Chapter II Literature Review and Conceptual Framework
VI. Conceptual Framework
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
daily communication, strategic communication, and the development of lasting relationship with key individuals over many years through scholarships, exchanges, training, seminars, conferences, and access to media channels. His premise is that the ability to attract is a more effective means of persuasion than the ability to dominate by force. (Nye, 2004). The
attractiveness of a nation is found in its culture, including its language, arts, cuisine, institutions and brands. “If content of a country’s culture, values, and policies are not attractive, public diplomacy that ‘broadcasts’ them cannot produce soft power,” warns Nye.
Public diplomacy practices cannot create soft power where there is none. They can only raise awareness of soft power where it already exists. (Bettie M. L., 2014)
VI. Conceptual Framework
In the context of public diplomacy, international educational exchange is an effective way to improve the image of a country and to cast its foreign policy in a favorable light. Through exchanges, grantees will be living a long-period of time in a host country, immersing in its society and culture, which is expected to nurture understandings of the host country and to develop sympathy with its political system, culture, and values. A myriad of factors
influences the process of gaining sympathy; there is also a risk of backfiring as one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. (de Lima, 2007)
Thus, the selections of grantees are crucial to the success of international educational
exchange. Since, the grantees themselves and their exchange experiences in the host country are major impact factors. Open competition and a merit-based grant are very important in academic exchange program. Yet, personality has a direct impact on cross-cultural
understanding; an open minded individual, adaptive in culture differences, not only can help in better performance of ‘academic’ exchange but can also create cultural benefits in mutual understanding, which leads to a result of PD’s impact. Furthermore, to pursue a better mutual understanding, from perspectives of both sending and receiving countries, desired grantees are those who with a good understanding of their own culture as a representation of ‘culture ambassador’, and those who with sincerity of moral/ethical value can reflect the best in their country’s fellows. Last, a happy ending of their personal experiences of stay in host country may enhance a good memory bias after sojourn.
Following Joseph Nye’s new thinking about power, it is widely considered that international educational exchange provides a cost-effective weapon of soft power. Thus, “many countries,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
small as well as large, those at the center of international stage as well as those at the
periphery; have taken up the educational exchange project as a means of public diplomacy.”
(Abbas, 2015, p. 40) However, host countries employ educational exchange program as a public diplomacy modality for different reasons: from increasing mutual understanding to exporting religious/political/economic ideology and culture; as exchange programs work in complex ways. (Abbas, 2015, p. 30) In spite of that, “the more a country is accurately understood by other countries, the better the messages that will be communicated and interpreted in other nations.” (de Lima, 2007, p. 240)
The host country, an initiator of public diplomacy, receives the grantees by opening its society to the target country’s elite and beyond. Through long-stay, informal contact, and immersive experience, the grantees can explore the host country’s sources of soft power:
culture, political values, and policies. These three sources of soft power embodied in the society of a country, asserts Nye, can re-shape grantees’ existing preferences, worldview, and values if they have an extended stay in a foreign country. (Nye, 2004, p. 11) Likewise,
grantees reflect their home culture. Through face-to-face contacts, they expose their home culture to the host society. A ripple or impact effect may also occur on whom they encounter.
In short, grantees bridge two cultures, with a hope to increase cross-cultural understandings between two societies.
Presumably, academic elites are also opinion leaders who have greater influence in society and can produce multiplier impacts in the general public. After sojourns, exchange elites will carry their personal experiences back to their home country and spread their knowledge and understanding of host country to their home country fellows. Furthermore, these elite may also become decision makers who have direct impact on policy-making. More important, as Nye suggests, soft power is “relational,” the “ability to attract others to our side”, and “get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment.” (2004, pp. x-xi) The relationship building of academic exchange can last long after the sojourn.
