Navigating a World in Flux: The DAAD at 100 and the Future of International Academic Exchange
The German Academic exchange Service (DAAD) celebrated its centenary in 2025, a year marked by notable challenges to international academic exchange. According to Mr. Mukherjee, these challenges stem from essential geopolitical shifts, making collaboration with many regions more challenging, yet concurrently highlighting the DAAD’s mission as more vital than ever. As Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier stated, “If the DAAD didn’t exist today, it would have to be invented now.”
One of the biggest hurdles lies in navigating relationships with authoritarian states like China, which hold increasing scientific importance. while cooperation is frequently enough necessary, differing values regarding freedom and the rule of law necessitate a careful approach to “de-risking.” New tensions within the conventional West, particularly with the USA, are also reshaping the landscape, with scientists and international talent seeking alternatives, placing Europe – and Germany – in a more prominent position. moreover, advancement cooperation with the Global south, particularly Africa, faces considerable political and financial pressure despite the impossibility of isolation.
The DAAD’s longstanding motto, “Change through exchange,” remains relevant despite growing demands from politicians and parliaments for demonstrable impact and concrete results. A review of the DAAD’s history confirms the success of its core mission: building personal connections to Germany through individual funding and fostering a global network of supporters. In the face of existential challenges like climate change, this mission becomes even more critical. “Change through exchange” now signifies that global challenges require global collaboration and international cooperation. While acknowledging the current emphasis on “deals” and impact,Mukherjee stresses the importance of understanding impact in its broader social significance,not simply narrowing it to quantifiable metrics.
International politics, increasingly characterized by a struggle for influence, poses a threat to this collaborative spirit. Mukherjee argues that a purely nationalistic “our country first” approach is unsustainable. While Germany should confidently pursue its national interests – exemplified by programs like “1,000 Heads Plus” and the DAAD skilled workers initiative – a system where everyone prioritizes only their own advantage cannot endure, especially in science. He believes that either insight or harsh experience will force a shift towards collaboration.
The “hard way,” according to Mukherjee,involves ignoring existential threats like climate change and species extinction,ultimately undermining our own existence. these planetary challenges demand collaboration and a balancing of interests, not isolation and competition. Failure to recognize this, based on evidence and scientific understanding, could lead to self-destruction.
Despite the current prevalence of nationalistic sentiment, the DAAD is adapting.While the fundamental principles remain constant,the organization is focusing more on strategic partnerships and actively promoting Germany’s strengths in research and education. the DAAD is also prioritizing clear communication about the benefits of international exchange, emphasizing its contribution to solving global challenges and fostering a more interconnected and lasting future.
Navigating the Shifting Global Landscape: China,Research Security,and European Strategy
The world is undergoing a significant shift,demanding a clear-eyed assessment of geopolitical realities and a proactive approach to safeguarding our interests. This requires a firm stand – internally and externally. This takes courage. In other countries, we can see vrey clearly how much political changes can be controlled through money. This requires neither constitutional nor legal changes. Monetary control is often enough to change a lot in a cold way.
Or anticipatory obedience in science?
I also mean this anticipatory obedience that one can sometimes observe. We may need to say clearly if we believe a course is fundamentally wrong. Of course, we cannot decide on our own budget. But we must not lose our voice.
You mentioned China, you mentioned the USA. There are warning voices that say: In all discussions about Trump’s America, we are distracted by the much greater threat to our security. And it comes from China.
China has been a communist people’s republic since 1949. Sometimes I get the impression that some people think that this system only came into being ten years ago. China has always been a systemic rival and has always had different political and constitutional standards. That’s why I don’t really understand some of the sudden excitement in recent years. In other countries such as India, it has long been known that China is pursuing its own long-term “grand strategy” very ambitiously.
“China is not rising – China is returning.”
that we Europeans haven’t understood for too long?
The mistake in many Western debates is to talk about “rise” or “relegation” in the context of China. China is not rising – China is returning. From the Chinese outlook, the country is returning to a dominant position that it held for centuries and which was only lost due to an interruption of around 200 years. This strategy is designed accordingly for the long term – returning to this role over several stages. That’s why we shouldn’t convince ourselves in this country that China has suddenly changed fundamentally or that German politics, business, and science have been naive for decades. China has repeatedly calibrated its behavior strategically and tactically depending on its own strengths or weaknesses. And we have acted accordingly and now have to adapt too – ideally with our own “grand strategy” for Germany and Europe.
Last Thursday,the BMFTR,the science ministries of the federal states,and the Alliance of Science organizations,which also includes the DAAD,agreed on “Key points for strengthening research security and establishing a national platform for research security” agreed. A piece of the puzzle?
More than that. Research security needs to be thought about differently today than it was 20 or 30 years ago. At that time, the West, including Europe, was in a clear leadership position compared to china in almost all research fields. Today, china is the leader in some areas; we can no longer set the rules on our own. This makes cooperation more demanding, but not obsolete. I understand that no one in the alliance is calling for isolation from China. In contrast: We must find ways to continue working together while protecting national and european security interests – data, knowledge, infrastructure. Reciprocity is crucial. It cannot be the case that rules only apply to one side.
The former Federal Research Minister Bettina Stark-Watzinger had suggested a clearing house instead of a platform.But the scientific organizations buried the idea after the election. Didn’t anyone want to be taught by politics?
I wouldn’t put it in such a confrontational way. For us as the DAAD, another point was central: There are clear legal regulations, such as, on export controls. In the pre-legalized area, academic freedom applies.Universities and research institutions must be able to make autonomous decisions – based on good information and advice.For some, the term “clearing house” carried the risk of misunderstanding that international cooperation could be subject to a kind of prior review or approval requirement. That would have been problematic. our discussions have…