Although science diplomacy is not a new foreign and public policy tool, its popularity has increased in recent years due to a number of factors. One such factor is that numerous traditional and new challenges faced by the international community require decisions and responses based on scientific evidence. Simultaneously, in the case of Russia and the West, relations have seriously deteriorated in the past several years and the scientific community remains one of the few groups that is capable of bridging the gap. This community maintains connections, dialogue and personal contacts alive and is looking for solutions to common problems via track two diplomacy. Russia has vast experience in using science and technology achievements to improve its international image and interaction with other countries. Recently, Russia adopted a long-term strategy for the country’s science and technology development, which envisages using science diplomacy as one of its public diplomacy tools. Regardless of intention, does Russia possess the institutions, the human and financial resources and the skills to achieve tangible results in this direction? This chapter focuses on Russia’s current and future science diplomacy potential.
Science Diplomacy in Russia: Priorities, Resources and Constraints
It is almost impossible to discuss science diplomacy without referring to some episodes of Russian and Soviet history. Pierre-Bruno Ruffini, from Le Havre University, begins his book on science diplomacy by discussing the symbolic meaning of the scientific cooperation initiated by the leaders of the Soviet Union and the United States, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan, in 1985. (Ruffini, 2017, p. 1). The influential report ‘New Frontiers in science diplomacy’ by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, United States) and the Royal Society (United Kingdom) starts with a brief history of science diplomacy that highlights East-West negotiations on nuclear non-proliferation, arms control and other peace and security issues, where the influence of scientific communities was essential (Royal Society, 2010, p. V). Scientists have been playing a prominent role in Soviet and Russian foreign policy in formal and informal ways, be it by supporting government policy or by challenging it. Their impact ranges from the promotion of the advantages of socialism and to the negotiation of milestone treaties and of international peace initiatives. Scientific achievements such as space exploration, or discoveries of new elements in the periodic table, were an important part of Soviet identity both within the country and abroad.
Today, in the age of globalization, countries aspiring to benefit from the new world stratification and secure favorable strategic prospects must integrate themselves in the global economy and its infrastructure. When developing science and technology domestically, there is a need to build links with the international scientific community becomes a crucial foundation for this endeavor.
The assessment of Russian science diplomacy resources is a complex task. Russia is the last of the top ten countries in the world ranked by gross domestic spending on R&D, measured in purchasing power parities (PPPs). In 2016, Russia’s R&D spending reached US$39.9 billion. The number of researchers and professionals engaged in science in the country is high: it is ranked fourth in the world with almost 429,000 people employed in the sector. And the same time the country ranks only 34th by gross domestic spending on R&D measured as a percentage of GDP (1.1%) and by number of researchers (in full-time equivalent) per 10,000 employed in the economy. It is 47th in terms of spending per researcher, substantially behind the leading nations. The number of publications and citations of Russian scientists indexed in Web of Science and Scopus is steadily growing, as well as the number of patent filings from Russia. There is a substantial share of publications co-authored with researchers from other countries—in 2016 around 25% of all publications. The wages in science organizations have substantially increased recently, by more than 50% from 2017 to 2018. At the same time, the Russian share in global publications output is still relatively low. In 2016, the proportion of Russian articles in peer-reviewed publications indexed by Web of Science or Scopus was 2.56% of all publications indexed that year, by which Russia ranked 14th in the world (Gorodnikova, Gokhberg, & Ditkovskij, 2018, pp. 268–271, 285–288).
