Wider political imperatives

A. Bilateral relations; B. Relations with the European Union and Germany

Academic partnerships build bridges, even in challenging political constellations. In many cases, channels of cooperation such as these, which look back on many years of sustainable and ongoing bilateral history, exist in spite of political adversity. Israeli-German academic collaborations are an outstanding example of this. ‘After war, forced displacement and genocide, science has prepared a way for trust and friendship between Germany and Israel: a priceless achievement. Years before official diplomatic relations were commenced, scientists forged the first bonds during the Fifties. It was out of this that a tight-knit network of German-Israeli research relationships emerged.’ (Prof Dr Helmut Schwarz, writing in the GATE-Germany Israel country profile, 2015:07⁵) Yet there are also other constellations – North Korea, for example – where academic exchange can strengthen a regime, no matter how much the exchange may be constituted in its intention through professional and personal contact.

C. Sanctions and embargoes; D. Arms control and non-proliferation

Subcriteria (C) and (D) place academic cooperation within European and national legal frameworks and therefore form a critical point of reference for an institution’s foreign academic policy position. Further, the wider political imperatives for a cooperation project can be analysed and assessed through critical reflection on perspectives on research ethics and academic responsibility.

One point worth stressing is that, in challenging contexts where political developments have led to tense diplomatic relations, engagement through foreign academic policy can build a bridge for long-lasting bilateral or multilateral exchange. Nevertheless, in some cases it may be necessary to make informed and equally sober readjustments to academic partnerships and professional exchanges.

Where foreign academic policy makes a clear distinction between political level-headedness and political imperatives, it can form the foundation for long-term sustainable strategies that can break apart what Münkler describes as the ‘petty-mindedness, short-termism and emotionality’ of anti-liberal regimes (Münkler 2020:12).⁶ Policies such as these bring the wider perspectives, long-term goals and rational political processes back to the fore. With regard to effective EU internal policy and European diplomacy, Maull calls for a political approach that ‘leaves space for mutual empathy, a readiness to compromise and consideration for the interests of others[.] […] Nevertheless, in the face of uncertainty and unpredictability, bold political decisions are still  sometimes required. It cannot be expected that these decisions will only ever yield benefits: collaborative action also means that costs will be incurred that must be shared and risks will arise that must be borne together.’ (Maull 2018: 60)⁷

Bibliography

⁵ Schwarz, 2015, interview. Source: https://www.gate-germany.de/fileadmin/dokumente/Publikationen/Laenderprofile/GATE-Germany-Laenderprofil-Israel.pdf (last accessed: 19 November 2020)
⁶ Ausführungen in Anlehnung an Herfried Münkler. Münkler, Herfried (2020): Neuzeit der mächtigen Männer. Die Weltenlenker. In: .loyal Das Magazin für Sicherheitspolitik, 3, 2020.
⁷ Maull, Hans W.: Autismus in der Außenpolitik, In: Stanzel, Volker (ed.): Die neue Wirklichkeit der Außenpolitik: Diplomatie im 21. Jahrhundert. SWP-Studie 23, November 2018; pp. 55-62.
⁸ Extract from https://www.leopoldina.org/en/about-us/cooperations/joint-committee-dual-use/. (Last accessed: 9 November 2020)