Topic 4 – Water Diplomacy

 

Speaker: Dr. Mark Zeitoun (Director General at Geneva Water Hub)

 

Diplomacy should consider power plays

 

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) delivered three key messages to the participants on the simplistic dynamics behind denying water to certain populations, the efficiency of policy responses, and the utility of social sciences in this regard. Unfair water sharing will result in harmful effect, hence the importance of understanding power symmetry for effective water diplomacy and referring to the National and International Water Law as a useful guide. Social processes and biophysical processes are significant reasons behind water conflicts, and a cause for social water scarcity. Iraq was particularly dry as a result of upstream dams. Agreements and diplomacy on water in the region were lacking if not non-existent. Water was a source of political power plays in conflict, which needed to be considered as part of diplomatic efforts on water. The most powerful country in a region typically determined who received water. Power asymmetry was a fact of life, but the river hegemon could use such a position of power and influence for the good of everyone beyond its own borders. Focusing on narrow national interests was just a short-term solution.

Effective Diplomacy

There were numerous solutions that parliamentarians could implement to ensure effective diplomacy and address power asymmetry. First, it was important to build capacity to help the so-called weaker parties in negotiations. It was important to ensure that negotiators had the same technical and legal competencies. The outcome of a negotiated agreement between equals was always more sustainable compared to a coerced agreement. Second, there should be a focus on levelling the playing field, with accepted norms and standards used as the basis for all negotiations. More concretely, such action could focus on who specifically should receive water and in what quantities. It was crucial to decide if water resources should be divided equally or distributed according to need. In the case of the Nile River, there were 11 countries that shared the water resource. Certain countries in the region were more dependent on the river relative to others.

Support for and opposition to Water Law

The 1997 United Nations Watercourses Convention stipulated that the distribution and utilization of a watercourse should be equitable and reasonable. It would make a radical difference for international diplomacy if such action was applied in specific regions around the world. A majority of countries had not signed or ratified the Convention, potentially as a result of lack of interest, downplaying the benefits or opposing it entirely. Some States had implemented technical and economic arrangements that worked around politics, which was a curious development for science diplomacy. However, such actions avoided the source of the conflict, which was the distribution of water itself.

International water law was not perfect, most significantly because it could be ignored. However, in the absence of agreed standards and principles, the space and opportunity for conflict resolution were closed down. International water law was the least worst way forward. There was also an opportunity to ensure coherence with national law and international law to ensure effective implementation.

Discussion

Mr. M. Omar (IPU) thanked Mr. Zeitoun for the invaluable support that he and his Organization had provided to the IPU in developing the curriculum for the Science for Peace Schools initiative.

The participant from Türkiye said that transboundary water resources were one of the best resources to leverage collaborations between States. Although his country was not water-rich and despite ongoing political issues, Türkiye had continued to supply water to its neighbours. Dams and irrigation systems were much needed tools to prevent downflows. He asked how it was possible to achieve sustainable development without dams and irrigation systems.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said that there was ample justification to continue building dams, especially given that they were the source of almost all of the electricity used in Canada and Scandinavia. The issue was rather on the consequences of building on other countries. It was true that Türkiye had the legal right to build dams, but Iraq had a legal right not to experience significant harm as a result. International law was useful in determining how water resources could be shared and the considerations that would be taken into account to ensure equitable and reasonable use. It was not a perfect solution, but it could function as a guide to agree a framework between neighbouring countries to negotiate a satisfactory outcome.

The participant from Israel said that desalination and the recycling of wastewater could provide additional resources for all sides. He asked Mr. Zeitoun for further details in this regard.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said that around the time of the Annapolis Conference, Israel had just begun to desalinate water. Israel had the capacity and technology to produce water, which resulted in less stress on natural water resources. The Palestinian side requested that such technologies were factored into the equation of water sharing. Israel declined in this regard, with a preference to focus on other pressing matters. Some 20 years later, Israel was producing even more water, and was cleaning 80% of its wastewater. Israel was therefore no longer considered water scarce. However, such water was not being shared with Palestinians.

