Covid-19 Pandemic opened up is the relationship and the implementation of science in practice. How often do state and businesses leaders really listen to advices and warnings of science in their daily operational decisions?
In the discourse of all analyzes it is stated that one of the long-term effects of the Covid-19 crisis will be the global economic depression, high unemployment level and increasing tensions within and between countries. In this context, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mr Andrew Bailey told that ‘We have not faced such a catastrophic economic and financial situation since 1706’.[4] Henry Kissinger in his interview in the Wall Street journal says that ‘The current economic crisis is more complex in its speed and global scale, unlike anything ever known in history’.[5] The President of European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde says that ‘We will do everything necessary within our mandate to support the recovery and we remain undeterred in delivering on our price stability objective’ (Lagarde 2020).
In such new circumstances or New Normality, it is time for maximum engagement of science diplomacy which is likely to become a perfect tool for building bridges and new visions of tomorrow's World.
4.1. Post-Covid-19 Crisis – new normality?
The current crisis has revealed all the shortcomings in the organization of medical care and the education system in almost every country of the world. But this crisis caused by the pandemic is also a chance for us as humans to organize many things in our Societies better, in a different and more efficient way.
If we proceed from the assumption that the most important factor in preserving people's health is the state as a functional system, then the basic elements for the functioning of the State are:
1. Strong and flexible educational system;
2. Strong health system;
3. Independent judiciary;
4. Security systems.
4.2. A strong and flexible education system enables long-term stable and sustainable development of individual society and economy
The first indicators that the Covid-19 pandemic “X rays on educational systems” have shown that in Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America suffer a huge lack of doctors, medical experts, and specialists who can help in the further application of the fourth Industrial Revolution in business, community and health care systems, etc. Basically, most of countries of the Global Village have failed in the development of qualitative educational systems.
Formally, education systems do exist but they essentially fail to ‘qualitatively’ monitor the overall social and technological development. Thus, during the Covid-19 pandemic crisis in many countries, such as Northern Macedonia or African and Latin American countries, students did not have laptops or PC computers or appropriate smartphones, and were unable to follow the online classes from their homes.
On the other hand, a number of European countries faced a problem: for example, IT systems appeared unsuitable for more functional business development, especially in the ‘home-office format.’
All these indicators confirm the words of the founder of the World Economic Forum, Prof. Klaus Schwab (repeated at several Davos Forums in recent years) that the leaders of states and corporations nominally always agree at World Economic Forum meetings about implementation of something, like new technologies, but after WEF they just forget what they promise.
Due to such a formalistic approach, the real implementations of all achievements of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, robotics and artificial intelligence, are reduced to the pure formality. But, New Normality of the post-Covid-19 period, forced all the factors of social development to start an urgent implementation of all achievements of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: from ‘home offices’ to the use of robots in hospitals.
4.3. A strong health care system is the second pillar of a strong state
If we have a strong health care system, we have healthy population that earns more, and thus enable a long-term stable and sustainable development of society and state.
The Covid-19 pandemic showed, among other things, that the world political leaders have weakened the medical health care systems of domicile states by erroneous strategic development policies that allowed doctors and medical stuff in pre-Covid 19 times to migrate to other states. This made the local and national struggle against the pandemic even more difficult.
As a result, medicine as a science is still treated ‘as a fire extinguisher’. Only when something happens, like the Covid-19 pandemic, the public and political leaders and the business community turn to medicine from which quick and effective solutions are expected.
When ‘quick solutions’ do not come from a medical experts and other scientist, the public space then becomes open for conspiracy theories to flourish: from ‘the virus does not exist’ to ‘it is all global profit manipulation’, etc. When there is no public presence of knowledge, charlatanry rules.
One of the phenomena that the Covid-19 pandemic has revealed is the total egoism of the world's leading countries (except for the Russian Federation and China) reflected in the segment of medical protection of own population. At the borders of many countries cases of physical abduction of medical masks and respirators sent to Italy or Spain were been reported.
This was brutal evidence that all narratives ‘about cooperation, empathy and help’ have fallen down and have revealed the true nature of many modern societies and elites – classical tribalism and extreme national egocentrism, which is ready to go to the extreme limits of cruelty for the purpose of its own, national, survival.