Today the term ‘science diplomacy’ is increasingly often used in Russia, especially among the academic community. In 2017, during the election campaign for the president of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), science diplomacy was mentioned in the manifesto of two out of five candidates.1 The same year a prominent think tank, ‘Russian International Affairs Council’, organized an expert discussion on science diplomacy and Russian-American cooperation in the Arctic.2 In addition, the country’s leading foreign affairs university, MGIMO, hosted a round table on science diplomacy organized by the Royal Society and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR).3 In September of the same year, Andrei Fursenko, aide to the president of Russia, gave an interview where he stated that the importance of science diplomacy in growing.4 In late 2017, the Russian Academy of Sciences held a special session on science diplomacy and international science cooperation5 and in January 2018 the newly elected president of the Academy presented a plan on the future of RAS to the president of Russia, highlighting the importance of science diplomacy.6 Further, science diplomacy was the major topic of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Global Research Council held in May 2018 in Moscow.7
But what exactly is science diplomacy and how can Russia benefit from using it in the twenty-first century? The widely accepted description put together by AAAS and the Royal Society encompasses three interrelated dimensions of science diplomacy: science in diplomacy (providing scientific, expert and analytical support to foreign policymakers), diplomacy for science (facilitating international scientific cooperation) and, finally, science for diplomacy (using scientific cooperation to improve relations between countries, including the so-called track 2 or track 1.5 diplomacy, in which think tanks play an important role) (Royal Society, 2010). Many activities can qualify as ‘science diplomacy’ under this broad definition. Ruffin from the WZB Berlin Social Science Centre argues that contexts in which the term ‘science diplomacy’ emerges are just as diverse as the actors:
Science diplomacy thus is first and foremost a new umbrella term to characterize the role of science and technology in numerous policy fields that have an international, boundary-spanning, component. […] The idea of science diplomacy, then, provides a new, more strategic and—more or less—coherent framework to integrate existing instruments in international S&T policymaking. (Ruffin, 2018)
By influencing the international agenda, participating in diplomatic missions and establishing new contact networks, scientists create a new environment for international relations, in which politicians and diplomats need to take into account the opinions and interests of national and international scientific communities.
Science diplomacy in major countries is to some extent bound to economic interests, while international interaction related to the humanities and social sciences seems to be put aside. In many cases, science diplomacy efforts are mainly focused on implementing national science, technology and innovation policies, on supporting national businesses and on engaging the scientific community in R&D. Further, there is often a focus on providing solutions to the most important global problems. At the same time science diplomacy can be regarded as a form public diplomacy or as an instrument for increasing a country’s soft power. It can also play a substantial role in global governance as a way to manage global risks and to look for solutions to problems affecting the majority of peoples and states. When experts become negotiators, and contribute to mending relations between countries, science diplomacy contributes to conflict resolution. These areas overlap: for instance, the country’s role in global governance and in solving global issues can positively affect its attractiveness abroad.
The recent increase of attention to science diplomacy in Russia can be explained through each of these lenses, but it seems that the soft power and conflict resolution considerations slightly prevail over the global governance theme and economic considerations. While some other countries highlight the role of science diplomacy in ‘bringing countries together to work on shared challenges, from responding to emergencies to implementing the sustainable development goals’,8 Russian policymakers and experts often focus on the communicative potential of science diplomacy, on its role in improving relations with other countries as well as on science as a way to position the country as one of the leading global powers.
The distinction between science diplomacy and international science cooperation is not always obvious. It is clear that science is international in its nature and researchers from different countries inevitably interact and influence each other. Yet not every international scientific contact contributes to science diplomacy. Western experts argue that science diplomacy is always connected with national interests:
Science diplomacy’s direct relationship with national interests and objectives distinguishes it from other forms of international scientific co-operation, which are sometimes commercially oriented and often occur without direct state participation. (Turekian et al., 2015, p. 5)
Science diplomacy can sometimes be a by-product of international science cooperation, when contacts between researchers aimed at solving scientific problems provide an opportunity to improve a country’s image, overcome stereotypes, come up with a constructive international agenda and pave a way for cooperation between states. At the same time, there is always a risk of politicizing science and turning it into a propaganda tool rather than a science diplomacy instrument. There is also the question of the independence, objectivity and impartiality of the scientific community as an actor in politics and international relations, as well as the issue of the relative autonomy of science institutions as non-state actors of world politics.