The participant from Israel said that the development of technologies and capacity should not imply that countries give up their natural resources.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said that Israel should not be required to give up its water resources, but equitable and reasonable use was an important aspect to consider.

Mr. B.N. Tankoano (G5-Sahel Interparliamentary Committee) said that the Sahel region was particularly arid and lacked sufficient quantities of water. Access to water could be used as a way forward to navigate the ongoing crisis, but there were no international solutions in that regard for the region. Guinea was a crucial example as the country had the capacity to provide multiple countries in West Africa with electricity via hydroelectric projects. International projects and organizations could offer a framework to facilitate coordination between various States. He asked how water could be used as part of inter-State diplomacy to resolve conflicts.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said that West Africa was a model in regard to the sharing of water resources. The Gambia River Basin Development Organization and the Senegal River Basin Development Authority were regional organizations that jointly managed their respective rivers and basins. The organizations had a mandate to think beyond their borders and consider water as a common good for humanity. Such organizations were needed elsewhere. Both organizations were cooperating in a way that ensured equitable and reasonable access.

The Sahel region was understandably different due to conflict. However, despite such differences, the people were the same. The people could use citizen science for citizen diplomacy. Environmentalists on all sides of the borders could come together to arrange to share water or to cooperate over water, in the hope that action would trickle upward. It would be naïve to think that community-level actions would influence States and governments, but such actions could make a positive different to communities and serve as an example for others to follow.

The participant from Chad said that his country was part of the Sahel region and offered significant potential in regard to groundwater and surface water. He asked if there was the possibility of a project to drain water for use elsewhere.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said that, despite the ongoing conflict, the Sahel region and West Africa more generally could provide opportunities for further learning and development in regard to water development projects. In the water world, one of the biggest blockers for further learning was language, with English being used too often as the default language. Speakers of other languages needed to be involved in discussions for effective dialogue.

The participant from Palestine said that his village was located over the biggest aquifer in the West Bank, but the water was taken and pumped directly to the city of Tel Aviv. Before 2007, the village had to rely on rainwater, which was collected in big wells and containers to ensure an even and steady supply of water. It was impossible to plan for new methodologies to reuse water or even establish new plants to recycle wastewater, because all too often suitable areas were controlled by Israel and applicable permission would not be granted. It was crucial to address such matters to accomplish peace and meet basic humanitarian needs.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said that there was more than enough water in the region to meet demand, but it was often denied to Palestinians owing to the wider Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It was remarkable that Israel had the most exciting water-related technologies in the world, but people only a few kilometres away were collecting rainwater. Such a situation was pure politics and conflict. He remained hopeful that water could be used to influence the bigger political process to resolve the issues between Palestinians and Israelis.

Mr. M. Omar (IPU) asked if water technologies could help to ease pressure and stress in certain countries.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said that there was potential for water technologies to ease certain pressures on natural resources. Desalination technology had allowed Israel to produce more than enough water to meet the country’s needs. The technologies reduced the stress on fresh water supplies, but it did not adequately address the conflict. The benefits of technology could be used to address certain issues, especially as part of a political process aimed at resolving conflicts.

Mr. M. Omar (IPU) asked if technology could be used not to resolve conflict, but to ease conflict or facilitate discussions.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said that technology could certainly be used to ease tension, especially in Palestine or Egypt as examples. However, the issue in such places was the quantity of water received. Desalination was an expensive process. People in cities would be able to pay, but farmers, who needed much more water, would not be able to afford the prices involved. Technology could therefore reduce tensions for people living in cities, but not for farmers.

Mr. M. Omar (IPU) asked if additional support in the form of research or studies was available, especially in regard to Sahel countries.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said he would gladly provide further information as necessary and would discuss such opportunities with his colleagues.

 

 

Topic 5 – SESAME, the gate to collaboration in Science

 

 

Speaker: Dr. Chris Llewellyn Smith (Former CERN Director General – Oxford University)

 

Science in diplomacy

 

Dr. C.L. Smith (CERN) said that the term science diplomacy had been coined about 20 years ago and was used to describe anything involving science, scientists, international relations, politicians and diplomats. It was recognized as a subject in its own right and could be divided into several categories: (1) science in diplomacy; (2) diplomacy for science; (3) and science for diplomacy.

