Impact turns + answers – bfhmrs russia War Good
Download 0.83 Mb.
|
Harbor Teacher Prep-subingsubing-Ho-Neg-Lamdl T1-Round3, Impact Turns Aff Neg - Michigan7 2019 BFHMRS
- Navigate this page:
- International institutions
Long-term relationshipsPing Su 7-9-2018 – Professor of IR at Tongji University. ["Science Diplomacy and Trust Building: ‘Science China’ in the Arctic", Accessible Online at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.12576] @ AG Long‐term interactions among scientists The level of individual researchers is important for trust building. ‘Human interactions are central to scientific collaboration relationships at all stages: negotiation, establishment, conduct of research, and publication and dissemination’ (Stzein, 2016). Equipped with high professional standing and prestige, scientists can act as bridge-builders to both civil society and academia. (Flink and Schreiterer 2010, p. 673). Their ability to cross-institutional, disciplinary and national boundaries helps them to establish mutual trust and new frameworks of cooperation. An example, says Geir Honneland, the director of Fridtjof Nansen Institute (FNI), is Russian and Norwegian scientists’ role in Barents Sea fishery management (Honneland, 2016). Honneland's various visits to Shanghai helped pave the way for a strengthening of further cooperation with various Chinese research institutes (Geir Honneland, interview 14 August 2016). Another example of a bridge-builder is Yang Huigen, the director of the Chinese Polar Research Institute (PRIC). After being the head of the Yellow River Station and the long-standing national representative of International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), Yang is currently the vice president of the IASC. His wide‐ranging networks and experience in international polar research collaboration were helpful in promoting the establishment of CNARC (Huigen Yang, interview 14 November 2016). While diplomats have to change locations and subject areas in regular 3–4‐year terms, most scientists spend their career in one field of expertise and develop strong personal relationships. Through the interactions of scientists, research institutions and their enduring relationships are a peculiar feature of science diplomacy. The long‐term interactions among individual scientists help to transform procedural trust into generalized mutual trust among scientific community and even political actors. Transnational partnerships or networks gradually improve the scientists’ ability to develop new frameworks of corporation, such as the deeper corporation between FNI, Shanghai Institute International Studies, and Tongji University, as well as the annual bilateral and multilateral dialogues between China and the Arctic states. ‘The annual US-China Arctic Social Science Forum’, Heather A. Conley (2018) points out, ‘has played a particularly helpful role in discussions between American and Chinese scholars and in better understanding the perspective and interest of both nations’. International institutionsPing Su 7-9-2018 – Professor of IR at Tongji University. ["Science Diplomacy and Trust Building: ‘Science China’ in the Arctic", Accessible Online at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.12576] @ AG Reinforcing science-based institutions By becoming observer to the Arctic Council, the Chinese presence actively supports the key regional organization which bases its deliberations on the assessments of working groups composed of scientists from Arctic and Non‐Arctic states (Arctic Council, 2015). As Chinese universities and research institutes expand their networks in the Arctic, they reinforce a set of values and procedures commonly accepted, and mirrored in the setup of the Arctic Council and other regional institutions (see Martello, 2008). In the context of these knowledge‐based institutions, mutual trust stems from professionalism. Though the contribution of Chinese scientists in the working groups of the Arctic Council is arguably insufficient, the logic of collaboratively producing objective knowledge favors an institutional setting of transparency, openness and trust in methods (Bertelsen and Su, 2018; Bertelsen, 2016). As Yang points out: ‘Scientists are never afraid of any suspicion if they do not forge data’ (Huigen Yang, interview 14 November 2016). The notion that objective expertise should inform political decisions similarly undergirds the above-mentioned CNARC, China's own attempt to institutionalize its Arctic science presence. Science diplomacy institutions can have important side-effects. In the case of the Arctic, their expertise influences domestic policy-making. The ten founding members of CNARC are the main advising bodies for their respective countries Arctic policies. For instance, the Norwegian Polar Institute's director is a member of the Norwegian Polar Committee, an interministerial committee involving bureaucrats and state secretaries on polar issues (Jan‐Gunnar Winther, interview 21 January 2016). Leading Chinese polar experts similarly help in drafting the Chinese Arctic policy. So, as Chinese scientists are stakeholders in expertise-based political decision-making, the institutional integration of Science China tends to reinforce the trust of all member states into regional governance institutions despite security concerns driven by an accelerating power transition (Bertelsen and Su 2018). Download 0.83 Mb. Share with your friends:
|