The goal of public diplomacy, as Mark Leonard asserts, is three-fold: to transmit information, to sell a positive image of a country, and to build long-term relationships that create an
enabling environment for government policies. They are reflective of three dimensions of public diplomacy: daily communications; strategic communications; and relationship building. International educational exchange fits into the third dimension which focuses on
“the development of durable relationships with key individuals over a long period of time via
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
training, seminars, conferences, language teaching, scholarships as well as international scientific, educational, and cultural exchanges.” [quoted from Leonard et al., 2002, pp. 8-21;
de Lima, p. 236] Yet, in order to use international educational exchanges as diplomatic instruments, three elements—mutuality, deliberation, and cross-cultural interaction—are essential. (de Lima, 2007, pp. 236 & 238)
Furthermore, Iain Wilson’s research found that political influence would come along with international educational exchanges only if they are not tying funding to political objectives.
Because, the whole process may be distorted if the program ties funding to political
objectives, and the grants are given only to those candidates who seem most likely to bring political influence in the future. Thus, “it would be a sad irony if the pursuit of political influence, in the service of the sponsor’s national interest—which the evidence thus far suggests they do not reliably deliver—distorted the real benefits of academic mobility.”
(Wilson, 2014, p. 201)
The Fulbright Program, based on bi-lateral agreements, operated by binational commissions, and with a merit-based selection process for academic and cultural exchanges, is by all means a good example for illustration. As a matter of fact, all reports show that one distinguishing feature for the Fulbright experience comes from cultural activities that Fulbright commissions organize for grantees during their stays in host countries; since, the commission based
programs often are high profile and well-received due to their binational characteristic.
The rationale is that non-governmental actors are increasingly influencing the course of foreign relations, and that public diplomacy and new public diplomacy became an important measure for diplomacy. In the global Fulbright exchanges, we have witnessed a growing number of government agencies, both in central and local levels, NGOs, and private sector getting more and more involved and increasing their funding contributions. In Taiwan’s case, after the U.S. derecognition in 1979, the Fulbright exchanges became one of rare strings that linking two peoples of Taiwan and the U.S. Through the continuance of educational
exchanges, the Fulbright Program has been serving as a channel/tool of diplomacy, in a format of unofficial, people-to-people, non-traditional relations, for the two nations of the U.S.A and the ROC. Also, in recent years, Taiwan’s local governments and the private sector are getting more involved and increasing their funding contributions, in particular in ETA programs.
‧
International educational exchange targets on elites and opinion leaders as their amplifier effect is taken into account in impacting the general public of the target. Thus, an optimal goal for government funded international educational exchange is to ensure the image of host countries is improved among participants of exchange programs; and, through the ripple effects of exchangees, an enabling environment of policy making in the target country is created in favor of the host country. Furthermore, successfully achieving that goal depends on the architecture of programs, which includes the selection process of participants and the operation of program. Among others, the leadership of the decision body, which in Fulbright Program is the Board in host country and their ED, is one major factor. Figure 2.1 shows the conceptual framework of this research.
Figure 2.1
International Educational Exchange in the Process of Public Diplomacy
The case, Fulbright Taiwan, had been operating in Taiwan for more than sixty years, from its reactivation in 1957 through 2019. Since 1979, the Fulbright program in Taiwan had been
PD initiating actors
Foreign policy making
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
administered extra-legally, as there is no international law that abides this binational
Fulbright commission after it was adopted by the Foundation for Scholarly Exchange (FSE) to continue its mission. Nor, could FSE be legally registered as a local NGO, which requires a Taiwanese as the head of the Board. Without security in legal status, this may also make FSE obscure in academic research. A huge missing piece of some thirty years of history is untold and unseen; not to mention, research on its entire history of development.
One goal of this dissertation is to lay out a research foundation and to ignite a research interest in Taiwan’s international educational exchange for public diplomacy; and further, to examine this merit-based Fulbright exchanges at the service of public diplomacy for Taiwan.
I assert that more cross-cultural understanding and cultural competence comes from more cross-cultural exchanges. Thus, I suggest all international educational exchange scholarships, either sponsored by private, public, or public-private collaborations contribute to better international relations in world affairs, as a result of public diplomacy, even if they do not meet some definitions of ‘public diplomacy.’
