Defining international education in a new geopolitical era

This is an era of new geopolitics. In this era, we find ourselves in a world that is increasingly multilateral, polylateral and de-Westernised – defined by the preponderance of Western powers and the transition of power from West to East. Some describe it as the emergence of a new Cold War, a period of new ‘great game’ competition between major powers such as Russia, but also increasingly China.

In particular, China’s growing assertiveness and geopolitical ambitions have increased bipolarity between China and the United States and generated a new geopolitical rivalry with the West. So how does this affect international education – which encompasses exchanges, research partnerships, study abroad programmes, virtual exchanges, foreign campuses, degree-seeking international students and more – as a tool of government foreign policy?

By comparing the US and Canada, two Western countries experiencing shifting discourses on international education as a result of political discord with China and which share certain baseline similarities as well as growing ideological differences, we can provide a deeper contextual analysis of how different governments engage in international education in the context of the new geopolitics.

Research methodology

Both the US and Canada are liberal democracies that share commonalities in educational governance. Neither country has a federal ministry of education, leaving organisation and most budgeting to the state or territorial level. The US has a department of education but with limited powers.

Both countries initiated international education programmes in the post-World War II era as components of their foreign policy priorities. While the US still retains the largest global market share of international students, Canada is considered an increasingly popular destination.

The comparison of the two cases was based on a thorough literature review, including journal articles, newsletters and institutional and organisational public websites that reflected scholarly/academic, policy and practitioner resources on international education in both countries.

In addition, targeted semi-structured interviews were conducted to verify analysis and understand the issues from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Eighteen interviews were conducted with scholars in the public diplomacy field, among international education policy-makers and advocates in government and non-government organisations, and journalists focused on international education coverage in both countries. Interview data has been selectively incorporated to substantiate findings and analysis.

Evolution of relations with China

When it comes to the relationship of the United States with China, the history is one of growing links in the early part of the 21st century and a deep and multifaceted engagement, with China increasingly investing as a full partner on US soil.

China remains the number one source of international students in the United States; the United States hosts the largest number of Chinese students studying outside of China, but the ‘Trump effect’ has been extremely powerful in reversing the earlier trend of international student flows to the US and significantly decreasing its attractiveness as a destination of study and stay.

When it comes to Canada, international education has increasingly become the federal government’s instrument to meet domestic labour market needs and enhance its educational trade portfolio.

It is estimated that Chinese students alone spend close to CA$2.7 billion (US$2 billion) a year in Canada, contributing to nearly 18,000 jobs and generating CA$97 million (US$75 million) in government revenue. Educational services are now Canada’s largest export to China. However, similar to the US, the euphoria of Canada-China academic initiatives has started waning.

Similar approaches

There are several similarities in how both the US and Canada have dramatically shifted their perspective on China, although the pulse is felt more strongly and expressed more vocally in the US. Both countries initially wooed China – Canada first, ahead of the US – and for both countries, educational diplomacy and exchanges were central to the new relationship, although specific academic initiatives differed.

The number and presence of Chinese students and scholars and extent of collaborations run fairly deep in both countries. In the US, Chinese students are the largest number of international students by far, and in Canada, they are now second place to students from India.

Scientific collaboration has been foundational to the US-China academic relationship. While the scope and size of research relationships between the US and China are much larger, Canada-China research relationships are fairly significant. Reports suggest the Chinese government now supports twice as many Canadian scholars than there are Chinese scholars supported by the Canadian government.

Over time, both countries experienced a shift, with China increasingly investing at par or at times more than the US or Canada and also on US or Canadian soil. Thus both the US and Canada have witnessed growth in China’s soft power in international education. Canada, more specifically, has benefitted from China’s financial investments in international education, shifting its role from funder to recipient.

In both countries, perceptions of China, from ally to adversary, pivoted over a fairly short period. China came to be identified as a clear threat to each nation’s security and prosperity, and academic institutions, specifically research universities, were identified as vulnerable to Chinese espionage and theft. Chinese students and scholars, who were initially invited with open arms, were now viewed with caution and suspicion.

Research collaborations with China were suspect and so was the Chinese government’s reach within each nation’s institutions. Interestingly, in both countries, their respective governments viewed universities as naïve actors, unaware of the risks they caused through their open and welcoming scientific cultures.

In both countries, national security agencies began directly engaging with the academic community. This was done and talked about more openly in the US than in Canada, where meetings were mostly ‘closed-door’.

With growing scepticism, Chinese-funded programmes such as the Confucius Institutes were distrusted and often accused of political interference and as a result both countries witnessed a closing down of these institutes.

