Higher education: a key aspect of the EU-LAC cooperation

INTERNATIONALIZATION

“What do we want?” “Pizza and a beach body! More EU-LAC cooperation in Higher Education”!

Once upon a time, Higher Education cooperation was not needed. Erasmus was never created in Europe. Between 1987 and 2014, 3,770.000 individuals – the population of Panama – did not benefit from Erasmus. In 1987, 3,244 students from eleven countries did not embark on an international adventure, while 329,000 people – the combined populations of Barbados and Saint Kitts and Nevis – from 34 countries did not carry-out a mobility in 2013-2014. The number of beneficiaries was hence not multiplied by 100 over 27 years, and the threshold of 20% of all graduates from the European Higher Education Area having spent a period of time abroad by 2020 was never a goal. Can you imagine such a story? Luckily, all of this actually happened. Although these facts could be questions for a Friday night trivia at your designated Erasmus bar, they also show how important and attractive international mobility is in Europe.

LAC-wide, the Regional Academic Mobility for Accredited Courses at MERCOSUR-level, the Exchange and Academic Mobility Program of the Organization of Ibero-American States (68 institutions from 19 countries involved in 2016-2017), and the Pacific Alliance scholarships program (about 400 yearly) exist; however, the multiplication of LAC-integration systems attempts and the lack of higher education concerted policies between LAC-countries are clear obstacles to a truly ambitious international cooperation, while more and more young people enroll at universities and demand international possibilities.

Erasmus+, through Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMD), International Credit Mobility, Strategic Partnerships, Knowledge Alliances, Capacity Building and Jean Monnet actions, is open to LAC-countries. Nevertheless, they do not take full advantage of it: although 72 LAC-institutions (out of 242 Partner Countries institutions) are involved in at least one of the 38 selected projects of the 2016-2017 EMJMD call for proposals, the participation imbalance among LAC-countries is striking: 34% are Brazilian institutions, four countries (Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Ecuador) are home to 75% of participating LAC-institutions, only 11 LAC-countries out of 33 are represented, and none is Caribbean. Regarding Jean Monnet, none of the 198 2016-2017 selected projects involve LAC-institutions, which demonstrates a total lack of interest for and understanding of the EU. Even the Spice Girls, who sang “if you wanna be my lover, you gotta get with my friends”, originally wanted to say “if you wanna be international, you gotta get with some partners”. True story. While the word “internationalization” seems trendy in LAC and the EU and the CELAC are talking about a Euro-Latin-American Area for Higher Education, Science, Technology and Innovation, this situation is worrying, all the more so as Mexico, Brazil and the CELAC are EU-Strategic Partners. If they are indeed committed to this Area and to the EU-CELAC Academic Summits, the Brussels Declaration and the Action Plan 2015-2017, the EU-LAC cooperation must be reoriented.

Nonetheless, fear not, dear reader, for successful examples of EU-LAC cooperation exist: the Erasmus Mundus Action 2 project “Academic Mobility for Inclusive Development in Latin America” (AMIDILA), implemented between 2013 and early 2017, has been one of the most unique cooperation projects in recent years. It funded 203 mobility scholarships for students, scholars and staff from eleven Latin American and nine European universities in twelve fields related to inclusive development. It served both as a mobility program and a capacity building project since most Latin American universities were not very active internationally, making inclusion a core component institutionally as well. AMIDILA perfectly illustrates the benefits of the cooperation.