As for Russia, science diplomacy can be considered as one of the ways to mitigate the conflict between Russia and the West and overcome the lack of trust between them. There are allegations of misinformation, propaganda wars, undermined democratic processes and manipulation from both sides. Usually scientists are considered to be less easily manipulated and influenced by propaganda than others and at the same time are not as limited in their public activities and speeches as diplomats. Polls show that people in different countries trust scientists more than politicians, journalists and representatives of many other professional groups. In the United States people tend to trust scientists more than media or elected officials.9 A total of 79% of British people would generally trust scientists to tell the truth, while only 25% say the same about journalists and 22% about government ministers.10 Russia has one of the highest rates of trust in science (89%) and at the same time one of the lowest rates of awareness of new scientific and technological achievements (18%) (Gorodnikova et al., 2018, pp. 263–266). A higher level of trust in scientists provides a possibility to rebuild trust between nations and overcome some of the myths and misconceptions about ‘the other’. Can science diplomacy make a difference and change negative stereotypes about the country? Can scientists help policymakers reach a better understanding? And can scientists become better diplomats and ambassadors?
Science diplomacy in Russia can also be regarded in the context of Eurasian integration and processes in the post-Soviet space. In the Soviet period science and technology developed rapidly. After the collapse of the USSR, many of its industrial, technological and scientific networks suffered heavily, yet some continued to function. In Russia, scientific centers in Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Novosibirsk and other cities as well as in smaller scientific towns (naukograds) experienced major problems with financial, infrastructural and human resources. The links with scientific communities in former Soviet Republics weakened, as these countries developed their own trajectories. Increased attention to science and innovation in the 2010s in Russia and growing interest toward science diplomacy can also be discussed in relation to the post-Soviet space. Can links between scientists, the use of the Russian language for research and publications and the former experience of collaboration become a part of a broader agenda and improve relations between Russia and its neighbors in the long term?
Mechanisms and Instruments of Emerging Russian Science Diplomacy
Unlike, for example, in the United States, United Kingdom, Switzerland or France, in Russia, science diplomacy as a distinctive research field is still emerging. It is also not fully formed as a relatively independent foreign policy area. But the preconditions for science diplomacy are nevertheless present. In 2010, the president of Russia approved a policy document on the main directions of international cultural and humanitarian cooperation. The document envisages such cooperation both in bilateral and in multilateral formats, including in science and education. Contacts in these areas are becoming increasingly important in the context of the country’s modernization.11 The publication was an addendum to the Concept of Russian Foreign Policy. The new Foreign Policy Concept approved in 2016 also mentions science and research in different contexts. It speaks of the need to deliver unbiased information about the country to the international community and highlight Russian cultural and science achievements. The concept also entails responding to many global challenges, including economic development, global disparities, environmental issues and terrorism, using research-based approaches.12
In 2016, a presidential executive order introduced a new long-term Scientific and Technological Development Strategy of the Russian Federation. According to the document, science is an instrument required to respond to several ‘grand challenges’. These challenges create substantial risks for society, economy and governance but at the same time provide new opportunities and prospects for the country’s scientific and technological development.13 The publication of this strategy can be regarded as the result of the country’s political class becoming aware of a new international political reality. It can also be seen as a demonstration of Russia’s commitment to respond to the ongoing competition for global leadership. Approaches to training academic personnel are being revisited. Attitudes to science, its role in global affairs and its place in politics and diplomacy are changing.
The 2016 Strategy puts science and technology at the heart of responding to many global and national issues. The role of science is to forecast global changes, to consider new trends, expectations and needs of the Russian society, to detect new ‘grand challenges’ in good time and to provide an effective response. One of the priorities is to create a model for international scientific and technological development, as well as for international integration, that could allow mutually beneficial interaction while at the same time protect the identity of the Russian scientific sphere and Russia’s national interests. This is particularly relevant in the era of globalization and internationalization of science.
There are a number of publicly funded governmental and non-governmental organizations involved in Russian science diplomacy. The most prominent of them are the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo), the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) and the Analytical Centre for the Government of the Russian Federation. There are also prominent think tanks, first of all, Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) and MGIMO University, ranking 34 and 90 in the 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report, respectively.14 There is also the international Valdai Discussion Club established in 2004 and the Russian International Affairs Council created at the initiative of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and the Ministry of Education in 2010.
