This complexity is difficult to integrate effectively into the reasoning of each party because it requires a minimum understanding of the contexts in which these different communities operate. The difficulty is amplified by the fact that these operations occur in economic and cultural contexts that are extremely different from one corner of the world to another.

In this context, scientific anticipation makes sense: an open dialogue with scientists can help politicians, diplomats, citizens, entrepreneurs collaborate in order to facilitate the resolution of emerging challenges of the future. However, it is not enough for scientists to give one-off advice to politicians, or ideas to the private sector, civil society organisations and citizens.

On the contrary, as the three following essays show, we observe among the political and diplomatic authorities a growing demand for an anticipatory science diplomacy acting as an honest broker between the different communities and institutional agendas of each (political actors, diplomats, companies, media, citizens, civil society organisations, scientific global community, etc.) without shortcutting the political processes, be it:

• for accelerating the implementation of the 17 sustainable development goals set out in the UN's 2030 Agenda within the next 10 years of which the 2021 SDG Report provide the status of progress towards each SDG Goal.

• for taking up emerging challenges, in particular the 6 medium-term transformations presented by the UN at its 75th anniversary in 2020, in the UN75 Future Possibilities 2020 Report, which identifies six global transformations of systemic and global nature that will affect the world in 10 to 20 years :

• The Exabyte Economy: Hyperconnected devices, data and people
• The Wellbeing Economy: Redefining health
• The Net Zero Economy: Scalable low-carbon solutions
• The Circular Economy: Waste not, want not
• The BioGrowth Economy: New agriculture and biomaterials
• The Experience Economy: From ownership to usership

In parallel, the question of emerging technologies is increasingly drawing attention from the UN.

The UN Secretary-General report on Our Common Agenda presented by António Guterres on September 10, 2021 frames the future of multilateralism as a choice between “breakdown or breakthrough” and contains recommendations for concerted action across four broad areas.

It calls for “A Summit for the Future” to address the main challenges of the 21st century and propose governance improvements to the international system.

The impact of emerging technologies on international affairs is also being discussed by various UN bodies notably the Security Council.

All these moves highlight the evolving nature of multilateralism, the role of science and technology as a driver of societal change but also contributor to solving some of the challenges of the 21st century.

That is why a demand is rising from all sides for a continuous interaction bridging science and diplomacy. In order to set the broader diplomatic frame in which science anticipation unfolds, we invited Swiss Federal Councillor Ignazio Cassis, Michael Møller, Chairman of the GESDA Diplomacy Forum, and Sir Jeremy Farrar as Member of the Board of Directors of the GESDA Foundation, to write about geo-political trends, the main forces shaping a multilateralism in transition, and the contribution of science diplomacy and the role of anticipation.

Contextualising GESDA’s Work Today and Tomorrow – Analysis of the geopolitical trends and a Swiss perspective on science diplomacy and a renewed multilateralism,

Federal Councillor Ignazio Cassis

Vice President and Head of the Department of Foreign AffairsSwiss Federal Council

While the global challenges become ever more pressing, it is increasingly difficult to create convergence within the international community. It is increasingly difficult to adopt new international law instruments.

This trend results in an increasing use of soft law, which bypasses the role of parliaments and, thus, disrupts democratic processes. The domestic policy-making procedure is not fully exploited in relation to soft law, which reduces opportunities for meaningful political debate that would otherwise be available as part of the legislative process or in the context of approving international treaties.

Another trend is the use of science and technology within geo-political considerations. There is a growing feeling that a new “cold war” is about to be fought over science and technology and the power they confer to the states who have them.

We as nation states must reflect how we can adapt, evolve, and respond to the challenges and opportunities of our time. We need to build the global governance of the 21st century.

That brings me to science diplomacy, not really a new discipline, but it is now literally exploding. I am convinced that the hallmark of a 21st century global governance will be to fully capture what science and technology have to offer in terms of foresight, understanding, and solutions.

This is because of the phenomenon of the convergence of sciences – think of bio-, nano-. neuro-, info-sciences etc. This development is expanding the field of scientific discovery and significantly accelerating scientific progress.

All that will change the face of humanity and, hence, change the way humanity is governed globally. We don’t know what exactly that will be, but we know it will happen, and sooner rather than later.

This great convergence of science is a double challenge, for states as well as for international governance: for the states as the building blocks of the international community, and for international governance as the means the states go about their shared interests.

Switzerland’s position is precisely at this intersection.

We are, on the one hand, a member of the international community, defending and promoting our interests, just like any other state.

But at the same time we are the Host State of International Geneva, one of the foremost centres of global governance and, indeed, the operational hub of the international system.