The new generation wants and needs higher education to be put at the top of the cooperation agenda, so will the October EU-CELAC Summit be a momentum for academic cooperation? Will Higher Education be at the center of EU-LAC relations in the foreseeable future? Is the EU-LAC Higher Education Area a real possibility? And most importantly: does Jon Snow really know nothing? These questions require answers, and projects and actions like AMIDILA, EMJMD, Capacity Building, Jean Monnet and International Credit Mobility seem like a worthy investment. The creation of a fund financed by European and willing LAC-countries would be a proof of commitment. “Willing”, because LAC is not an integrated area, so countries or groups of countries (ALBA, CARICOM, MERCOSUR, Pacific Alliance, SICA) ready to compromise could start partaking in it, and other members could progressively be integrated: undertaking small steps at a time is the best way forward, as it is regarding the EU-integration. In that respect, the EU-LAC Foundation would have a big role to play, while the 2017 EU-CELAC Summit represents a chance to reiterate the commitment to academic cooperation and move closer towards a common Area for Higher Education, at a time when the USA are losing interest in LAC and Erasmus celebrates 30 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

¿Donald Trump, maldición o ganga para México?

photo-marcha-trumpHace poco más de un mes, Donald Trump se convirtió en el nuevo Presidente de EE.UU. Puso en marcha algunas medidas, sobre todo en cuanto a la inmigración hacía los EE.UU, y asistimos alrededor del mundo en general y en América latina y México en particular a protestas de gran amplitud. Trump ha manifestado públicamente y en repetidas ocasiones un gran desdén hacia América central y México, lo que por supuesto es intolerable. Sin embargo, no entendemos porque estos países ven esto como una nueva amenaza, pues desde la administración de Bush Padre se manifestó un menosprecio hacia la región, aunque claro no públicamente sino solamente en los hechos (la idea de la construcción de un muro a la frontera entre México y EE.UU no es nada nueva, pues ya está un muro desde hace más de dos décadas y siempre se han expulsado inmigrantes ilegales a México). Por ello, no entendemos bien porque la gente está tan amarga, pues la única diferencia realmente es que él pone palabras en sus actos y dice lo que piensa. Resulta que ser honesto ahora no es nada bueno, mejor seamos todos hipócritas.

A continuación no queremos seguir la moda y quejarnos del personaje, encontramos muy exagerada la manera de hacer de los periódicos, pues nos cansan a cada rato con artículos poco elaborados sobre lo que dice/hace Trump con el fin de descreditarlo. Tampoco vamos a hablar de su política hacia la región ALC como tal. Lo que sí vamos a debatir es el lado geopolítico desde el punto de vista de México y la oportunidad que constituye la llegada al poder del Sr. Trump para América latina en general y México en particular, pues en nuestra opinión no se trata de una maldición sino de una ganga.

Algo que me llamaba mucho la atención cuando vivía en México era el doble discurso de la gente – tanto los políticos, los economistas como la gente “común y corriente”. Se queja mucho de la proximidad, la colusión y la dependencia de México hacia los EE.UU, pero al mismo tiempo no se propone ninguna solución, como si no existiera ninguna alternativa o como si fuera solamente para quejarse. En México no se marcha por cambiar esta relación de poder a nivel doméstico, pero sí se marcha masivamente en contra de Donald Trump – que es un problema exterior a México.

Nos parece bastante interesante este asunto, pues creemos que en México no se entienden bien los conceptos de amistad y cooperación/relaciones internacionales y efectivamente lo que es importante para que el país pueda avanzar: Trump al poder en EE.UU no es muy relevante para México, o mejor dicho, lo es porque la gente quiere que lo sea y le da una importancia desproporcionada. Me explico: si los mexicanos están conscientes del desequilibrio y de la dependencia hacia los EE.UU, deberían marchar por un cambio en la política exterior de México y no por un cambio en la política exterior de los EE.UU. Lo que se necesita es una toma de consciencia y un cambio de paradigma.

Por su posición geográfica, México constituye un puente entre América latina y los EE.UU. No se trata de negar esto, aunque el país no parece estar consciente/asumir esta responsabilidad puesto que no hace nada para que las relaciones entre los EE.UU y ALC sean mejores. Su política y su economía están completamente dirigidas hacia los EE.UU, aunque no es algo recíproco. Por el otro lado, su cultura y su historia están muy entrelazadas con los países de América latina. En este sentido, se puede decir que su mente está orientada hacia los EE.UU y su corazón hacia América latina, y pues su mente le gana fácilmente a su corazón. Creemos firmemente que ya llegó la hora para que el país se decida por un cambio.