Another form of egoism is the absence of global empathy, especially towards the weakest countries in Africa and Asia. And there arises a question on which there is not yet global agreement: will the future vaccine against Covid-19 virus be available to everyone or will it be a part of ‘business as a usual’ model?
The experts from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) warn that these overall present weaknesses of the entire global medical system are ideal targets for future, primarily biological, attacks by Islamic and all other terrorists. Together with social and economic problems, this could produce a huge right wing and pro-fascist new political movement, which all together (with all forms of terrorism) could bring us very close to abyss.
4.4. The third pillar of a strong state is an independent judiciary
In cases of a pandemic like Covid-19, the judiciary should ensure rigorous punishment of all those who endanger public health if they do not follow the prevention measures prescribed by a Government.
An independent judiciary should become as effective as possible for the state system to function successfully, especially in times of natural disasters or viral pandemics. Unfortunately, this is not the case in a large number of countries.
4.5. Security: the security services are there to protect citizens
Security services and agencies are the ‘last line in protection’ of citizens. A prerequisite for agencies to do their job successfully is that the previous three pillars of the state administration system work as flexibly and efficiently as possible.
In order to have a ‘healthy’ state, we must have a strong education and health care system as well as strong independent judiciary. As one of the direct consequences of ‘stopping the daily life of the Earth’, the Covid-19 pandemic causes huge economic and social problems all over the world.
5. Conclusions
Science diplomacy is a new field of international cooperation. However, it represents a world ‘hotspot’ but there are still no clearly stated doctrines, concepts and common frameworks as well as definitions, thus, one cannot state what exactly Science Diplomacy is (or should be).
The pioneers in developing such a concept, as SD were the Swiss who started to develop scientific and technological cooperation worldwide from 1958. Switzerland is well known for being the first to develop the so-called ‘dual education system’, which is designed to help economy and business with a quality and target-oriented education.
At the same time Switzerland is one of the few countries in the world that has focused itself on the development of investment in research, innovation and environmental protection. Nowadays it is clear that this Swiss orientation, which began many years ago, has appeared very wise and effective for development of their economy and society as it is one of the most developed countries in the World. Nowadays many countries take the ‘Swiss model’ to find solutions for domestic problems.
As Prof. Klaus Schwab said many times, ‘The Fourth Industrial revolution is a great opportunity to find a solution for many global challenges in the world which is interconnected and in a state of a permanent transformation’. He also said that political and society leaders must start to adopt long term strategies for well-being of all, because modern world is deeply interconnected.
Prof. Schwab warned more than dozen times, that it is necessary to face the reality as soon as possible so that in a few years we would not have insurmountable clashes of generations (generations X, Millennials and generation Z) and that in the end, due to unresolved problems, we would not leave space in social decision-making to populist and right-wing movements. Unfortunately, most representatives of the elites did not want to hear all these warnings. One of those warnings was a warning of the possible emergence of new epidemics, new diseases, etc.
On the other hand, one of the leading experts in strategy in Eastern Europe, Prof. Hatidze Berisa reiterated that the two key elements of society's security are strong education system and a strong health care system. So if we do not have a healthy nation, a healthy society, there is no basis for the development of a healthy economy or prosperity of society in general.
It is interesting that one of the leading thinkers of neoliberalism, Michel Foucault, came to similar conclusions: in his book The Birth of the Clinic (Foucault 1963), analyzing the great epidemics that struck the world between the sixteenth and twentieth centuries, he concluded that government authorities almost always behave in a similar manner. First, they think how to keep themselves in power, and then about other matters. Foucault also emphasizes the importance of a healthy society and a strong health care system for a strong State and society.
The question still remains open: Why did almost none of the ruling elites want to hear Klaus Schwab, Michel Foucault and Hatidze Berisa who warned the local, regional and global community about everything that may happen to us? And with the elite's autism we have come to all problems which we face today!
Instead of looking realistically at all possible threats to society, the most of the representatives of the elite behave politically hypocritically while business circles behave greedily and egoistically. In the first, second and third phase of Covid-19 crisis nearly 75 per cent of all decisions were made in a hasty, clumsy, incomprehensible and chaotic manner.
But, obviously nobody has really heard what Foucault, Schwab and Berisa said.
Thus, today we have the situation as it is: on the one hand, Covid-19 (which will probably be with us the next few years), and on the other hand, the beginning of global economic recession, which can easily develop into a huge global economic catastrophe.