In the US this was more directly manoeuvred through government policy, while in the Canadian case, it was largely a result of controversy within local communities or institutions. What is clear is that there is a growing distrust of China in both countries.

In the US, former president Donald Trump’s inflammatory language and aggressive policy gestures against China and Chinese students and scholars could be considered fuel to anti-Asian sentiment. There was no such public endorsement in Canada, the exceptions being individual Conservative Party candidates.

Either way, both countries find themselves facing several dilemmas in balancing the interests of universities to be open and welcoming of international students and research investments and those of national security objectives.

A neoliberal logic operational in both countries has resulted in a high reliance on international tuition revenue to meet institutional base budget requirements, given lowered funding investments in higher education by the respective state governments.

Additionally, the US, and perhaps more so Canada, is reliant on international research funding and global collaborations as a marker of international competitiveness or ranking. China has been a significant contributor of individual fee-paying students who in the long run contribute to the talent pool of the US and Canada.

China has also been a contributor by way of institutional support in the form of research funding and other international education collaborations in both countries. Thus, moving forward, shifting relationships with China create highly problematic contexts for the higher education sector in both countries.

Different approaches

However, while there are several similarities, there are also distinct differences between the two countries, emanating largely from their specific international education contexts. They include differences over the links between international education and national security.

For the US, especially in contrast to Canada, national security as a rationale for international education has prevailed. Starting with the Cold War, the post-Cold War period and then post-9/11, at each phase, the national security narrative has led to targeted investments in international education.

In spite of occasional ebbs and flow of investments in international education, a path dependency was created. However, it is this path dependency that has been disrupted as a result of the new geopolitics.

Now, in the context of China, international education is perceived as a risk, not a strategy to secure national security, rationalising the heavier securitisation of international education.

This has direct implications for university-government relations. Governments are increasingly seen as having legitimate authority over university regulation, with universities having to comply on matters of securing national interest, disrupting accepted principles of institutional autonomy.

National security has never been a rationale for international education within the Canadian context. International education has thus far been seen as purely an economic rather than a political or security tool. In Canada, international education became an activity formally linked to trade, with trade defining Canadian foreign policy to a large extent.

Canada’s international education strategy speaks of international education as synonymous with the recruitment and retention of international students. However, for the first time in Canada’s international education policy discourses, national security is mentioned. This change can be largely attributed to Canada’s shifting relations with China.

The very same concerns as in the US around increased regulation of research collaborations have taken hold in the Canadian context. Yet, to date, the Canadian government has taken a far more cautious and less aggressive approach in establishing international education as a risk to national security.

Changing geopolitics

The context of new geopolitics suggests that given China’s fast-rising status as a global superpower and leader in the world’s scientific research production, China is in a unique position to challenge a global system that has long been dominated by the West.

This perceived threat has caused, according to an interviewee, a sense of “...panic. Some of it is a kind of a policy panic about the US being challenged. And a desire for something to be seen to be done. So, policies are enacted quite swiftly to deal with a threat from the Middle East or a threat from China rather than thinking about the long-term implications of a geopolitical [shift].”

So, the question becomes, in a context of shifting geopolitics, how should the US perceive its international education relations with China? Should it isolate or engage with China when it comes to academic collaborations? Will path dependency prevail?

It is important to remember that the origins of international education at the US nation-state level are directly linked to the Cold War period when, rather than disengage, the US and Russia began bi-national exchanges. The Fulbright Program was a Cold War strategic effort to learn about both states that were friend and foe.

As global competition intensifies, scholars suggest that limiting international ties and curbing knowledge production with China or any other adversarial state will not benefit any nation state. They argue that national isolationism is not the answer and internationalisation remains necessary, especially between the two global superpowers, and that the US has much more to gain than lose in collaborating with China.

The key seems to be: is the US open and willing to engage with China, and if so, differently than in the past?

As stated poignantly by an interviewee: “I think what is happening with China is something that is going to get progressively worse because of China’s rise. China becomes an ever more significant or is likely to become an ever more significant player in world affairs. And the kind of China that was happy to learn and didn’t demand equivalent respect, well that was a convenient and easy place to work with. But now, we are moving beyond that ... China is looking for an exchange between equals.”

Unlike the US, Canada is not a superpower and as such has always pursued a more practical approach in accepting global geopolitical power shifts.

From being a funder of China’s educational initiatives, Canada fairly comfortably shifted to being a recipient of Chinese research and partnership funding. In fact, Canada speaks of adopting a 4Cs approach (coexist, compete, co-operate and challenge) in how it deals with China as a maligned force.

Rather than flexing its muscle too aggressively, or blindly mirroring the policies of its Western allies, Canada as a nation reliant on international trade is taking a more cautious approach. Perhaps, this is why Canada is more willing to accept multipolarity in the global order.