Además, pensamos que esta dependencia no-recíproca hacia los EE.UU es malsana, pues hay que mirar hacia otros horizontes. La cooperación política y económica con el resto de ALC es casi inexistente y los gobiernos sucesivos no parecen a favor de incrementarla: la Alianza del Pacífico es pura teoría, pues no existen iniciativas en su seno y hasta se paga una tasa de reciprocidad entre ciudadanos chilenos y mexicanos al ingresar por vía aérea al otro país. La creación de la Comunidad de Estados latinoamericanos y caribeños (CELAC), por su parte, constituye un gran paso hacia adelante, pero por el momento nada más es un foro de debate del cual tampoco emergen nuevas iniciativas a escala de la región ALC. México, por ser el país más dependiente de EE.UU en la región, debería presionar a los demás países para que se concrete una mayor cooperación y, diríamos nosotros, hasta debería proponer las bases para proceder a cierto nivel de integración a escala latinoamericana y caribeña.

Los EE.UU crearon el TLCAN (el NAFTA por sus siglas en inglés) con México y la OEA con ALC para tener cierto control sobre los asuntos internos de los países latinoamericanos y caribeños. No cabe duda que el TLCAN le haya hecho más daño que favor a México y que la OEA concretamente no haya servido de mucho. La cooperación en materia de lucha contra el crimen organizado y el tráfico de drogas está diseñada para servir los intereses de los EE.UU y no los de México y el balance de comercio está a favor de los EE.UU. Desde un punto de vista ajeno a la región, parece aberrante que México siga así. El futuro está con otros actores que no le van a imponer lo que quieran: en primer lugar están los países de ALC y en segundo lugar, la Unión Europea (UE). Cualquier país necesita un equilibrio, no puede estar dependiente de un solo país/región ya que luego no tiene palanca para cambiar la relación de poder, está sometido a las fuerzas que rigen su único socio y no puede decidir de su destino. Es contrario a la noción de globalización y es exactamente lo que pasa en el caso de México.

En este sentido, vemos dos herramientas en las cuales México debe apoyarse: primero, el Acuerdo Global que rige las relaciones entre México y la UE y que entró en vigor en el año 2000, y segundo la CELAC.

México es uno de los diez socios estratégicos de la UE a nivel mundial. Beneficia en este sentido de una cooperación especial con la UE que no aprovecha a su máximo, pues las relaciones están estancadas desde hace años. El Acuerdo Global entre México y la UE, que abarca muchos temas como la protección de los derechos humanos, la lucha contra la corrupción, la educación superior y la investigación científica, el medio-ambiente, etc., actualmente se encuentra en proceso de modernización para dar un nuevo impulso a esta cooperación. Recordamos que la UE es el mayor contribuidor extranjero a la cooperación al desarrollo de México mediante el financiamiento de programas y proyectos, además de ser el principal inversor extranjero en el país. También se organizan varios tipos de diálogos sectoriales (derechos humanos, etc.) y políticos de alto nivel (Comités Conjuntos, Cumbres, etc.).

Esta cooperación no es perfecta, pero la UE claramente es el socio extranjero de México que más está comprometido con la cooperación al desarrollo del país. La mayoría de esta cooperación es de un sólo sentido, viene del lado de la UE que literalmente proporciona dinero y consejos a México sin que México no tenga nada que hacer. Sin embargo, desde el 2014 la UE gradualmente ha empezado a cansarse de ver que México no está respondiendo bien a esta cooperación, pues parece que solamente quiere tomar el dinero de la UE – o sea de los contribuyentes europeos como yo – y ya. No le da nada en retorno a la UE. No queremos decir que tiene que otorgarle favores a cambio, pero por lo menos podría mostrar cierto grado de agradecimiento, lo que ni siquiera hace, pues toma y no da.