 

Science in diplomacy had two objectives: (a) supporting international political objectives such as disarmament and arms control; and (b) helping address global technical challenges, such as climate change.

 

Science supporting international objectives

 

Regarding objective (a), it was important to point out that scientists often engaged on political issues, thus making it difficult to separate science from politics. One illustrative example was the issue of nuclear war, particularly the history of nuclear test ban treaties. In the 1950s, during the initial negotiations for such a treaty, the United States of America and the USSR had disagreed on whether underground nuclear tests could be detected. The disagreement had been based on political priorities thus suggesting a lack of objectivity in scientific judgements.

 

Bans on atmospheric and underground tests had eventually been introduced followed by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, although the latter had never come into force. Over time, the United States and the USSR had gradually reduced their nuclear-warhead stockpiles, eventually signing the first Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START I) with the aim of mutually getting them down to zero. However, the recent invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the planned expansion of China's stockpile posed new threats. It was not clear whether the START agreement would be renewed when it expired in 2026. The threat of nuclear war was therefore a primary challenge for science diplomacy at the present time.

 

Science helping address global challenges

 

Regarding objective (b), it must be emphasized that problems with global impacts, such as climate change, pandemics and water security, needed global approaches. Science was crucial in identifying problems through blue skies research as well as in measuring impacts and finding solutions. That said, most of the challenges were very complex and required expensive solutions that were not always clear cut. There were also many players involved, including scientists, governments, industry and non-governmental organizations. Issues faced by scientists included getting the problems onto the agenda of decision-makers, deciding on appropriate forms of partnership and dealing with intellectual property rights.

 

He drew attention to two success stories in which international cooperation had helped address global technical challenges. The first was the eradication of smallpox. The smallpox vaccine had been discovered in 1798 and had eventually led to the eradication of the disease, albeit two centuries later. Eradication had been achieved thanks to a wide-scale immunization programme led by the World Health Organization. The second success related to the hole in the Ozone layer discovered in the 1970s. The discovery had led to a global agreement, namely, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer following which the hole had begun to heal itself.

 

Those successes could be put down to the fact that the science had been clear, the threats had been easy to grasp, and the solutions had been simple, cheap, and win-win for all parties. Such incentives, however, were not always sufficient, as illustrated by the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, where an early warning system had not been installed despite clear evidence that it would reduce the effects of a tsunami.

 

A consensus on climate change now existed among scientists, governments and the public, with many governments committing to net zero emissions. However, pledges were not enough, and the world remained off-track. The problem was that climate change solutions were multifaceted, location-dependent and expensive. There were also winners and losers in terms of jobs, profits, and regions resulting in a situation where people with vested interests, such as the oil and coal industries, were slowing down the movement. So far, little success had been achieved in fostering technical collaboration on climate change.

 

The difference between “diplomacy for science” and “science for diplomacy”

 

Diplomacy was essential in facilitating international scientific collaboration, avoiding visa restrictions, enabling travel, and establishing exchanges. He pointed out a number of lessons he had learnt about diplomacy for science. First, the choice of sites was often political. For example, the United Kingdom had been chosen as the site for the Joint European Torus (JET) as a result of a 1977 hijacking of Lufthansa flight 181 at Mogadishu. Second, trust between scientists and administrators and diplomats was key but took time to build. Third, it was very difficult to get long-term collaborations with the United States given that Congress reserved the right to change funding every year. Fourth, in-kind contributions had advantages (buy-in) and disadvantages (split contracts).

 

Science for diplomacy was about harnessing scientific cooperation to build bridges between people. An important part of science for diplomacy were international students and exchanges. They could be seen as a form of soft power helping countries to extend their influence. However, the number of scientists spending time abroad had been decreasing in recent years. For instance, there was currently less movement to and from China due to COVID-19 restrictions and security concerns. Exchanges with Russia had also halted following the invasion of Ukraine, thus bringing an end to important collaborations, including projects in the Arctic. The resulting effects were dangerous for both science and politics.