The Russian Academy of Sciences has traditionally played an important role in the country’s science policy and in international scientific cooperation. Established as the Russian Academy of Sciences and Arts by Peter the Great in 1724, its development relied greatly on the results of the Tsar’s innovations, including facilitated access to foreign specialists. Among the first honorary members of the Academy were the famous mathematician Leonhard Euler, the brothers Daniel and Nicolaus Bernoulli, the French writer and philosopher Voltaire, the Swedish biologist Carl Linnaeus, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and other great. The main reason for bringing foreign specialists into Russia was to develop Russian science to close the gap with Europe. However, a diplomatic dimension was always present.
After the Russian Revolution, the Academy transformed into the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and then in 1991 back to the Russian Academy of Sciences. The history of the Academy in the USSR includes outstanding achievements but also human tragedies. During the Cold War, science and technology was in the center of competition between the two superpowers. This made the Academy powerful but at the same time vulnerable. Science cooperation with Western countries was extremely limited.
Economic and political disarray of the 1990s left the Academy and its institutions in a dire state, the effect of which is still felt today. Although the end of Cold War opened many doors for scientific cooperation and science diplomacy, the poor state of the Academy and of the scientific field in general led to a major brain drain and a human resources crisis, as well as to the decay of infrastructure. Many promising scientists either left the country or changed their occupation. The former reputation of Soviet and Russian science was significantly undermined. In the early 2000s the economic situation improved, but nevertheless the financing of the RAS remained insufficient, and science diplomacy potential remained low.
The new push for reforms started in 2013 with a number of administrative measures, including the creation of the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations (FASOs), Russia. The Academy’s institutions were originally placed under its authority. The reform was widely criticized by the scientific community. Following negotiations, an agreement was reached on the principle of shared responsibility between the RAS and FASO. In 2018, FASO became a part of the newly established Ministry of Science and Higher Education that emerged after the Ministry of Education and Science split into two agencies. Today, the management problems still exist, and the Academy struggles to re-establish its status as the most respected and influential scientific institution in Russia.
According to the abovementioned Strategy for Scientific and Technological Development of Russia, the government’s road map prepared in 2017 envisions a special role for the Academy in creating a modern system of management in science, technology and innovation and securing a higher investment appeal for the R&D sphere.15 In July 2018, the president of Russia signed a legal act on amendments to the federal law on ‘Russian Academy of Sciences’,16 enhancing the authority of the Academy.
The Academy’s experience and its science diplomacy potential received legal foundation in terms of science in diplomacy and science for diplomacy. The Academy became responsible for providing expert support and advice to Russian authorities including foreign policy bodies. It also gained a formal role in forecasting the main trends of scientific, technological, social and economic development of the country, as well as in guiding and supervising the activities of scientific organizations and higher education institutions. The Academy’s power to implement international science and technology cooperation has increased.
The Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) is another major player in science diplomacy. It was established in 1992 as a federal organization controlled by the government. It runs competitions and provides grants for scientific research, including funding for projects and events involving foreign partners. The foundation has contacts with many of these.17 In the last ten years the funding of the foundation increased several-fold18 and its international reach continues to expand. The fund recently supported a 2016–2018 project entitled ‘Practices of science diplomacy: natural sciences in international social and political context’ led by MGIMO professor A.V. Shestopal. RFBR has taken part in and/or initiated many of the abovementioned public events and discussions on science diplomacy. The organization positions itself as one of the ‘flagship platforms’ for science diplomacy.19
The governmental and non-governmental organizations responsible for improving Russia’s image abroad, facilitating public diplomacy and overseeing international development, are also involved in science diplomacy. Rossotrudnichestvo was established in 2008 and replaced former agencies responsible for promoting Russian culture abroad. It works under the authority of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is represented in around 80 countries through ‘Russian centers for science and culture’. However, science is not central to the activities of Rossotrudnichestvo. The organization’s latest annual report for 2017 lists many cultural and educational activities and programs promoting Russian and just a few science-related projects: ‘days of Russian science’ in three of its offices; a ‘Russian scientific humanitarian expedition’ in Tajikistan, the Kyrgyz Republic and Vietnam; and an International Humanitarian Science Forum in the United Kingdom.20 The organization plans to increase the effectiveness of its science-related activities.21
The Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund was established in 2010 by a decree of the president of Russia. Science diplomacy as a form of public diplomacy is a major part of its activities. It funds projects and organizes events involving foreign policy experts and researchers from different countries. It also facilitates discussions on foreign policy issues. The organization’s priority areas for the 2019 funding cycle include international cooperation to tackle new challenges and threats, such as the development of the Arctic, security issues in the Middle East and many others.22
Major scientific events also contribute to Russian science diplomacy. The Primakov Readings, organized by IMEMO, RAS and dedicated to the memory of the academic and statesman Evgeny Primakov, have become a prime example of such events. The Primakov Readings are an international forum where leading experts from Russian and foreign research centers and think tanks meet to discuss the most pressing issues in global economy, politics and international security. The forum was supported by the president of Russia and was ranked seventh among the best analytical conferences in the world in the Pennsylvania University 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report.23
These forums, along with the country’s universities and institutions, contribute to the development of scientific, educational, cultural, economic and other connections with governmental and non-governmental bodies in foreign countries. The Russian Academy of Sciences and its institutes conduct fundamental and applied research in collaboration with partners from other countries. They represent Russia in international science and technology projects and programs. Further, they organize and conduct joint scientific events with foreign partners and participate in international scientific organizations. The Russian Academy of Sciences and its institutes also represent Russian scientists in international scientific unions and their international bodies. They conclude agreements on scientific cooperation with science academies and science organizations from abroad, participate in information exchanges in science and distribute information about mutual scientific activities. They also organize scientific exchanges for professional development and research and international academic mobility programs.
Conclusion
The concept of science diplomacy in Russia is becoming more popular and the number of organizations and agencies involved in different activities that contribute to science diplomacy has grown in the last ten years. At the same time, a national approach to science diplomacy is yet to be agreed upon. Unlike some other countries, Russia does not have an official position of a scientific advisor to the foreign ministry. There is also no national strategy on science diplomacy, and existing infrastructure abroad is not used to its full capacity. Coordination between organizations and agencies participating in science diplomacy activities is a complex task, and there is some competition for state funding.
At the same time, the state of national science remains the major concern in terms of Russian science diplomacy. Current ambitious reforms, the increase in funding for research and development and the adoption of the Scientific and Technological Development Strategy are intended to radically improve the national scientific management system, update scientific infrastructure, raise the prestige of science and attract the best specialists from Russia and other countries. However, is not easy to overcome the legacy of the crisis years, and it is unclear whether the human and financial resources allocated will be sufficient or whether they can be used effectively.
This creates uncertainty in terms of Russia’s science diplomacy potential. In many cases Russian science diplomacy agencies rely on scientific achievements dating back to the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union to promote Russia abroad. The breakthrough in space exploration in the 1960s gets a lot of well-deserved attention and is a theme of various exhibitions and events abroad. The UN proclaimed 2019 as the International Year of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements24—a tribute to another outstanding achievement of a Russian scientist, Dmitry Mendeleev—which provides numerous opportunities for Russian science diplomacy activities. The prestigious forums initiated in the Cold War era such as the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs continue to influence international relations and work as science diplomacy platforms for Russia and other countries. But the contemporary face of Russia’s science should also be represented in order to improve perceptions of the country abroad.
Thus, the success of the modernization drive and the ability of Russian science and technology to respond to modern challenges and to be competitive in the era of globalization will be vital for the success of the country on the international arena. Science diplomacy, whether it is regarded as a part of a country’s public diplomacy and soft power strategy, as an instrument to manage conflicts and to reach mutual understanding or as a way to participate in global governance, fully relies on the progress of Russia’s national science, technology and innovation strategy.