En cambio, ¿qué es lo que hacen los EE.UU para contribuir al desarrollo social, económico y político de México? ¿Otorgan financiamientos para mejorar la situación de los derechos humanos o combatir la corrupción? ¿Invierten millones y millones de dólares en el país? ¿Organizan diálogos sectoriales? ¿Financian proyectos de investigadores mexicanos de I&D? No, nada de eso. Exportan botellas de Coca Cola, papas fritas y Wal Mart ¡y aumenta la obesidad! Éste es el legado de los EE.UU en México. Entonces los EE.UU no contribuyen a nada, pero sí reciben todo el agradecimiento de México. ¿Será que los mexicanos son masoquistas? Además, estamos convencidos de que los lazos históricos, culturales y lingüísticos son mucho mayores con la UE que con los EE.UU. Esto también debe contar a la hora de elegir los socios.

Tienen que despertarse, mexicanos, porque en unos años más será demasiado tarde, la UE no querrá contribuir más al desarrollo de México ni reforzar los lazos porque habrá encontrado otros socios. Nos encontramos en un periodo clave en nuestras relaciones. Por favor, decídanse ahora antes de que sea demasiado tarde.

La cooperación con ALC tampoco se encuentra en una buena etapa, aunque es aún más importante que la con la UE. Los países de la región están frente a los mismos desafíos políticos, económicos y sociales – con ciertas diferencias y grados según los países, pero de manera general sí son similares. Si se considera que el mundo es globalizado y que las relaciones internacionales son inevitables y constituyen una respuesta a la globalización, entonces es sorprendente que la cooperación intrarregional no sea mayor.

Las exportaciones de los países ALC hacia el exterior se contrajeron de un 13% en el 2015 según informa la CEPAL, lo que significa que los socios habituales de la región como la UE pierden interés. Y aún peor, las exportaciones intrarregionales de ALC ¡se cayeron un 21%! Por ello, la integración intrarregional constituye una respuesta efectiva ya que tiene mucho potencial, debe de ser una prioridad para la región. Destaca la CEPAL que “[es necesario] que la región ponga mayor énfasis en el comercio intrarregional, en afianzar la implementación de la facilitación del comercio – para que bajen los costos del intercambio entre los países – y en la coordinación y negociación en bloque frente a los grandes jugadores comerciales internacionales”. Creemos que México, por ser uno de los países más grandes, poblados e importantes de la región, debe mostrar el camino y guiar a los países más pequeños. Eso está en el interés de todos.

No consideramos que la Alianza del Pacífico sea una buena respuesta a este problema, pues abarca solamente a cuatro países. El futuro de ALC no se encuentra en las tentativas de organizaciones subregionales como MERCOSUR, SICA, ALBA o CARICOM tampoco, sino en la CELAC, conformada por los 33 países de ALC. Las demás tentativas sólo pueden constituir pasos hacia la integración regional ya que un bloque de países, al tener una posición común, sí puede llegar a un acuerdo más amplio con otro bloque y hacer de la integración regional un éxito, pero en ningún caso constituyen una solución a largo plazo. Por el momento, confiamos que la CELAC puede convertirse a medio plazo en una alternativa a la OEA sin la tutela de los EE.UU. Hay que avanzar teniendo esta idea en mente. Mientras se concretan las organizaciones de integración subregionales, es lo a que debe apuntar la CELAC.

La UE, en este sentido, lo ha entendido desde la creación de la CELAC en el 2010 y por ello incita la cooperación en su marco al mantener diálogos de alto nivel CELAC-UE, pues es la única manera de negociar de igual a igual y restablecer el desequilibrio estructural de una cooperación/un acuerdo entre un país como México y un bloque como la UE.

Por la dignidad de México, aléjense de los EE.UU e incrementen la cooperación intrarregional con ALC e interregional con la UE. Creen puentes con el mundo y no solamente con su vecino. #RespetoMéxico.