In that capacity, it is our declared ambition, and, may I add, our proven track record, to offer to the international community the best conditions possible for effective and impactful governance.

And so, to this double challenge Switzerland offers a double response.

Firstly, the domestic measures in terms of policy and organisation: we have reframed our foreign policy goals in our general Foreign Policy Strategy 2020-2023 and in a series of regional and thematic strategies, such as the Digital Foreign Policy Strategy. As a consequences of these strategies, I have created a dedicated Digital Foreign Policy Unit in my Ministry which is headed by Ambassador Benedikt Wechsler and I have appointed Ambassador Alexandre Fasel as Switzerland’s Special Representative for Science Diplomacy, based in Geneva. I have amongst other things tasked him to draft, together with his colleagues at Foreign Affairs in Berne, Policy guidelines for science diplomacy, drawing also on the contribution of GESDA Foundation.

And secondly GESDA Foundation - the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator producing this Science Breakthrough Radar, which has been conceived as a new tool at the service of effective multilateralism in Geneva and in the wider international governance.

Let me express five considerations on the vision which led to the creation of GESDA Foundation: anticipation, participation, impact, sense of urgency and universal aspiration.

1. Anticipation All too often, the international community acts only when faced with the immediate effects of a major crisis.

We all know how Word War II led to the redesign of the international system which is basically the same to this day. There is some hope that the current pandemic may give rise the new ways in international affairs. We shall see.

But my point is this: Would it not be a sign of maturity, if the international community were able to act earlier, based on anticipation providing a good understanding of the challenges and opportunities ahead? I think it would - and I am happy to see that this is what GESDA Foundation sets out to achieve!

2. Participation We all know from experience in preventive diplomacy regarding mass atrocities that early warning is good, but in fact not enough. Early action is critical. But who feels really responsible to act in a timely manner upon clear signs of things to come?

This raises the question of participation, which I consider as important as anticipation.

We need to involve all those in our work we seek to influence and support with our foresight. What is commonly referred to as the multi-stakeholder approach is not new in international affairs.

I very much appreciate the GESDA Anticipatory Situation Room. It is a good thing, but not enough: We shouldn’t forget that we are an intellectual elite with a weak democratic legitimacy and must make sure that our work on the international level is grounded in our domestic democratic structures and processes.

3. Impact But participation is not the solution as such. It is rather the method by which we build convergence and realise concrete solutions to practical problems that have been anticipated.

Here lies finally the legitimacy of what we are doing. The international community at large, states and non-state actors, will be judged by their actions and by the impact they have.

That is also true for what we are trying to achieve through The GESDA Foundation.

4. A sense of (patient) urgency What we are trying to achieve with GESDA is new and, hence, difficult.

To link anticipation – that looks far ahead – with action – that is immediate – is a major challenge in itself. And the method by which we are attempting to do it is new and challenging for all the participating scientists, diplomats, policymakers, citizens, the private sector and philanthropy.

But do have we the choice? I personally haven’t seen any better proposal yet on how to use science diplomacy at the service of a 21st century governance of world affairs. We have to get into it - patiently but with a sense of urgency.

5. Universal aspiration With The GESDA Foundation we are creating an instrument that is based in, and operates out of Geneva.

That seems natural on account of Geneva’s significance as a global centre of governance.

But our aspiration is universal.

We are working for the global commons, and when this work is not happening in Geneva, then Geneva content and Geneva methodology can be brought to the fore whenever and wherever the conversation is taking place.

Multilateralism in Transition

Michael Møller

former Under Secretary-General of the UN, Director-General of the UN Office in Geneva from 2013 to 2019Member of the Board of Directors, GESDA

We are all painfully aware that the past few years have put the world at large through a massive existential test.

COVID-19 has revealed dramatic failures of our societies: long-ignored environmental crises, economic and social inequality, political ineptitude, social divides — all of this and more has been brought into painful focus by the global pandemic.

A bleak picture, to which I would like to answer by, perhaps counterintuitively for some, sounding a counter-note of optimism.

An optimism rooted in experience and based on fact: the experience of the past 7 ½ decades, and the extraordinary progress they brought humanity.

If you were born today, and in spite of the headlines bombarding us with negative news, the recent pandemic and the current geo-political tensions, you will be less likely to live in poverty; less likely to be illiterate; less likely to confront intolerance and oppression; and less likely to be killed in a war than at any time in human history.

These achievements happened over the course of just a few decades. And all that progress is real. It has been broad, and it has been deep.

