In this new era, we need a new internationalisation compact

At a moment when global higher education is being fundamentally reshaped by geopolitical rifts, technological disruption and shifting student flows, it has become clear that internationalisation of higher education is entering a new phase: less defined by expansion and more by governance, risk calibration and civic responsibility.

Scholars, policymakers and institutional leaders gathered at Tsinghua University in China last weekend for the Tsinghua Education Salon on the internationalisation of higher education to explore the implications of these changes and to develop more inclusive, strategic and resilient approaches to global engagement.

The backdrop to the conference was sharpened by the announcement of the United States federal government that it had revoked Harvard’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Programme (SEVP) and stripped the university of its authority to sponsor F- and J-visas for international students and scholars for the 2025 to 2026 academic year.

The announcement triggered concern among Chinese educators and international officers, including Tsinghua staff who spent hours checking on their students visiting and studying at Harvard. This single act underscored how geopolitical distrust now directly affects academic lives and partnerships.

Demographic trends

International student flows remain robust but are more unevenly distributed. Jinlian Zheng of the Center for China and Globalization in China presented data showing that international enrolment has surpassed 6.8 million globally, with middle-income countries such as India and China supplying the majority of outbound students.

These demographic trends reflect both the democratisation of overseas education and the heightened role of education in upward social mobility. However, host countries are now enacting targeted controls.

Christopher Ziguras from the Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne, Australia, revealed how Australia and Canada, previously liberal international education markets, have shifted to experimental governance models.

These include fee levies, enrolment caps by institution and programme and cohort-based controls that attempt to better distribute international students across geographies and sectors.

Housing provision, strategic partner preferences, and even regional development objectives are now influencing admissions policies. The goal, he argues, is no longer just economic return but managing population growth, ensuring housing availability and supporting social cohesion.

This shift from open systems to “managed trade” is profoundly altering the dynamics of international higher education, particularly for students from low- and middle-income nations whose mobility aspirations are now increasingly shaped by political calculus rather than personal choice.

Governments are balancing diplomatic relations, labour market needs and public opinion, creating a more volatile and unpredictable environment for universities.

The United States in particular is seeing growing visa restrictions and institutional mistrust. Several speakers described this as part of a “chilling effect” discouraging Chinese students from applying or continuing their studies at US institutions.

Other speakers emphasised the enduring role of academic diplomacy and people-to-people exchanges in an era of geopolitical turbulence.

Hongxia Wei, chief senior fellow of the Academy of Contemporary China and World Studies (ACCWS), argued for the proactive safeguarding of US-China educational ties through diversified pathways and innovation in bilateral cooperation.

Similarly, Qian Xiao from the Office of International Affairs at Tsinghua University presented Tsinghua’s evolving strategies to sustain global engagement, emphasising cross-regional alliances and interdisciplinary capacity-building.

Jin Liu of the School of Education at Beijing Institute of Technology contributed a complementary perspective by tracing the shifting global mobility patterns of Chinese diaspora scholars, highlighting how national talent strategies and diasporic networks are increasingly intertwined with institutional internationalisation agendas.

‘Space-making’ in research collaborations

Wen Wen of the School of Education at Tsinghua University introduced a powerful theoretical lens: international collaboration in higher education as ‘space-making’ under geopolitical constraints.

Her framework shows how China is repositioning its international research ties from a liberal, West-centric model toward multi-polar, state-aligned strategies. Rather than retreating, China is making new spaces – collaborating with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the African Union, and Belt and Road countries through state-organised platforms and big science initiatives.

This is not a withdrawal from global science, but a strategic recalibration. Wen’s argument – building on Henri Lefebvre and Simon Marginson’s work – positions space-making as an active reconfiguration of material, symbolic and institutional terrain.

Rankings, branch campuses, international research centres and MOOCs become instruments in an evolving geopolitical geography of knowledge. China’s efforts to construct academic alliances with the Global South are part of a long-term plan to rebalance global scientific influence.

Transnational education

The session on transnational higher education, led by Kun Dai from the Chinese University of Hong Kong and others, drew attention to the rapid growth of joint programmes, intra-country campuses and dual-degree arrangements.

Dai mapped the contours of transnational higher education across China, emphasising the diversity of student motivations – from lowering cost barriers to enhancing global employability – and the uneven quality of experiences.

