Can Academic Study and Research Contribute to the Conduct of International Relations?

To answer the question, a few preliminary remarks are necessary. A diplomat in a modern Chancery is no longer a self-sufficient actor, taking his cue from an abstract definition of raison d'Etat as he negotiates his way through complex security issues involving neighbouring States. In dealing with "new themes", such as the environment, transnational corporations, human rights, international crimes and so on, the contemporary diplomat must be more directly responsive to social needs and demands. The present international agenda reflects the decisive influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), social and economic groups and the scientific community in shaping the formulation of foreign policy. The methods and the actors involved are different for each subject. And barriers that used to exist between national and international questions have almost entirely vanished.

The classical approach of the realist school in the study of international relations, while still important for the analysis of strategic problems, has shown itself less relevant in tackling the difficult and pressing choices concerning humanitarian assistance, human rights violations or the depletion of the ozone level that confront us today. However, the feeling shared by practitioners of international relations that theory in this field is somehow "underdeveloped", compared to other areas such as economics, cannot be entirely accounted for by the shortcomings of the traditional realist school. Even when we deal with more sophisticated models (the neo-realist variant, the liberal or neo-liberal approaches, the institutionalist analysis), we are often left with an after-taste of disappointment.

Thus, for example, the concept of globalization seeks to encompass the multiple aspects of these new international realities. Yet, from an analytical perspective and despite its interesting descriptive virtues, this concept remains too unfocused to provide an all-embracing tool for understanding this novel scenario. The same is true, although in a different way, of "interdependence", "regimes" and other notions that are usually associated with the effort to provide alternative theoretical approaches to hard-boiled realism. We are forced to acknowledge that theoretical solutions for the interpretation of our complex contemporary intemational world have yet to find adequate roots in practical reality.

But does this mean that academic research is irrelevant to the conduct of foreign relations?

Of course, not.

Academic research is a line of activity devoted to the treatment of information: how to systematically collect facts, how to organize correlations between these facts, how to derive hypotheses about them as a means of explaining events on the ground. And diplomacy is an activity that depends fundamentally on information. It is not by chance that the heart of any Chancery is its communications centre. But academics and politicians treat information differently. For the researcher, the accuracy of information is a value in itself. The search for the truth, striving for objectivity, is a value that dictates his or her work, and determines the time frame guiding academic labour. Ideally, his or her task only ends--if it ever does--when a proposed hypothesis about a given aspect of reality has been adequately established (within the rigorous methodological parameters determined by the intellectual community).

The politician or diplomat, by contrast, is constrained by the need to act (there is no choice of moment when a conflict that he or she has to mediate erupts). There is, however, a "stock of academic information" the diplomat may refer to in specific situations. He may, for example, derive important policy insights concerning the Balkans from the history of the origins of regional and ethnic conflict in that part of the world. And there is a second category of assistance that occurs when scientific discoveries, such as those concerning the consequences of global warming, lead to diplomatic action-for example, the convening of international conferences to coordinate global initiatives on the environment. The nuclear age has made it desirable for diplomats and politicians to acquire at least a modicum of knowledge of the intricacies of how an atomic bomb is built and of the game-theory models underlying the doctrine and the practice of deterrence.

International relations theory can be envisaged as a form of human discourse and that, as such, it is an integral part of political life; what is said about international relations in the academy turns out to be an element of what actually takes place in world affairs. And this is so not only because intellectuals risk becoming enmeshed in the web of interests that form the agenda of foreign policy.

More importantly, to the very extent that ideas are a force in history, theoretical endeavours, regardless of their truth-value, can be a critical factor in promoting foreign policy objective. To take a very abstract example, an understanding of world politics, as the British "idealist" school tries to demonstrate, as a system in which power disputes are but one among many factors is helpful in fostering order and cooperation in international relations.

A further dimension of the academic-politician exchange is what might be called the methodological contribution. Despite the differences in time-scale (long for research and short for political decision), there is at least one idea that is fundamental to academic researchers and should be retained by politicians. I am referring to the notion that the understanding of reality is a never-ending process. As a result of human beings' capacity to act and react in unexpected manners, social reality is always a locus of contradiction and astonishment, given its unexpected complexity. Suffice it to remember the perplexity of most theoreticians with the surprising end of the cold war. Academic methodologies provide us--diplomats--with enduring lessons on the need for modesty. They also suggest that in matters of policy decisions, we should be equally prudent, acknowledging the importance of exhaustive analysis of alternatives and choices prior to making final decisions and judgements. This is specially true of develo ping countries, where power and diplomatic resources are scarce and therefore foreign policy mistakes may come at a very high cost. Of course, a good decision depends on many factors, including the ethical dimensions of choices. Yet, an effective theoretical analysis that acknowledges the complexities of the international environment in our days remains essential if one is to avoid the pitfall of applying to new realities the old formulae of ideological and distorted solutions.

There is a third dimension of academic assistance where academic expertise comes to the aid of policy decisions. It was analyzed in Hans Morgenthau's famous article, Truth and Power, published in 1966. Discussing the various modalities of relation between the intellectual community and the political establishment, whose value systems are divergent, he stresses that intellectuals always have the option of responding to the political world in the form of prophetic confrontation: "He [the intellectual] looks at the political sphere from without, judging it by, and admonishing it in the name of, the standards of truth accessible to him. He speaks, in the biblical phrase, truth to power. He tells power what it can do and what it ought to do, what is feasible and is required."

This, perhaps is the noblest and most indispensable contribution of the academic world to the conduct of foreign relations. There comes to mind the example of Raul Prebish and his pioneering and highly heterodox work on international trade, which laid the intellectual foundations for launching the notion of a "new economic order". The demise of real socialism in the Soviet Union sharply eroded contemporary proposals and demands for some form of utopian vision. Previously, socialists held a monopoly on utopia, on radical ideas about justice. In the classical theories, the transformation of reality depended on an act of will undertaken by the proletariat as a class (Marx's version) or by an elitist party (Lenin's version). Western liberalism has never had a truly utopian dimension because it lacks the idea of a "superior entity which would command transformation". The process of change in the market or in democracies is more diffuse as it depends on impersonal processes, not will-power.

This explains, at least in part, the present lack of global utopian perspectives in a world dominated by liberal ideas. Nevertheless, the realities of our world, so marred by social inequities and so flawed by conflicts, clearly call out for reform. How are we to explore the possibilities for change, how are we to create models and open new paths for renewal, if not out of self-interest or at the very least for ethical reasons?

Indeed, one of the major challenges for the new millennium is to find ways to overcome the lack of consistent and viable alternatives on the path to a more just international order. Of course, some progress has been achieved over the last years, especially in the field of human rights, to give but one example. Furthermore, the global conferences sponsored by the United Nations have become a cornerstone for new patterns of legitimacy in the international arena. Although controversial at times, NGOs have undeniably taken on a highly relevant role in shaping a new utopian perspective for the world. There are thus numerous actors and elements in a position to offer a new vision of the future, and it is essential that intellectuals persevere in putting forward, ever more so, creative and constructive propositions for ways and means to bring about change. Such proposals are needed--badly needed--if we are to generate the motivation for change, if we are to challenge the prevalent dogmas and self-satisfied mind-set s of those who believe change to be either impossible or unnecessary. From this viewpoint, international relations theory remains very much a vital, if unfinished, business.

Ambassador Gelson Fonseca Permanent Representative of Brazil to the United Nations