Suggested by the limits model, the PD initiating country should try to shape the limits that exist in other states and in the global community. The aim is setting the agenda, enabling an environment that limits the target country’s policy options, not to violate the PD initiating country’s national interests. (Vocke, 2008) Considering Taiwan’s limitation on official diplomacy in the international arena, an informal public diplomacy becomes a more
important means for Taiwan’s outreaching. Likewise, traditional public diplomacy is seen as a supplementary channel to a normal country’s diplomacy, which in Taiwan is also in
shortage. Within this context, it seems public diplomacy is the only channel that can serve for Taiwan, and waging a new ‘guerrilla diplomacy’ is one doable/approachable tactic.
(Copeland, 2009)
One big challenge is putting the already hard to measure effectiveness of public diplomacy into a much more complex situation, an approach of the limits model, for worse or for better.
Since, a long-term goal of national interest cannot serve for short-term domestic
consumption, which in democracy means retaining power; nor as proof of results for the budget justifications. An idea and value change are what you believe in, which may not be obvious to witness. In addition, public diplomacy is seen primarily as an applied arena.
Discussions usually focus on methods and techniques, and these are derived from government needs rather than academic research.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Yet, given the phenomenon of super connected people that we witnessed in the pandemic of COVID-19 in 2020, the limits model sheds light on imaging a much closer cyber-society in our real life. It is not just a claim of cyber-optimists that social media makes protests easier to organize, that political ideas spread quickly on social media, and that everyone can
participate in online political actions. The empowerment of publics and civil society has been demonstrated in recent mass mobilizations worldwide. Just to name a few: the Arab Spring in 2010, the umbrella movement in 2014, the now ongoing 2019-2020 protest in Hong Kong, the Sunflower Student Movement in Taiwan in 2014, and the Black Lives Matter in U.S. in 2020 -- in spite of COVID-19 in its midst. Though most mass political mobilizations are taken within domestic arena, some did create sparkles beyond the borders.
All things have their limits no matter how perfect they are; no doubt an invisible boundary exists in people’s hearts and minds. Public diplomacy, through people-to-people exchange, aimed to nurture sympathy and empathy, can be re-focused to a broad concept of a universal shared world value of peace and democracy, refocused to a personal level of a consciousness arousal, changed to a limit of doing no harm to others, and reimagined to put themselves in the shoes of others to understand the limits. As we look from the other side of the world, we will find the outer world is bigger than the inner one. It is not just two sides of one coin, but a world with or without us; and, the one without is far beyond what we can imagine.
In sum, Wilson proved a weak causality between educational exchange and political
influence. Also, a public diplomacy measured on the aim of effective policy change is more likely to fail in delivering a short-term goal of resulting in a favorable policy to the host country. In contrast, the limits model, pays attention on all possibilities and related issues besides a current policy change, which includes preventing a change toward to a less favorable, or more harmful policy, as well as focusing on the agenda setting and the preferences choices during the process of decision makings. In some situations, a ‘non-policy’ or ‘non-decision making’ may be a better option.
Non-decision making was first introduced in 1960s by Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz who argued that many “mistakenly assumed that power and its correlatives are activated and can be observed only in decision-making situations. They have overlooked the equally, if not more important area of what might be called ‘nondecision-making,’ i.e., the practice of limiting the scope of actual decision-making to ‘safe’ issues by manipulating the dominant community values, myths, and political institutions and procedures. To pass over this is to
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
neglect one whole ‘face’ of power.” (Bachrach & Baratz, 1963, p. 632) As to Taiwan, it may feel that no change in a foreign government’s current policy toward China and Taiwan may be considered favorably, given Taiwan’s status quo policy on cross-strait relations.