Case studies highlighted both the opportunities for intercultural learning and the difficulties of adaptation, including language barriers and institutional misalignment.

Futao Huang from Hiroshima University focused on the success and failure of global university expansions.

Case studies such as Temple University Japan, Nottingham Malaysia and the now-closed Yale-NUS College illustrate that success is determined not just by enrolments or finances, but by three interrelated dimensions: institutional alignment, cultural congruence and policy-operational flexibility. These factors affect long-term viability and stakeholder legitimacy.

This was echoed by Chen Huirong of the Research Centre for Higher Education at Northwestern Polytechnical University, who conducted a study applying principal-agent theory to show how overlapping authority across multiple national systems introduces governance risks in international branch campuses.

The research shows that unclear mandates, conflicting accountability structures and regulatory asymmetries can lead to strategic drift and operational failure.

One exemplary case is Xiamen University Malaysia (XMUM), presented by Ying Zhang, the vice-president of Xiamen University Malaysia, which was highlighted as a flagship of sustainable Chinese internationalisation.

With government support from both China and Malaysia, XMUM has cultivated strong regional integration, high research output and effective talent pipelines aligned with the Belt and Road vision.

Its success demonstrates how cultural reciprocity and institutional adaptability can be harmonised. Ying Zhang also emphasised the role of institutional support and regional partnerships in ensuring long-term sustainability.

Joint venture universities

Denis Simon, former executive vice-chancellor of Duke Kunshan University, offered one of the most sobering analyses of the conference. Drawing on the experience of joint venture universities such as DKU, he argued that these institutions now operate under increasing legal and political uncertainty.

Simon noted that the expansion of national security laws, ideological scrutiny and US bipartisan scepticism about China have created a chilling effect. Several past joint venture efforts (for instance, Georgia Tech-Tianjin and the University of Michigan-Shanghai Jiao Tong University Joint Institute) have faltered or closed, while current ventures are experiencing growing “dual accountability” dilemmas.

Faculty self-censorship, student disengagement around sensitive topics and compliance with contradictory regulatory regimes are becoming common.

He also pointed to the growing pressure on US universities to reevaluate their foreign partnerships. Congressional scrutiny, concerns over data privacy and media coverage have created a climate of suspicion. These tensions place joint venture administrators and faculty in difficult positions, often forcing them to navigate incompatible regulatory and cultural expectations.

Simon suggested that future joint venture models must include clearer red lines and “road maps” to indicate acceptable research domains and governance practices. Areas such as AI and quantum computing may remain off-limits, but there is still room for collaboration in climate change, health science and social research.

Despite these challenges, Simon remains a cautious optimist. He emphasised that joint ventures still play a critical role in building trust between societies, developing cross-border talent and offering alternatives to zero-sum narratives.

The question he posed is not whether joint ventures should continue, but how they can evolve to survive in a climate of declining trust and intensifying rivalry. New models of governance, shared values and clearer legal frameworks are urgently needed.

These discussions underscore not only the institutional and geopolitical complexity of internationalisation but also the urgent need to articulate a principled vision for its future trajectory.

A new compact

The Tsinghua conference demonstrated that the internationalisation of higher education is undergoing a fundamental transformation. It must now be strategic, aligning closely with national priorities while embracing global responsibilities; inclusive, extending opportunities to under-represented regions and institutions; and governance-focused, with resilient, transparent mechanisms for regulation and accountability.

Crucially, it must also be ethically grounded and purpose-driven, rejecting commercial excess and contributing to a more just and sustainable world.

In this context, institutions must avoid overdependence on any single geopolitical bloc and instead foster diversified and mutually respectful collaborations that reflect shared global challenges.

Internationalisation today is no longer merely about crossing borders. It is about why and how we cross them. The future lies not in numbers but in values, not in reach but in relevance. What is needed is a renewed compact – one that recognises the power of higher education not only to connect the world but to help transform and heal it.

Futao Huang is a professor at the Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University, Japan. Wen Wen is vice dean and professor at the School of Education, Tsinghua University. China. Qian Xiao is dean of the Office of International Affairs, Tsinghua University, China.

The Tsinghua Education Salon was held on 24 May 2025 and organised by the School of Education and the Office of International Affairs at Tsinghua University. Its theme was “Internationalisation of Higher Education: Towards a new landscape”.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.