 

He drew attention to a missed opportunity in science for diplomacy. It was well known that, in 1961, Kennedy had announced his intention to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade. However, few people knew that he had in fact proposed that it be a joint mission between the United States and the USSR. Initially, Khrushchev had refused to agree but, by 1963, had begun to come around to the idea. Kennedy’s assassination, however, had meant the idea had never gained traction. Politics would have changed in a big way had the journey to the moon been a joint one.

 

Scientific projects to bridge the East-West gap

 

There were a number of other important projects designed to bridge the East-West gap. They included two top-down initiatives, namely the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and ITER. IIASA had been established in 1972 and was responsible for carrying out interdisciplinary studies on environmental issues as well as on other issues related to global change. ITER was an international nuclear fusion research project which had been set in motion in 1985. Neither project had grown in a big way showing that top-down initiatives were not always the most successful.

 

Two bottom-up projects had also been launched, namely the European Council for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East (SESAME), both of which aimed to enable excellent science while also building personal and political bridges between scientists in different countries. CERN had been conceived in the 1940s for two reasons: to support individual countries that did not have the means to build big accelerators on their own as well as to encourage European nations to work together in the wake of the Second World War. SESAME had been conceived much later, in the late 1990s, but with similar objectives of building bridges and providing members with access to an otherwise unaffordable facility. The difference between the two projects was that CERN aimed to foster collaboration between countries recently in conflict while SESAME aimed to foster collaboration between countries still in conflict. Such projects tended to work as long as the science was good.

 

CERN

 

            At first, CERN had been a purely European organization but had gradually become global as transatlantic travel had become easier. Over the years, CERN had had a number of successes in terms of bridging political differences. For example, it had served as a neutral venue for informal contacts between different nations, including post-war meetings between German and Israeli physicists. It had kept its doors open during the Cold War, fostering collaboration between both sides of the Iron Curtain, including between East and West German physicists. It had also been one of the first organizations to forge scientific contacts with China. The message here was that scientists and engineers, with very different political, religious and cultural views, might initially be suspicious of each other but could develop respect by working together on technical issues. It was clear that technical collaboration bred tolerance and understanding which was beneficial for politics and science alike.

 

However, the open-door tradition at CERN might be under threat due to the invasion of Ukraine. Indeed, the CERN Council had decided that it would not renew its collaboration agreements with the Russian and Belarusian Governments once they expired in 2024. It was his belief that the decision was bad for science but also for humanity, especially as many of the Russians who worked at CERN had bravely denounced the invasion of Ukraine.

 

SESAME: an example of regional scientific collaboration

 

Meanwhile the tradition of collaboration remained open at SESAME. SESAME was a third-generation synchrotron-light source located in Jordan and one of over 50 storage ring-based synchrotron light sources in the world. It worked by producing very intense pulses of light that allowed detailed studies of a wide range of objects, such as viruses and atoms.

 

SESAME had been built in the Middle East for the purposes of scientific capacity building and international collaboration, especially among countries with relatively small scientific communities and budgets. It had a very broad programme (from biology and medical sciences through to material science, chemistry, physics and archaeology) and was thus ideal for building up scientific expertise. As a user facility, SESAME also helped to bring scientists together from across and beyond the region.

 

He gave a brief history of SESAME explaining that it had come about with the convergence of two ideas: (1) the need to build a light source in the Middle East, as proposed by Abdus Salam in the early 1980s; and (2) the desire to foster scientific projects that crossed divides. The original proposal made in 1997 had been to rebuild the 0.8 GeV Berlin Synchrotron (BESSY 1) which had been closing down. Instead, it had been decided that a new, ground-breaking 2.5 GeV ring would be built using part of the old Berlin synchrotron as a booster. The decision had been a good one scientifically, but insufficient funding had continued to cause problems. The building which housed SESAME had been completed in 2008 allowing various training programmes to be conducted so as to grow the user community. However, it had not been until May 2017, a few months after the first beam had been circulated, that the facility had been officially opened.

 

Dr. Smith had been persuaded to take over as President of the SESAME Council in 2008 for a number of reasons, including the enthusiasm of the young people working there. Those young people had been trained in Europe but had gone back to the Middle East to build SESAME. SESAME was thus helping reduce brain drain in the region.

