Chapter III A Historical Review of the Fulbright Program in Taiwan
B. The Re-activation in Taiwan of the First Fulbright Program
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‘binational’ commission. The early Fulbright programs in Burma, Philippines, and New Zealand, all have local citizen(s) on the Board of Directors of their commissions. (Maurer, 1949)
The next step was to staff up the Foundation and to appoint an executive chief to run the exchange program. By January 10, 1948, the U.S. Embassy had staffed three Americans as local employees. But, it was not until October 1948 that the State Department appointed George Harris, the Cultural Attaché to the U.S. Embassy in Nanking as the Executive Officer (now known as Executive Director). By this time, the Fulbright Foundation in China seemed ready to go into action; and, the official exchange program was set up.
But the program had been in operation for only one year before it was ‘interrupted’ in 1949 when the Chinese Communists overran mainland China. (USEF/ROC, 1967, p. 8) China was later divided in a restless civil war. The Nationalist Government moved to Taiwan on
December 8, 1949 and declared Taipei new capital of the ROC. The mainland was ruled by the Communist, which established the People’s Republic of China on October 1, 1949 and set its capital in Beijing. While the fund was exhausted, the Foundation was not able to acquire more from the Nationalist Government, nor were the Communists showing a willingness in continuation of the program in China. After having one year of operation, the first Fulbright Foundation was doomed to closure or ‘suspension’ on August 31, 1949. (Fairbank, 1976, p.
198)
B. The Re-activation in Taiwan of the First Fulbright Program
The first Fulbright Program in the world and its administrative organization as the ‘United States Educational Foundation in China’ came to alive again, under a new name of ‘United States Educational Foundation in the Republic of China’ on November 30, 1957. The two Governments of USA and ROC agreed, adding a new source of funds, to also use the sale of Surplus of Agricultural Commodities for the purpose of their Agreement of November 10, 1947. Accordingly, an amendment of the 1947 Agreement was signed and took into effect to
‘re-activate’, with New Taiwan Dollars, the Fulbright program, administered by the
Foundation renamed to the ‘United States Educational Foundation in the Republic of China’.
The Surplus Agricultural Commodities Agreement between the United State and the Republic of China was signed on August 14, 1956. In the agreement, two Governments
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
agreed the New Taiwan Dollars accruing thereunder would be made available for international educational exchange activities. With a reference to the 1947 Fulbright agreement signed in Nanking, in his letter, Ambassador Rankin expressed the desire of the U.S. Government to use a portion of such funds for the purpose of the said agreement.
Major modifications were made in the amendment, through exchange of diplomatic notes, as follows:
1. The source of funds: In the preamble of the Agreement, it was modified by adding a further paragraph stating a new source of funds will be from the sale of Agricultural Surplus. It reads:
considering that funds provided for under the present agreement, from the sale of War Surplus, have not been made available for continuance of such
educational program. And, two Governments desire to reactivate certain educational activities with New Taiwan Dollars that became available for expenditure by the United States for such purposes. As in the present 1947 Agreement, the “Chinese national currency” was a sole currency to be
deposited for the disposal of the Foundation. A new source of fund was added to the agreement with a new currency available. In fact, the old currency was no more in use.
2. The name of the binational foundation: In Article 1, as amended, the foundation established to facilitate the administration of exchange program was renamed to the
‘United States Educational Foundation in the Republic of China’ (the Foundation), replacing the name of the United States Educational Foundation in China as it was first commissioned in 1947, in Nanking. The renaming of the Foundation had political implication, which not only reflected the fact of a divided China but also implied the official recognition of the ROC government by the USA.
3. The responsibility for available funds: In this Article 1, the party responsible for making available of funds was designated to be the U.S. Government ‘from currency of China’ held or available for expenditures by the U.S. for such purpose. It was modified from the 1947 Agreement which stated that the ROC Government shall make available an equivalent of US$20 million for research instruction, and other educational activities. Switching responsible party for the Foundation’s finance, from ROC to USA, allowed the U.S. Government to use the appropriations of the new Smith-Mundt Act and to allocate other currencies sources available for funds.
4. The legal status of the Foundation: In Article 1, a sentence regarding the legal status of the Foundation and its property was added: “The funds and property which may be
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
acquired with the funds in furtherance of the purposes of the agreement shall be regarded in the Republic of China as property of a foreign Government, insofar as taxation and kindred matters are concerned.” This statement was in accordance with the change of finance responsibility to the U.S.
5. The Board of Directors: In the 1947 Agreement, the Foundation’s Board of Directors consisted of five Directors, all Americans; but, the ‘Chinese Government’ shall appoint a number of Advisers to the Board not to exceed five. The Advisers may attend all the meetings of the Board and participate in its discussions; however, “[t]he Advisers shall have no vote but their opinion shall be given due consideration by the Board at all its deliberations.” In the amendment, the Board was enlarged to eight members, four of whom shall be citizens from each nation. “In addition, the principal officer in charge of the Diplomatic Mission of the United States of America to China shall be Honorary Chairman of the Board. He shall cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie vote by the Board.”
As amended, an inequal representation of the Foundation’s decision body had been corrected toward the ROC’s favor in the amendment of 1957. Yet, it was still not equal, as a binational commission is supposed to be. Till now, the mechanism of a sole Honorary Chairman only from the USA, with a deciding power is unique among the current 49 binational commissions’ charters. Comparatively, some Fulbright Commissions have dual Honorary Chairmen or co-Chairs from both nations and some rotates between the two nations.