The last 75 years have brought a level of peace, rights and well-being to humanity that quite simply has never been seen before. And it’s no accident that the progress we have achieved since 1945 coincided with the establishment of a multilateral structure with the United Nations at its heart.

The audacity of the ideas that underpinned the creation of this multilateral architecture remains astounding to this day: to replace violence with the rule of law as the basis for global governance; to give each state — whether rich or poor, large or small — one vote; and finally, to declare human rights unconditional and universal.

Of course, there were, and are, places in which reality made, and still makes, a mockery of these ideals.

But not only did we avoid open confrontation between the superpowers — and with it a third world war — war itself came to be considered “illegal”, an idea that would have seemed simply absurd to earlier generations.

And with these political changes came sweeping economic changes, leading to the incredible gains in global wealth, in life expectancy and opportunity. Multilateralism in practice!

And yet, for all the peace and prosperity underwritten by the international structures put in place since 1945, today, we once again find ourselves engulfed in crisis — even before COVID-19 brought the world to its knees.

So, what happened?

Sometime over the past decades, a complacency set in — a naïve belief as it turned out — that things would just invariably get better; that, despite some backsliding here and there, forward movement was inexorable and large-scale conflict a thing of the past. It was through this lens that many just assumed technological progress and globalisation would produce benefits that, ultimately, would reach all.

This complacency bred inaction, and the twin forces of globalisation and technological disruption, left unchecked, ultimately triggered the global backlash we are confronting today.

And so today we hear troubling echoes of the past — from eroding trust in the democratic order to the outrage at rampant inequality.

But what concerns us today has to do with the breakdown of global cooperation, with the return of international politics as zero-sum competition, with the weakening of international solidarity — a sad and worrying reality, reinforced by the global mismanagement of the pandemic and its economic and financial fallout, that we all live in, and suffer from, today.

The international system that was built 75 years ago, and has served us extremely well, is no longer able to deal effectively with the challenges confronting us. We no longer live in a bipolar or unipolar world; our world is increasingly becoming multipolar. And we are in a chaotic transition phase.

For example, the relationship between the three most important powers — the United States, China and Russia — has rarely been as dysfunctional as it is today. The weaponisation of the pandemic by China and the US, and their increasingly robust race towards technological supremacy are some of the clear examples of the move away from a rules-based order to one of greater power competition. The examples are proliferating every day. This evolving process of geopolitical polarisation is happening in a more economically interconnected world and all indications are that technology rather than ideology will be the determining element in the evolution of Great Power spheres of influence.

Power relations are becoming unclear; with the fragmentation of actions; with impunity and unpredictability prevailing; and with national and isolationist agendas superseding mutual trust and international cooperation.

The point here is, unfortunately, that we have been there before — and that should worry us.

Multipolarity without strong and accepted multilateral instruments — just as we saw in Europe in the wake of the First World War — might be a factor of some equilibrium, but it is certainly not a factor of peace. It’s inherently unstable, volatile, and dangerous.

Yet to say that the world is poised on the brink of another 1914, as some suggest, is too simple. International relations work differently today, and so does politics.

One obvious difference is the diffusion of power. Power that used to be firmly in the hands of the state has metamorphosed into something much more diffuse. Whether it is non-state actors challenging the state’s monopoly of violence; whether it is private corporations evading effective regulation by any one state (and some having greater financial clout than many states); whether it is wealthy private individuals with the means to affect international social and economic realities; power, and therefore governance, in international relations today is altogether a more complex, messy affair.

Whereas in the past, international relations were centralised — with core and periphery, with top-down commands and control — today, we live in an “age of entanglement”. Global politics has been reconfigured. The traditional “chessboard” of inter-state diplomacy may still exist, but it is joined by a new complex web of networks made up of governments, parliaments, companies, cities, NGOs, terrorist groups, philanthropists and countless others, all wielding influence and cooperating or clashing at various points in time.

In response to all of this, multilateralism is changing too. We seem to be moving towards what, Pascal Lamy calls Polylateralism which, by necessity, must, and hopefully will, become more collaborative, more integrated, more networked, more inclusive and more preventive — with its legitimacy conferred by the results and impact of its actions, not by the reality of its structural existence. The upshot is that today, and certainly tomorrow, a multiplicity of different actors will be part of the networks that will have a role in defining the way multilateral global governance will evolve.

And the need for these intricate connections is mirrored by the major existential challenges we face, which are more and more interlinked; and are more and more interfering with each other, whether in addressing the looming climate calamity; the collapse of biodiversity; the growing inequality; the fever pitch of geopolitical tensions; the onslaught of new technologies, or indeed a global pandemic.