In these circumstances, the only way out of global, regional, local, religious and all other forms of confrontation is to build bridges and new visions between all of us.
Today's world is deeply interconnected and what happens in one place has immediate repercussions in another part of the globe. In this sense, an ‘honest and open’ implementation of science diplomacy could be a possible key to finding solutions to most of present global problems. As many intellectuals from Africa, Asia and Latin America say ‘the language of science is one and the same, scientists are the best ambassadors of goodwill for the societies they come from.’
At the beginning of April of 2020, Henry Kissinger worn all of us with the words: ‘We live an epochal period. The historic challenge for leaders is to manage the crisis while building the future’ (Kissinger 2020).
In future Science Diplomacy should play a dominant role! Let us give a chance to Science Diplomacy!
References
Foucault, M. 1963. Naissance de la Clinique: une archéologie du regard médicale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Gluckman, P. D. 2015. Sir Peter David Gluckman's address for the Paolo Budinich Lecture. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the World Academy of Sciences (TWAS). Summer Course on Science and Diplomacy, Trieste, Italy, June 11, 2015.
Gorokhov, A., Vitorovic, Z. 2020. Science Diplomacy. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. In Russian (Горохов, А., Виторович З. Научная дипломатия (Russian Edition) LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing).
Ibraghimova, K. A. 2017. Science Diplomacy and the EU Framework Programmes as Tools of Interaction in the Field of Scientific and Technological Progress and Innovations. Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta 5 (56): 151–168. DOI 10.24833/2071-8160-2017-5-56-151-168. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/nauchnaya-diplomatiya-i-ramochnye-programmy-es-kak-instrumenty-vza.... In Russian (Ибрагимова, К. А. Научная дипломатия и рамочные программы ЕС как инструменты взаимодействия в области НТП и инноваций. Вестник МГИМО Университета 5 (56): 151–168).
Kissinger, H. A. 2020. The Coronavirus Pandemic Will Forever Alter the World Order. Wall Street Journal, April 3. URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-coronavirus-pandemic-will-forever-alter-the-world-order-11585953005.
Kissilyov, V. N., and Nechaeva, E. K. 2018. The New Dimension of Science Diplomacy. Herald of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, 1 (97): 18–25. URL: https:// www.rfbr.ru/rffi/pdf_read/?objectId=2059986#page=18. In Russian (Киселев, В. Н., Нечаева, Е. К. Новое измерение научной дипломатии. Вестник Российского фонда фундаментальных исследований. 2018. № 1 (97). С. 18–25).
Lagarde, Ch. 2020. Opening remarks by Christine Lagarde, President of the ECB, at the Online Edition of The State of the Union conference organised by the European University Institute. European Central Bank, June 8. URL: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2020/html/ecb.sp200508~81cd924af6.en.html.
Langenhove, L. Van. 2017. Tools for an EU Science Diplomacy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. URL: https://www.ies.be/files/Tools%20for%20an%20EU% 20Science%20Diplomacy_by%20LukVanLangenhove.pdf.
Lebedev M. 2017. The Scientific Approach to the Solution of the Humankind's Global Problems. To the 60th Anniversary of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. Russian Council of International Affairs blog. URL: https://russiancouncil.ru/blogs/Pugwash/uchyenyy-sekretar-rossiyskogo-paguoshskogo-komiteta-pri-prezidiume-ran/. In Russian (Ле-бедев, М. Научный подход к решению глобальных проблем человечества: Пагу-ошскому движению учёных – 60 лет // Блог Российского Пагуошского комитета на сайте РСМД).
Marginson, S., and van der Wende, M. 2007. Globalisation and Higher Education. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 8, OECD Publishing. URL: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503826.pdf.
Panchenko, V., and Torkunov, A. 2017. Scientist as a Diplomat: Science Influences the Solution
to International Conflicts and Problems. Rossiyskaya
Gazeta, 138 (7304) (June
260. URL: https://rg.ru/2017/06/26/kak-nauchnoe-sotrudnichestvo-pomogaet-resheniiu-mezhdunarodnyh-
problem.html. In Russian (Панченко, В., Торкунов, А. Ученый как дипломат. Наука влияет на решение международных конфликтов и проблем. Российская газета, 138 (7304). 26 июня).