The necessity of an academic cooperation program at Latin America and the Caribbean level: the experience of the EU-program Erasmus and of LAC integration systems

The EU-program Erasmus is a tool that allows students, researchers and teachers to carry out academic and professional exchange periods of time in Higher Education Institutions (HEI) in other European countries, the so-called programme countries (the 28 of the EU, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Norway, and Turkey), as well as in Third countries, the program partner countries (including all of the LAC countries). Launched in 1987, the name of the program Erasmus stands for European Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students. It is part of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and works by multiannual financial frameworks: we are currently in the 2014-2020 framework, following the 2007-2013 one. This program has been one of the best achievements of the EU so far, it is crucial to its development and to the understanding between the peoples, and there is no reason why it would change in the next years.

In the LAC region, academic cooperation programs exist within the framework of MERCOSUR, the Organization of Ibero-American States, and the Pacific Alliance – though with much less funds and efforts dedicated to it than in their European counterpart. Sadly, international academic mobility in some LAC countries such as Chile does not have a great reputation – although it is a requirement in our globalized world. Academic cooperation programm remain vital, and it is important to have a look at them and see how they can contribute to the understanding between nations, trade, and education overall.

This paper will be divided into three parts: first, we will see how the Erasmus program works within Europe – leaving the cooperation with Third countries aloof. We will continue with the analyzing of the academic cooperation within the framework of the integration processes in the LAC region. Finally, we will take into consideration the assets of an international academic cooperation at regional level.

 

First, let’s break the utopia: Erasmus is not only for exchange students. This is indeed the main part, but teachers and administrative staff can go abroad, and students can also carry out traineeships within its framework. For an HEI to be allowed to take part in the Erasmus program requires little effort: filling in an application file – the so-called “Erasmus Charter for Higher Education” – and bazinga! That is basically it. Once this is done, two HEIs from two different countries fill in an “Erasmus agreement” stipulating various information such as the number of incoming and outgoing students, the level of language required, the area and the level of studies, the length, and the type of mobility. There is no limit whatsoever on the number of agreements that an HEI can sign, and this is an easy document to fill-in.

The amount of the scholarships is set by each HEI depending on what it gets from the EU, which explains why a student at Paris-Sorbonne University will get less than a student at Bordeaux University: there are significantly more scholarships holders at the Sorbonne, and the EU Commission has limited funds, leaving each university deciding on the number of scholarships and the amount it gives (€272/month being the average amongst European students). Also, the amounts vary significantly from one country to another: Spanish scholars are known to obtain more than their French counterparts for instance. The governments of the countries or the HEIs can choose to add up to the amount given by the EU, hence improving the experience of the “chosen ones” – in reality there is not much of a “Matrix” choice, excellence is not really a core condition to get the scholarship since the number of applications is usually lower than the number of available spots.

This was the easy part of Erasmus. There are a lot of tools that you can find on the EU-Commission webpage, one of them being the building of joint Masters Programs – the so-called Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMD) – between various partners. The aim is to offer two-year study programmes with at least two mobilities, excellence being in this case a core component when it comes to selecting the candidates. Erasmus Mundus has been created in 2004, and scholarships are also available – obviously less than in the case of the regular Erasmus, but with much higher amounts.