None of these challenges emerged in a vacuum. The prosperity we have enjoyed these past decades has clearly come at a steep price. Our planet is in dire straits; our very survival may be threatened. And we are now facing a global crisis of trust, challenges threaten to overwhelm us just as interests fragment, power is diffuse, and the only constant is disruptive change.

Where do we go from here? The answer has everything to do with a re-invented multilateralism in general, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, our collaborative and integrated global roadmap for the way forward, in particular. Because even now, as we see entire regions set back years in a matter of a few months by the pandemic; as millions of people are being pushed into extreme poverty, I am convinced that the only credible path forward is multilateral.

If anything, Covid-19 has reinforced the urgent need for a renewed and more effective multilateralism. This crisis is not a failure of the notion of multilateralism. The temporary failures of our governance systems that we are living through right now lies in the absence of multilateral actions defined by an increase in nationalistic, inward-looking, defensive postures. The operative word here is temporary — because we simply have no choice but to revert to international cooperation and solidarity if we want to ensure a healthy future for our planet: a collaborative system that is also strongly based on gender parity, geographical diversity and inter-generational dialogue. Today we have a surplus of multilateral challenges and a deficit of multilateral solutions.

In that context, the importance of science and technology in how we manage the problems of our world and in how we shape our future is becoming more evident than ever. And this is where The GESDA Foundation, the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator and the new focus on science diplomacy comes in. As you all know The GESDA Foundation was created to help ensure that the technologies of tomorrow are shaped to maximise their benefit to humanity and, in doing so, to provide tangible proof that truly collaborative, multilateral approaches to problem-solving have the best chances of success. It does so by anticipating the science of tomorrow and aligning it with the global needs of tomorrow. Anticipation ensures better prevention and thus better and more impactful action.

GESDA seems to have a caught this new geopolitical reality at the right time. The global governance transition we have been living in for some years now is beginning to crest, and has brought the world to a fork in the road. To one side we move further down the road of nationalism, division, fragmentation and the increasing abandonment of a multilateral management of the affairs of our planet. To the other side lies a reinvigorated sense of solidarity that translates into a new determination to collaborate in the search for urgent solutions to the massive existential challenges humanity is faced with. A collaborative, integrated, de-siloed, networked and preventive polylateral structure that may give us a chance to secure a sustainable and liveable planet.

The GESDA model we are in the process of elaborating, the objectives that we have set, the subjects we have chosen to deal with, the extraordinary people who have chosen to associate themselves with our initiative, the growing universal interest in our activities by scientists and policymakers alike, as well as by the public, tells us that GESDA is well on its way down the latter road.

We are leveraging the proven ability of scientists across the globe to work across geographical and political divides, and the growing realisation in policy-making and project implementation circles that science needs to be brought back urgently to the decision-making table.

In doing so, I am convinced that GESDA will be able to contribute in a major way to the development of powerful solutions to the major existential problems facing humanity, and in so doing, help reinstate the indispensable trust in science and in the ability of leaders, political and otherwise, to deliver the required solutions for the maintenance of our future well-being — and thus to do its bit to nudge the world down the right road.

As we look ahead — to building forward better, to coming out of this stronger — we do well to remember the lessons of the past. Not everything has to be reinvented. Some of it has to be reinforced and reapplied. We have, and will have, the knowledge and expertise, the tools, resources and instruments we need to overcome the current existential challenges, whether in health, climate, development, corruption, armaments, finances, technology etc.

But we need to strengthen our collective will to act. From the awakening that this current crisis is triggering, we have a chance, and the responsibility, to create a more preventive and effective polylateralism in which everyone can and must play an active part.

International Geneva, the capital of so many of the initiatives that daily impact human lives the world over — in peace, humanitarian action, human rights and now, also in action in the digital and new technologies sphere, among many others; the operational heart of the multilateral system; a city whose unique ecosystem contains a multitude of international organisations, some 700 NGOs, representatives of over 180 states, a large and vibrant private sector and world-class academic institutions, is the place where — every day — new partnerships are formed and innovative solutions are developed to improve the lives of people the world over.

That is what The GESDA Foundation is being built to do as an important catalytic building block towards a new, effective, polylateral governance structure.

Anticipation in Diplomacy: the lessons of a pandemic

Sir Jeremy Farrar

DirectorWellcome Trust

Why did COVID-19 catch so many countries so unprepared and then unable to respond?

After all, just such a pandemic has been widely predicted for many years, and many governments should, on paper, have been well equipped to respond.

The problem is social and political myopia. We are not looking deeply enough into what the future might hold.