Popov, V. I. 2004. Contemporary Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. In Russian (Попов, В. И. Современная дипломатия: теория и практика. Дипломатическая академия МИД России. М.: «Международные отношения).
Primakov, Ye. M. 2015. Meetings at the Thresholds. Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf. In Russian (Примаков Е.М. Встречи на перекрестках. М.: Центрполиграф).
Science Diplomacy. 2018. Scientific Diplomacy in the UK, Russia and beyond. Report on the Round Table held by RFBR – British Royal Society ‘Modern scientific diplomacy: the experience of Russia and Great Britain.’ Herald of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, 1 (97): 38–43. In Russian (Научная дипломатия в Великобритании, России и за их пределами. Отчет о проведении круглого стола РФФИ – Британское Королевское общество «Современная научная дипломатия: опыт России и Великобритании», 18–19.05.2017, Москва. // Вестник Российского фонда фундаментальных исследований. № 1 (97). С. 38–43. URL: https://www.rfbr.ru/rffi/pdf_read/?objectId=2059986#page=38).
Suttmeier, R. P. 2009. From Cold War Science Diplomacy to Partnering in a Networked World: 30 Years of Sino-US Relations in Science and Technology. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2009 Hixon Forum on ‘Science and Technology in the Making of Modren China,’ Harvey Mudd College February 27–28, 2009. URL: https://china-us.uoregon.edu/pdf/030409.pdf.
Vitorovic, Z. 2003. Preventivna diplomatija, kako spreciti sukobe i ratove. Belgrade, Serbia: Ars Libry.
Volosyuk, O. V. (ed.) 2018. Spain and Russia: Diplomacy and Dialogue of Cultures. Three Centuries of Relationships. Moscow: Indrik. In Russian (Испания и Россия: дипломатия и диалог культур. Три столетия отношений. España y Rusia: diplomacia y diálogo de culturas. Tres siglos de relaciones / отв. ред. О. В. Волосюк. М.: Индрик).
[1] Science diplomacy is the main theme of the Global Research Council (GRC) in Moscow. URL: http://rareearth.ru/ru/news/20180516/03919.html.
[2] Herald of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Вестник Российского фонда фундаментальных исследований. 2018. № 1(97). URL: https://www.rfbr.ru/rffi/pdf_read/?objectId=2059986).
16 In February 2020, United States Secretary of Defense Mark Esper took part in secret US military exercises that worked out a scenario in which Russia and the United States exchanged nuclear strikes. URL: https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2020/02/esper-plays-nuclear-war-russia-nukes-europe-us-fires-bac....
[3] Nikolay Nikolayevich Inozemtsev (1921–1982) was academician of the USSR Academy of Science since 1968, Director of IMEMO of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1966–1982. Since 1979, he was Vice-President of the World Federation of Scientists. Georgy Arkadyevich Arbatov (1923–2010) was an academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences since 1974. In 1967–1995 he was the Director of the Institute of the USA and Canada of the USSR Academy of Sciences / RAS (ISKRAN). He was the founder of this scientific institution, which became the largest scientific center under his leadership. Vitaly Vladimirovich Zhurkin, Deputy Director of the Institute of USA and Canada, USSR Academy of Sciences (1968–1987), Director of the Institute of Europe, USSR/Russian Academy of Sciences (1987–1999), member of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1990), Honorary Director of the Institute of Europe (1999). Mikhail Abramovich Milstein (1910–1992) was Soviet military commander and American historian, Lieutenant General (1966). He worked as a chief researcher, head of the Department for Military-Political Research of the Institute of the United States and Canada of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the Russian Academy of Sciences. He was a member of the Soviet delegation of the Pugwash movement of scientists and the Dartmouth meetings of scientists of the USA and the USSR. He was one of the first to think about how to overcome the Cold War. Grigory Iosifovich Morozov (1921–2001) worked as a chief researcher at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences / RAS (IMEMO). He was one of those who stood at the origins of the Institute. On his initiative, the IMEMO created a sector, and then the Department of international organizations, which he headed. He initiated the creation of a sector at IMEMO, and subsequently the Department of international organizations, which he headed. Morozov and Arbatov were the founders of the United Nations Association of Russia. His election as Honorary President of the World Federation of United Nations Associations was an international recognition of his achievements.
[4] URL: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52566030.
[5] URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-coronavirus-pandemic-will-forever-alter-the-world-order-11585953005.