 

In 2013, during the construction phase, the roof of SESAME had collapsed under an unprecedented snowstorm. Nevertheless, construction had continued under an open sky and SESAME had remained the highest energy accelerator in the Middle East. It had been during that time that the booster had been brought into operation.

 

CERN had begun to collaborate on the construction of SESAME in 2015. Collaboration with CERN had begun after the European Union had agreed to fund SESAME on the condition that CERN could be involved in the work.

 

Although SESAME had been in operation since 2017, experiments had begun three years earlier using an infrared microscope. The work being done at SESAME had regional as well as medical relevance and was being extended to other synchrotrons. Some of the ongoing studies included studies on agricultural issues and pollution. SESAME now had over 1,000 registered users and continued to receive many proposals. Three beam-lines were in operation: the x-ray fluorescence beam, the infra-red beam and the material science beam (with wiggler). Two more beams were under construction and another two would soon go into construction.

 

Political and financial challenges

 

Members provided the operating budget for SESAME which paid for the manpower, materials and electricity. Israel, Jordan and Turkey also made special contributions in the form of capital funding. Iran and Egypt had pledged contributions but had been unable to pay due to sanctions in the former case and frequent changes of government in the latter. The cases of Iran and Egypt were an example of how politics had interfered in the functioning of SESAME. Jordan had also provided the land and building for the project as well as cash from the Royal Court and Jordanian Scientific Research and Innovation Support Fund. Lastly, SESAME received external support, including advice from advisory committees, donations of equipment, training and cash. It had attracted leading scientists from around the world who believed in its political goals and potential to serve as a beacon for peace.

 

SESAME had faced many challenges during its long lifetime, most of which had been financial rather than political. One of the positive lessons he had learnt from the project was that people of goodwill with common goals could collaborate across deep divides. Negative lessons included difficulties in persuading members to pay their annual contributions as well as in attracting additional members. Indeed, governments tended to allocate aid to projects with more immediate pay-offs rather ones with long-term goals, such as SESAME.

 

The future of SESAME

 

The future of SESAME was not assured as funding would continue to be a challenge. However, members might find payment easier now that the scientific programme was producing results and growing. One piece of good news was that the power bill had reduced from US$ 380 per megawatt hour to US$ 10 per megawatt hour thanks to the installation of a solar farm funded by the European Union and gifted to SESAME by the Jordanian Government. Since 2019, SESAME had been the only accelerator in the world powered entirely by renewable energy.

 

SESAME had a guesthouse where scientists could stay when carrying out experiments. The guesthouse contained a meeting room for international collaborations. In the future, he hoped that the guesthouse could be used for meetings of other scientists when SESAME was not in operation. Just as CERN had spun off the European Space Agency and European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, SESAME could spin off other Middle Eastern collaborations.

 

Science for global challenges

 

On science diplomacy generally, he highlighted the importance of science in supporting arms control, dealing with global challenges and facilitating international collaboration. Science was a way to extend influence and build bridges when official relationships were strained. Many countries had recognized the importance of science globally and had appointed scientific advisors in their foreign offices. However, collaborative, open-door policies were under threat due to the war in Ukraine.

 

The construction of SESAME had been a victory for optimism over scepticism and realism. SESAME was what it was today because people had persevered in the face of difficulties even when they could have easily given up.

 

 

Topic 6 – Can Science turn elements of conflict to reason for coexistence?

 

Speakers: Mr. Serge Stroobants (Director of Europe & MENA region at the Institute for Economics and Peace), Dr. Kate Shaw (Staff scientist at the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP))

 

Collaboration between the IPU and the IEP

 

