Collaboration vs sanctions
President’s blog 13 November, 2023. We find ourselves in difficult times of war and conflict, worse than in a very long time. It also means major challenges for us as a university. A new concept of responsible internationalization had just been launched, among other things, through The Association of Swedish Higher Education Institutions’ (SUHF) geopolitical council, before the demands from various quarters now only increase to limit international collaborations. The academy is by its very nature international. Universities have, since their creation in the Middle Ages, been hubs for international exchange. Freedom of research is fundamental. Today, however, geopolitical considerations force us to limit the total openness that has long been our guiding light. “As open as possible, as closed as necessary” is the formula for the exchange of research data, and it has increasingly become more generally applied to academic exchanges. But the universities are also increasingly subject to pressure from various groups to impose sanctions of various kinds and to suspend collaborations with universities in countries whose regimes are considered unpleasant. Over the years, I have received a number of such requests, to take a stand and make statements against one or the other. As President, however, my view is clear: Stockholm University should not comment on anything other than things that belong to the academy. Collaborations between researchers often work well, regardless of the country in which they operate, and that in itself is a strong political force, which can also influence those in power. In today’s debate, however, the interrupted collaborations with Russian universities are often invoked in support of sanctions also against other countries. These interrupted collaborations had two specific reasons. Partly, the government wanted all government authorities’ cooperation with Russia to be suspended as a result of the large-scale invasion of a peaceful and democratic neighboring country. Partly, and above all, it also became unsustainable from a merely academic perspective to maintain collaborations with higher education institutions whose presidents signed a petition in support of Putin’s war of aggression. They thereby excluded themselves from all collaborations based on respect for the academy’s core values. By a unique measure, even the Magna Charta Universitatum excluded all Russian universities that had signed the agreement. My strong hope is that this measure will remain unique. It is popular these days to say “We have been naive”. To the extent that it is naive to continue to believe in the value of research as a free and common global arena and in “science diplomacy”, i.e. that universities and higher education institutions through their global collaborations constitute an important force for bridging contradictions and promoting peace, cooperation and understanding, I am proud of my naivety. Astrid Söderbergh Widding President Read more from the President’s blog