6. The scale of the funds: In 1957, the two Governments agreed to an aggregate amount of NT$18,585,000 acquired by the U.S. Government pursuant to the Surplus
Agricultural Commodities Agreement and to be used for the Fulbright program. The amendment was made by an ‘insertion’ of a new paragraph to the Article 11, and left in the original clause which required the ROC Government to be responsible for depositing funds to the foundation from sale of war surplus. This insertion echoed the new source of funding added in the preamble of the agreement. By adding a clause, both in the preamble and Article 11, to bring in a new source of funds for the
program, the amendment also left a footprint for the current Foundation for Scholarly Exchange to retrace its legitimacy as the world’s first Fulbright Program.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Noticing that the amendment did not touch Article 8 which required “the principal office shall be in the capital city of China,” I wondered, without finding evidence, whether if that had been left out intentionally or was just a blind spot? Perhaps this was a subtle claim by the ROC on its assertion of jurisdiction over all of China?
No matter what, “[a] s the first country to participate in the Fulbright Program, China was naturally anxious to reactivate it as soon as the country could regain political and economic stability. The moment was ripe in the latter 50’s,” (USEF/ROC, 1967, p. 8) as was noted in the history of the Foundation on its commemorative pamphlet of Ten Years of Educational Exchange published in 1967. One major driving force was then U.S. Ambassador Karl L.
Rankin, whose term of post in Taipei was due to end soon after the amendment was signed.
Before the Board was officially established, an informal Board Meeting was held on December 30, 1957, presided over by Rankin. His closing remark reads: “it was indeed a gratifying experience for him to see the Educational Foundation in China started before his departure from Taiwan.” During the 105-minute meeting, some policy statements and guidelines were made: (USEF/ROC, 1957)[Informal Meeting: 1957/12/30]
1. Philip G. Hodge, Cultural Attaché of American Embassy would be appointed as Chairman of the Foundation until the by-laws had been adopted and a permanent chairman designated.
2. Hodge had made a trip to Tokyo, before the meeting, to study the initiation of the Fulbright Program in Japan and had returned with a considerable information.
3. A committee for the preparation of By-laws was appointed.
4. It was advised that the Department of States finds it preferable that the Fulbright Office not to be located in the Embassy, USIS or Ministry of Education in order to emphasize the bi-national, unofficial nature of the organization. It was therefore suggested that the Foundation meet at the International House; this was to be
temporary until space was available in the Provincial Assembly building sometime in April. It was determined that while this is the building which will be occupied by USIS, the Foundation will have a separate entrance and a separate address.
5. U.S. Department of State proposed the sum of US$60,000 in local currency for the balance of the 1957 fiscal year.
6. It was agreed to keep the staff as small as possible but of the highest standards of quality, with a start of three people: Executive Secretary, Administrative and Fiscal
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Officer, and Clerk-Stenographer. The salary should be attractive enough, to be paid in New Taiwan Dollars, and no additional benefits.
7. The Board meeting should be kept confidential, grantees’ selection shall be based on merit.
8. The Foundation should focus on a few projects which would prove of long-term value, instead of initiating many scattered projects.
Attached in the minutes was a memorandum from ROC Minister of Education CHANG Chi-yun to the Board of the Directors, dated on December 28, 1957. It stated that, MOE hopes more American professors will come in the Fulbright Program, in the fields based upon the
‘actual needs of Chinese universities and institutions.’ Particular attention should be paid on basic science education and special needs of nuclear physics and electronics.
By the end of 1957, the world’s first Fulbright Program, which was established in 1947 and suspended in 1949, was about to be reborn, to be re-activated for the continuance of exchange between the two peoples of USA and ROC; and, to have a renamed foundation established in Taipei, the new capital of the Republic of China, the first signatory nation of the Fulbright Program. Finally, on January 8, 1958, the first formal meeting of the Board of Directors was held at the American Embassy in Taipei. The new-born USEF/C was officially established.
III. 1957-1979: From Rebirth to Transformation
As previously stated, many issues in particular the financing of funds, the decision body, and administrative organization all had to be preset before the exchange program could be
implemented. By the end of 1957, the global U.S. Fulbright Program had been operating for eleven years and had grown to some thirty11 binational commissions in operation around the world.
In 1957, Fulbright Program was in a much better regarding cross-cultural exchange than at its first 1947 inception, and had much higher stature and more experienced programs. In
addition, the U.S. Government had poured in new funds with the Smith-Mundt Act and Agricultural Surplus Program. Furthermore, under discussion was more integrated administration and funding, which later resulted in the Fulbright-Hays Act.
11 Based on the signed dates of bilateral agreements of active commissions by 2019, as some commissions went inactive, and Korea’s commission was reactivated in 1960.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Following the new developments of the Fulbright Program in the world, the amendment for continuance of the Fulbright Program in Taiwan was more like a new-born program with an up-to-date, reciprocal-based binational program and relations, as compared to the first Fulbright Agreement signed in 1947. Since 1957, a new charter, fund, and organization was created and operated till 1979, when diplomatic relations changed which led to another new chapter of USA-ROC relations and of the Fulbright program in Taiwan. Hence, a historical review of the Fulbright Program in Taiwan in this time period, when the ROC and USA had full diplomatic relations, serves not only as a narrative of the early program, but also provides a comparative example for the later educational exchange program operated without formal relations.