As an interviewee stated: “China is emerging as a leading investor, leading knowledge producer, leading innovator, leading on infrastructure ... for countries like us, the question is: can we afford not to be engaged?”

As well, having benefited from Brexit and Trumpism, key geopolitical shifts that brought in a wave of growing nationalism, populism and anti-globalist and anti-immigrant sentiments across much of the world, Canada is invested in maintaining the global perception of it as being open and welcoming to students and immigrants.

But there are fears that given its close relationship with and proximity to the US, Canada will be under pressure to conform and regulate international education, restricting student flow and international research collaborations.

As confirmed by an interviewee: “It will be very easy for Canada just to roll over and follow the American lead. And to date I have been encouraged that there is more robust conversation and there has been some pushback. But there are tendencies. We are allies of the United States. Our defence depends on the United States. Our security depends on the United States. And so, at the same time over the decades, we played a useful role for the United States, being able to do things that they themselves can’t do.”

Institutional autonomy

In both Canada and the US, universities are founded on principles of institutional autonomy and academic freedom. International education has benefitted from the nature of this relationship. Openness, academic freedom and intellectual curiosity have fostered international collaborations and ultimately national innovation and scientific advancement.

International education is well respected and valued precisely because it is engaged with and by higher education institutions that maintain an arm’s length relationship with the government.

In other words, international education as a model of partnership between a state (which sets policy and funding) and a non-state actor (higher education institutions that implement and execute international education programmes) works. It builds respect and trust among national and international communities, an excellent example being the US government’s Fulbright Program, which has won respect the world over for these precise reasons.

There is a direct/indirect link between government policy and institutions, and international education is an outcome of this link. Yet, current discourses on national security in relation to China are raising chilling concerns about the overreach of governments in relation to institutional autonomy.

In the US there are several examples of government regulation of university research linkages and collaborations; there has been the China Initiative and there is the China competition bill. In Canada, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has regular meetings with university representatives and has issued guidelines for universities to protect themselves against international collaborations that could prove to be national security risks.

This is clearly an encroachment of the government on matters under institutional jurisdiction.

Research suggests that the rise in populism along with protectionist ideologies often challenges both the roles and functions of universities and international education, and this growing distrust enables governments to increase regulation and push towards setting the rules of international academic engagement.

The key difference is that while in the US the government has more directly intervened and regulated funding and collaborations with China, the Canadian government to date has not.

This may be in keeping with past practices, where issues of academic freedom, institutional autonomy and constitutional jurisdictional authority have often restrained the Canadian federal government from overstepping its boundaries. However, current pressures to align its policies with its allies – Australia, the United Kingdom and the US – are very real.

A transition of power

Diplomatic, economic and national security interests collide and impact university-government relations. Universities increasingly lobby the government. Their interests lie in keeping borders open and enhancing their ability to partake in international scientific collaborations.

The government/s recognise the tensions in balancing different priorities given international education’s benefits to each country’s domestic economy. However, increasingly, the national security narrative is pivoting governments towards increased scrutiny and regulation of university international relations, challenging the very foundational principles of institutional autonomy and academic freedom.

Further, in this very era of new geopolitics, some nations are witnessing growing neo-nationalist movements and protectionist sentiments, creating a combination of anti-immigrant, nativist, anti-science, anti-globalist perspectives at a time when there are escalating resource dependencies among nations and the importance of universities as knowledge producers and drivers of economic growth and productivity has increased.

If, as some scholars suggest, the US as a hegemonic power is being challenged and there is in fact a transition of power from West to East, how are the US and Canada going to relate to this new geopolitical context? What will be the role and function of international education in this new context?

Perhaps it is ironic and counterproductive for governments to increasingly speak of regulating the scope of international education at a time when they need to rethink and reimagine their engagement with new geopolitical powers in the context of evolving international relations.

International education as a tool of foreign policy is powerful and effective if investments are made with long-term objectives in mind, built on principles of mutual academic benefit and enable universities to operate under principles of institutional autonomy. Unfortunately, there has been insufficient debate and discussion on the implications and impacts on international education as a result of new geopolitics. This is an oversight.

As the US and Canada demonstrate, each country’s engagement with international education has been highly dependent on their historical rationales for international education, their respective geopolitical positioning and their governance of university-government relations.

Moving forward, however, there is an urgent need for thoughtful engagement between government and university communities on (re)defining international education in an era of new geopolitics.

Roopa Desai Trilokekar is associate professor of education, faculty of education, York University, Canada. This is a highly edited version of the paper, “International Education in a World of New Geopolitics: A comparative study of US and Canada”, recently published by the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley, United States.