Now, allow me to give away a few figures to understand how big and important Erasmus really is: in 2014, €2 billion were spent on Erasmus, 650.000 people studied, trained or volunteered abroad, and 70.000 organizations were involved. Spain, Germany and France are the most popular destinations within the Erasmus programme, while the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Liechtenstein and Luxemburg are the least popular. This ranking barely changes when it comes to the most students benefiting from a scholarship – although Luxemburg and Liechtenstein are the two countries that send the most students compared to the national student population. 61% of the beneficiaries are women, and the Bachelor level is the level that most students choose to carry out an Erasmus mobility (67%), followed by the Master level (29%). Social Sciences, Business and Law is the area involving most students (31%), while Humanities and Arts, and Engineering (both equal at 17%) complete the podium. Finally, the average age of the Erasmus student is 23, and the average length of the mobility is one semester. Between its creation in 1987 and the year 2013 (26 years), 3.350 million individuals benefited from the programme – that is the population of Uruguay! In 1987, 3244 students from 11 countries benefited from it, while 270.000 students and 52.000 staff from 33 countries carried out a mobility in 2012. This number has hence been multiplied by 100 over 25 years (!!!). 4.600 HEIs participated in Erasmus as members in 2013. By 2020, the goal of the EU is that 20% of all graduates from the EHEA have spent a period of time abroad. Impressive, right? Yes, Erasmus is quite good when it comes to marketing!

 

Now, let’s jump to Latin America and the Caribbean. There are various levels of academic cooperation within the MERCOSUR. Let us not talk about the regional accreditation mechanism (the so-called ARCUSUR) since that is not our focal point – yet do know that there is a cooperation to make sure that there are quality standards at MERCOSUR level and that only MERCOSUR-accredited university courses can partake in the cooperation program that we will study next. MARCA in Spanish (Regional Academic Mobility for Accredited Courses) encompasses Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay and was created in 2006. This is the only academic cooperation within MERCOSUR, and students’ mobility is the main component. Every two years, one of the countries takes charge of the program (Brazil is currently the institutional coordinator). Universities of at least two different countries have to build a project, valid for two years, and exchange students can stay at the partner university for 1 or 2 semesters – may they study, carry out traineeships or researches. The number of financed mobilities per project depends on each country separately (5 for Argentina, 10 for Brazil, etc.). The amounts also depend on the country, but the home country usually covers the flight ticket and the insurance costs, while the host country finances the monthly allowances. The amounts are set by the countries themselves and differ from one country to another. An Argentinian student going to Brazil will hence get a monthly allowance of US$1.233/month, plus US$2.003 for the costs occurred by the installation, in addition to the insurance and the flight ticket: that is for a period of time of six months US$9.401. A Brazilian student in Argentina will get US$1.770/month, plus US$580 for the installation costs, and the insurance and the flight tickets (US$11.200). Generally speaking, the cost of life in Argentina is more expensive than in Brazil, but the amount that a student gets is still very generous. In that respect, MARCA looks a lot like Erasmus Mundus. Regarding the call 2015-2016, 15 projects have been selected, implying 35 Argentinian university courses, 16 in Bolivia, 38 from Brazil, 5 Chilean, 6 from Uruguay, and 10 in Paraguay. Note that all six Uruguayans courses are taught in the same university (the University of the Republic).

The Organization of Ibero-American States for Education, Science and Culture (OEI) is not a proper regional integration system, but it is an intergovernmental organization relevant for the education field. It was created in 1949 (before the EU that is), but became what it is nowadays in 1985. Within its framework, the Exchange and Academic Mobility Program (PIMA in Spanish), coordinated by Spain, is of interest since it grants scholarships since 2000. The program contributes to the Ibero-American Knowledge Area (EIC in Spanish). Most Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries in Latin America took part in it in 2015, plus Spain (this makes up for 19 countries, and a total of 67 universities), but any university belonging to a Spanish or Portuguese speaking country can participate in it providing that it is part of the OEI. In total, 273 scholarships were granted in that same year (165 between Spain and Latin America, and 108 between Latin American HEIs), the home university being in charge of selecting the students. It appears very similar to MARCA: a minimum of three universities from three different countries have to gather together and build a project in one single field of knowledge; they are hence organized by thematic reds and exchange students/interns can only carry-out a one-semester mobility at most within a host university that is a member of the same thematic red as their home university. There is unfortunately no information available regarding the amount granted to the students since it depends on every project, but a clue is that the scholarships are not meant to cover all costs of the mobility, they are only a supplement intended to cover the additional costs related to moving abroad, so it cannot be as much as MARCA. So, if you are a student and have to choose between MARCA and PIMA, I suggest you try MARCA!