Some of those hit hardest by COVID-19 — the UK and the US notable among them — in principle had plentiful social and economic resources to deal with a novel pandemic, including detailed plans for tackling one.

But in practice those proved inadequate in the face of its complex health, social, economic and political ramifications.

The result was indecision and delay, with some politicians who apparently believed matters should run their course simply failing to mount any meaningful response at all during the critical early phase of the pandemic.

Such fatalism is unwarranted.

We cannot control the future, or predict it, but the history of humanity is one of acting today to prevent — and when needed mitigate — problems we might encounter tomorrow. The challenges we face are complex, but that does not mean we cannot anticipate the risks they create.

On the contrary, we have predictive models of remarkable power and increasing precision, as well as unprecedented capabilities to act on them. No previous generation could have understood the spread of COVID-19 so well, or created drugs and vaccines against it, as we have done.

But we have to learn the lessons of this crisis and commit to doing better when another inevitably arises. And to do better, we need to get better at anticipating what the future may hold.

The best place to start is with emerging science and technology, which is key both to developing tools that help us anticipate what is coming and building the resilience to deal with it.

We were fortunate that we could turn to early research and development on vaccines for other epidemic threats (MERS and SARS-1) and to other fields (oncology) for the mRNA-based vaccines which have been crucial in tackling COVID-19.

Under-appreciated advances in other fields may also hold the keys to other 21st-century challenges, such as climate change, biodiversity loss and socio-economic inequality.

Identifying future trends and those critical advances is a key objective of the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator (GESDA) Foundation on whose Board I sit. This radar is the first report setting out socially significant research areas.

But this is not in itself enough. Covid has seen a catastrophic failure of global diplomacy, with vaccine nationalism now delaying the exit strategy from this pandemic.

Many of the other challenges we face are also inherently global and multidimensional: to pick one example, climate change respects national boundaries no more than COVID-19 does; and its consequences are both complex and myriad.

Science will be central to identifying and solving them, but anticipating them will require more than science alone: political vision and diplomacy are also needed if we are to avoid a dangerously fragmented and inequitable world.

So a second part of GESDA's mission is to bring together all the parties needed to tackle these challenges — not just natural scientists and technologists, but also those working in the social sciences and, crucially, in the policy, governance, investment and citizen or industrial communities.

This represents a far broader range of participants than is typical of the foresight activities currently carried out by most governments, national academies or think tanks.

In the Swiss tradition of multilateralism — GESDA was established by the Swiss government, and is deliberately hosted in a neutral, international city — we seek to ensure that there is representation from all over the world.

We welcome this broad spectrum of delegates to our October Summits in Geneva — an assembly which itself depends on the continuing effectiveness of multilateral, collective and cross-disciplinary action against COVID-19.

Virologists and epidemiologists helped us understand COVID-19, but responding to it has required government, international agencies, behavioural specialists, academia, big pharma companies, economists, philanthropists, and more working in close concert.

Anticipating the need for such coalitions, and assembling them in advance rather than reacting after the fact, will help us mitigate against loss of wellbeing, life and prosperity.

But the lessons we could learn from COVID-19 are in danger of being forgotten already.

We are on the verge of the rich world neglecting the needs of everyone else just when those needs are greatest.

In a globally integrated world, mutual co-operation is a matter of enlightened self-interest, not charity. A fragmented world is always a dangerous world, all the more so given the global nature of the challenges we face.

COVID-19 has been the first really acute crisis of the 21st century and the first real test of the global science, political and diplomatic system. It has not gone well. We cannot allow the same approach to pervade the other great challenges of the 21st Century.

Other than perhaps during the Apollo 11 moon landing, there has been no time in my life when science has been so front and centre in people’s lives.

That engagement, born of necessity, must be turned to good use, but we all have work to do here.

Scientists need to take their place at the table, rather than declining to take responsibility.

Policymakers need to recognise and engage with what the science is advising them and be willing to act before they feel they have to react; and industry needs to re-discover purpose beyond profit.

GESDA hopes to provide a forum for that meeting of minds to take place: the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipation Summit. No one individual can see what the future holds; but together, we can do our best to anticipate it, prepare for it and learn how to respond earlier and better to its challenges.

The future of humanity depends on it.

Further reading

The GESDA Best Reads and key resources below provide further reading on some of the megatrends and global transformations anticipated for tomorrow which are shaping society, politics and multilateralism.

Gesda Best Reads and Key Resources

UN reports

On the Pandemic

(see contribution Jeremy Farrar “Anticipation in Diplomacy : the lessons of a pandemic”)

On Geopolitics, Development, Growth and Technology