Since 1979, based on no formal relations, the practice of Fulbright program in Taiwan goes on between two nations, and carries out unofficial contacts and exchanges between two people. The program not only continued but has prospered. A mission of educational diplomacy has prevailed, and a discussion of Taiwan’s case is based on a limits model of public diplomacy.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter III
A Historical Review of the Fulbright Program in Taiwan from 1947 till 1979
Preceding the “pioneer Fulbright Program” or the “China Program” (Fairbank, 1976), there was an U.S. federal government initiative for educational exchange between U.S. and China:
the Boxer Indemnity Scholarship. This was often referred to by Senator Fulbright, as a precedential educational exchange that set an inspirational idea for Fulbright Program in the early days. In addition, there was another exchange program created for military purpose, funded by the U.S. President Emergency Fund, for wartime China during the Second World War. (O'Neill, 1972)
The Fulbright Program in Taiwan, a successor that superseded the China Program, started its operation in Taipei in 1957, when the U.S.-ROC binational agreement of 1947 was
reactivated through an amendment which was signed and entered into force on November 30, 1957. The origin of the Educational Exchange Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of China was dated on November 10, 1947. Following the amendment, a foundation known as the United States Educational Foundation in the Republic of China (USEF/ROC, or the Foundation) was soon officially established on December 30, 1957 to facilitate the administration of the exchanges.
Since 1979 when the U.S. switched her recognition to People’s Republic of China (PRC), whose government rules over mainland China, the Foundation (USEF/ROC) was renamed to the Foundation for Scholarly Exchange (FSE) to continue its operation of the exchanges between America and Taiwan. FSE traces its origins to 1947, when the first Fulbright foundation in the world was established (FSE, 1996) in Nanking.
This chapter starts with a brief historical review of government supported educational exchange between U.S. and China from the first initiative of the 1900 Boxer Rebellion Indemnity to the inception of the Fulbright Act of 1946. This is followed by the
establishment of the first Fulbright program in the world, suspension, and then reactivation in Taipei to continue the legacy of the program. In detail, this chapter will examine the statute, funding, and operations of the Fulbright program in the Republic of China on Taiwan since its reactivation in 1957 till 1979, when bilateral relations between the U.S. and ROC changed. The program after 1979 is in the following chapter.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
I. 1908-1947: U.S.-China Educational Exchanges before the Fulbright Program
According to documents of the U.S. State Department, the first governmental involvement in educational exchange between U.S. and China was started in early-1900s, as a result of Boxer Rebellion Indemnity. This also marked the first U.S. governmental engagement with the East on educational exchange (O'Neill, 1972, p. 2). In 1900, a failed uprising of Chinese (aka Boxers) rebelled against foreigners and killed a German ambassador and a large number of foreigners in Peking (aka Beijing) due to their resentment towards the constant interference of European powers in the affairs of their country. At that time, the United States joined Russia, England, Germany, France, Japan, and other countries in order to suppress the Boxer Rebellion. Fourteen involved countries imposed upon the Chinese government a punitive indemnity of $330,000,000 to compensate families of the deceased and to offer indemnities to those nations, including approximately $24 million to the United States. (Kaniuka, 2019, p.
150) The U.S. government found the settlement of the Boxer Indemnity Fund “greatly in excess of the losses actually incurred.” That was an “exorbitant” amount, O’Neill wrote in an investigative report “A Brief History of Department of State Involvement in International Exchange” at the U.S. State Department. (MC 468, Box 103, folder 12) So instead of
returning the money back to the Chinese government, the U.S. proposed to apply those funds toward sending selected Chinese students and scholars to the United States. President
Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) said, in 1907, to the Congress:
This nation should help in every practicable way in the education of the Chinese people, so that the vast and populous Empire of China may gradually adapt itself to modern conditions. One way of doing this is by promoting the coming of Chinese students to this country and making it attractive to them to take courses at our universities and higher education institutions. (Kaniuka, 2019, p. 150)
Though he did not connect the two subjects in that address, President Roosevelt also discussed measures the U.S. could take to facilitate China’s efforts to educate its people. In 1907, President Roosevelt proposed that the Congress return to China that portion of the indemnity that exceeded the amount of actual damage and injury; and later Congress authorized the President to remit one half of the U.S. portion of the indemnity, and the Chinese foreign office subsequently announced its intention to use these funds to educate Chinese students in the U.S. and in certain educational institutions in China. (Colligan, 1958)
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The remission of the Boxer indemnities to China stimulated an impressive interchange of scholars and students with China which lasted for many years. In 1908, the U.S. Congress
The remission of the Boxer indemnities to China stimulated an impressive interchange of scholars and students with China which lasted for many years. In 1908, the U.S. Congress