Finally, the Pacific Alliance (which is not a regional integration system either) has an academic cooperation program, called Student and academic platform, consisting in four yearly calls country by country – and not one call for all countries altogether. Each of the four countries involved decides which amount students get, and it hence depends on the countries where your home and host universities are situated – but we are talking about high amounts anyways. There is a reciprocity principle when it comes to the students flows since approximately 100 scholarships are available in every country. One of the peculiarities of this program is that universities have nothing to do with the selection of the students: one governmental agency in every country is responsible for the selection (a student has to apply to his/her home country’s national agency, and the selection is made by the agency of the country of the host university the student is applying to). Unlike MARCA  and PIMA, not only universities can take part in the program, but institutes and other types of HEIs as well depending on what each country decides – which is a good point. In addition, various fields of studies have been deemed as priorities: business, finances, international trade, public administration, political sciences, hospitality, economics, international relations, environment and climate change, innovation, sciences and technology, and engineering. Finally, it is worth adding that various types of mobilities can be taken into consideration: student mobility (one semester for undergraduates) and academic mobility (from three weeks up to one year for PhD students, researchers and teachers). For more information and critics about this program – yes, I like criticizing – please see the post La cooperación universitaria en el marco de la Alianza del Pacífico from April, 10th 2016.

These are the only three international cooperation systems that promote international mobility in the LAC region, but only one of them is actually part of a sub-regional integration system – with the UNASUR on its way thanks to the creation in 2012 of the South American Council for Education (CSE). The SICA, the ALBA, the ACS, the CAN, and all other regional integration attempts do not seem to consider academic cooperation and students’ mobility a priority.

 

Erasmus: changing lives, opening minds” is the official slogan of the Erasmus programme and it is meant to represent the values that it stands for. Well, it could not be more right. I personally benefited twice from the program, and from three other national programs, all of which allowed me to study, work and carry-out traineeships abroad. I know I was lucky that I was born on that side of the Atlantic when it comes to this kind of opportunities, but it was not easy to always start fresh and go somewhere new. I partied a lot, but I also worked my as off. I can now speak fluently German, English and Spanish, in addition to my mother tongue French, and know my way in Portuguese. These make up for five languages. I now work in the international cooperation field, and programs like Erasmus have highly contributed – and still contribute – to this. It also gave me some values that are essential in our globalized world: independence, flexibility, autonomy, and most importantly great interpersonal skills. I am a convinced Europhile, I believe that building bridges between cultures and nations through regional integration is possible and needs to be worked on in a clever manner: the new generation should be trusted because its perception of other countries is actually more up-to-date than old bureaucratic officials that have never lived abroad – or at least not in the last 20 years. Also, this type of program can contribute to the improvement of education: by welcoming foreign students, universities gain experience and can adapt and improve their courses offer.

The internationalization of education is a task that concerns all LAC countries – or so they say out loud. They seem to be coming up with sub-regional integration systems every day – barely exaggerating it. We are not even talking about political or economic integration here, but a mere intergovernmental cooperation promoting students exchanges at continental level – just like the programs implemented in the LAC region that we have studied, but with the features of Erasmus. Students would hence benefit from classes taught in Spanish, Portuguese, English, Dutch, French, German in some cases, and could even learn indigenous languages. What is not to like there? That does not seem to be as hard as agreeing on everything as it is the case for UNASUR: countries could simply decide which HEIs can participate, give funds to a General Secretariat that would divide it between all countries’ participating HEIs, and HEIs would simply have to sign a bilateral agreement. Of course, it is harder than that, but with a bit of an effort and money, it is doable. That would actually allow students to improve their skills by learning things they could not learn in their own country, trigger an interest within the young generation in creating a regional integration system that could actually work, and hence unite peoples. How scary, right?