Mr. S. Stroobants (Director, Europe and MENA, Institute for Economics and Peace) drew attention to the pillars of collaboration between the IEP and the IPU, including: (1) science and peace; (2) analysis of peace efforts; (3) conflict resolution; and (4) parliamentary engagement for peace. The IEP was bringing a peace perspective to the first pillar while also working on data management so that peace research could be accessible to a wider audience. Under the second pillar, efforts were being made to map the different peace initiatives of the IPU and put them into a clear conceptual framework. The purpose of the framework was to improve efficiency and strengthen results. The third pillar was about assessing the many drivers of conflict and reorganizing IPU initiatives based on those drivers. It was important to look at conflict from various different angles as military interventions alone did not bring long-lasting peace, as exemplified by the situations in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. With that in mind, the Call of the Sahel, a joint declaration in which parliamentarians called for peace and sustainable development in the Sahel, had been built upon five areas of work: environment, community, security, development and education. The same approach should be replicated in other regions. The fourth pillar recognized the significant role that parliamentarians could play in peace efforts. Legislation, for instance, was an important guarantee of stability and progress. In addition, countries engaging in bilateral or multilateral agreements tended to be more peaceful because of the need to create good conditions for foreign direct investment.

 

There was a difference between positive peace and negative peace. Societies should be built on the pillars of positive peace so as to make them stable and resilient. Some countries were already on their way towards building positive peace through their legislation and policies.

 

Physics for development in conflict regions

 

Dr. K. Shaw (Staff Scientist, Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics) said that her presentation would focus on the importance of physics, specifically in conflict regions.

 

Science had an absolutely key role to play in achieving many of the Sustainable Development Goals. As more and more countries were moving towards digital and green economies, it was vital to invest in science and to ensure technology transfer into industry. Countries around the world, both high- and low-income, needed to invest more in research and innovation. Research communities depended on supportive policies and funding. However, around 80% of countries were devoting less than 1% of their GDP to research and development.

 

Solving environmental and developmental problems required scientists as well as scientific and educational institutions. All nations needed to have strong scientific educational systems in place from childhood through to PhD level. It was proven that having research institutions and universities helped improve education at all levels. For instance, people with a university education in scientific research could go on to become teachers, thus driving primary and secondary education from the bottom up. However, many lower income countries did not have the funds or resources to invest in the infrastructure required to build a solid backbone of research and would thus be left behind. Among the resources they lacked were laboratories and up-to-date information and communication technologies.

 

Countries in conflict or political turmoil

 

The situation was even worse for countries in conflict. Science fell to the bottom of the list in conflict due to the many other issues that needed addressing. Countries in conflict thus struggled to receive support for their science sectors. The lack of attention paid to science had negative effects both during and after the conflict. Indeed, it meant that the country lost a whole generation of trained scientists and would thus struggle to rebuild. There were, however, ways for the international community to support science in conflict areas.

 

The ICTP was a centre based in Trieste working under the auspices of UNESCO to promote physics in developing countries. It had worked with a number of countries in conflict, including Afghanistan, Venezuela and Palestine.

 

The example of Afghanistan

 

Its work with Afghanistan had begun in 2018 at which point the country had been at war for approximately 20 years. However, despite the less-than-ideal conditions, young Afghans continued to strive to become scientists as well as to build a scientific community.

 

Afghanistan had four universities that offered undergraduate degrees in physics but did not offer master’s degrees or PhDs. The faculties did little to no research, instead employing 100% of their staff to teach or do administration. As such, students were becoming professors at 20–21 years old with just an undergraduate degree. It was in stark contrast to most other physics faculties where professors were required to have a PhD. There was very little funding and opportunity for students with undergraduate degrees to do post-graduate study abroad.

 

Some of the young, passionate professors at Kabul University had wanted to improve international cooperation and had thus joined forces with the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the ICTP. Together, they had organized a series of high energy physics schools. The schools included online masterclasses, work with ATLAS open data and a virtual visit to CERN. Work was also ongoing to improve the undergraduate courses at the university. Indeed, many modules were missing from the degree programmes, which meant that students with a great deal of potential were ineligible to apply for master’s or PhD programmes abroad. The ICTP had also set up funded scholarships for Afghans wishing to do their master’s degree in partner universities in Iran and had supported a total of 30 students over the past four years.

 

There had been many positive outcomes from the above work. For instance, four graduates of the scholarship programme were currently in PhD positions abroad in Switzerland or Italy. A few students had been accepted into the CERN summer student programme or the ICTP STEP programme. Two female students had also become faculty members at a research facility in Italy.

