The New Age of Biodiplomacy

By Calestous Juma

One of the most significant public policy developments of the new millennium is the growing recognition of the role of technological innovation in international relations. Critical global objectives such as improvements in human welfare, participation in the global economy, and the transition towards sustainability are no longer possible without the significant use of science, technology, and innovation. In fact, advances in sci ence and technology are shaping the character and content of international relations. Agricultural biotechnology offers an example of how technological innovation and the associated institutional adjustments have the potential to lead to changes in the way nations relate to each other.

Advances in agricultural biotechnology and ensuing public debates will induce changes in relations among countries. These changes are likely to lead to new forms of technologybased international partnerships that will alter the traditional patterns of international cooperation between developing countries. They will also reshape the structure and function of international relations by bringing about greater awareness of the role of science and technology in the practice of diplomacy.

This paper first lays out the links between technological and international relations, using the Green Revolution as an example. The second section examines divergences in the use of emerging biotechnologies. The third part describes the implications of dis continuities in agricultural biotechnology for international cooperation. Finally, I will outline policy and practical directions for development based on new ini tiatives as well as expected trends in international relations.

Biotechnology in International Relations. In the early phases of the Cold War, industrialized countries sought to use their scientific and techni cal knowledge to solve the problems of developing countries, as well as extend their strategic influence. In part to stem the spread of communism, high-yield varieties of wheat and rice were developed and adopted in Mexico, India, and other developing countries.1 The United States, in cooperation with other industrialized countries, set up and supported the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), which remains the most successful effort to mobilize the world’s scientific knowledge for solving development problems.2

These public efforts helped to raise food productivity in Latin America and Asia, but they also stimulated local eco nomic activities.3 In addition to meeting local food needs and raising farm incomes, the Green Revolution helped integrate these countries into the global agricultural trade system. The Green Revolution focused on raising agricultural productivity in key staples such as wheat and rice. It simultaneously created a foundation for food safety and demonstrated how countries could use scientific and technical knowledge to solve development challenges. The Green Revolution showed that it was possible to create long-term international technology partnerships aimed at solving local problems.

The capacity to modify living organ isms offers additional tools for raising agricultural productivity, adapting crops to new conditions, reducing the use of chemicals, and designing new produc tion systems that are consistent with ecological principles. These potential bene fits have generated considerable interest among developing countries.4 Such tech nology makes it possible to address food challenges in regions such as Africa that did not benefit from the Green Revolution.

Although advances in breeding maize helped to extend the scope of food pro duction in many African countries, efforts in other fields showed dismal results. The Cold War concerns that inspired the Green Revolution in Latin America and Asia took on different forms in Africa. Raising food productiv ity was not a strategic way to respond to superpower competition in African countries. The Cold War coincided with the era of decolonization and the upheavals associated with this process of disengagement did not provide sufficient incentives for long-term investment in agricultural research.

Calestous Juma is Professor of the Practice of International Devel opment at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. He served as Executive Sec retary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in Geneva and Montreal.