 

However, collaboration with Afghanistan had become more difficult since the fall of the Government in 2021. Less funding was available hence the ICTP was looking at doing online courses. There were, nevertheless, questions about whether to work with the current administration at all. Although the issue was complicated, it was important that the scientists of tomorrow were not abandoned.

 

The example of Venezuela

 

Countries facing political instability, such as Venezuela, were equally at risk to those in conflict. Indeed, Venezuela had faced an economic collapse which had led to a huge exodus of people, including 50% of its academic staff. In response, the ICTP had set up a fellowship scheme so scientists could stay in the country. The scheme had supported 14 fellows over 2 years between 2020 and 2021. The situation in Venezuela had demonstrated the need to act quickly to prevent a collapse of the scientific sector during an economic crisis. Once people had left, it was unclear whether they would be able or willing to return.

 

The example of Palestine

 

Another country supported by the ICTP was Palestine. The situation there was slightly different to a regular conflict in that the country was under occupation. The occupation made it incredibly challenging to promote physics in Palestine. Palestinians suffered the same lack of funding as other conflict areas but also faced huge problems with travel. Indeed, it was not easy to get in or out of the country to go to conferences, attend schools or visit scientific institutions. There were also huge difficulties getting visas.

 

The scientific community was losing some brilliant minds as a result of the political situation in Palestine. The country had a very high literacy rate (98%) and around 30% of its population went to university (the highest proportion in the Arab world). In addition, its students were extremely strong and hardworking. Indeed, Palestinians had achieved 20–30% higher grades than their British counterparts in exams for a master’s programme run at a prominent British university.

 

It was imperative to find a way to support Palestinians in their careers. As a result, the ICTP had been creating fellowships and advising about opportunities abroad. Some students had gone on to gain positions at the ICTP while others were doing various programmes at CERN. Palestinian scientists were also encouraged to give remote talks when unable to attend in person as well as to build connections beyond Palestine so as not to remain isolated.

 

 

 

Science in exile

 

She drew attention to the large numbers of refugee scientists living in exile. For example, there were 1,600 displaced scientists from Iraq alone who had fled their country as a result of the war. It was paramount that host countries integrated refugee scientists into their universities rather than putting them in refugee camps where their knowledge and skills went untapped. Not only would it support the scientists, enabling them to live in dignity, but it would benefit the host societies and science as a whole. There were many organizations working to support refugee scientists, including the World Academy of Sciences. Refugee scholarship opportunities were also available.

 

Physics without frontiers: International scientific cooperation

 

It was necessary to acknowledge the benefits of international scientific cooperation in helping to build bridges between nations. Cooperation was important not just between stable, high-income countries but also with lower income countries as well as with countries in conflict or facing political turmoil. It was a way to bring people together around a common goal and thus promote peace. Her point was exemplified by the ATLAS and Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiments at CERN. The two experiments worked in competition with each other, often criticizing each other’s experiments. At the same time, however, they shared a common goal and could thus come together wherever necessary to compare results and share techniques. The ability to unite for the common good, despite conflicting ideas and infrastructure, was something that science could very much teach humanity.

 

She drew attention to the ICTP and the Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East (SESAME) as fantastic models of international collaboration. The ICTP had been built in 1964, mainly as a bridge between East and West thanks to its location in Trieste which had previously been part of the former Yugoslavia. Currently, it was a centre for all people from all nations. SESAME gave opportunities to countries with not much narrative in science. It was her belief that more facilities such as SESAME should be built not only to promote interregional cooperation but also to build the capacities of scientists, defeat brain drain and bring people together to defeat conflict.

 

In summary, it was vital to support scientists and young people and to build scientific infrastructures all over the world but particularly in conflict regions where science was often neglected. International scientific cooperation was a vital tool for resolving conflicts because it helped build soft diplomatic ties and broke down barriers between countries with a common goal. There was a need to create more networking opportunities, foster interregional collaboration and build shared infrastructure.

 

Mr. S. Stroobants (Director, Europe and MENA, Institute for Economics and Peace) drew attention to one of the eight pillars of positive peace, namely high levels of human capital, as well as to the emphasis on education within the Call of the Sahel. It was clear that societies were strong when their elites were strong.