Chapter I Introduction
II. Research Motivations, Purposes, and Questions
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
With no exceptions, the American authority, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) recalled all the American grantees back to the U.S.; although the U.S. becomes an epicenter of the pandemic, having the largest number of positive cases in the world. A virus knows no borders, but people and governments do.
A creative world peace that sustains and is sustained by the purpose of Fulbright Program on educational exchange truly is just an ideal. Protectionism seems to prevail when threats challenge government’s authority. My sincere hope is that one day, people can freely move around the world, share their thoughts, exchange views, and live in the globe as one
integrated nation, in which people respect each other, honor their differences, and appreciate the beauty of being different. Truly world peace will take generations, and will require generations to work hard on it. However, it is time for change, to change our behaviors, values, and ways of thinking. As I write, we are under attack by a novel virus.
By September 29, 2020, the coronavirus pandemic has sickened more than 33.3 million people worldwide, over 1 million people had died; whereas the U.S had the most infected and deaths, with 7 million+ Americans infected and more than 200,000 patients dead, according to New York Times (2020) database.
II. Research Motivations, Purposes, and Questions A. Motivations
As is often the case; this research is of personal interest regarding the subject. I am a retired Taiwanese diplomat. I was a practitioner in educational and cultural exchange for many years, and that triggered me to find the theoretical ground for the real-world activities which I practiced and to search for better practices to be applied in the future. The case study of a long-lasting exchange program, between U.S. and Taiwan, with a high reputation and links serving U.S. public diplomacy, may also shed light on Taiwan’s public diplomacy strategy.
As a ‘flagship’ program of U.S. government, most people see Fulbright as an American program, and much research has been done from a U.S. perspective. However, it takes two to tango. This research stands on a host country’s interests and calculations, not a U.S.
perspective, and aims to find out how foreign countries, or host countries, value or benefit from this binational program?
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Again, as an American brand program, most research has been done by American scholars or from where they stand to see the world. There is a lack of research viewing Fulbright from a foreign country, or non-American perspective, and even less study focusing on a single country. This research will be based on Taiwan’s experience and the operations of the
Fulbright Program in Taiwan. This is one of the first types of research on this subject, to find out how has Taiwan been participating in this U.S. branded scholarship, and how has it even outpaced the U.S. financial contribution in recent years?
B. Purposes
With rising interest in public diplomacy, the Fulbright educational exchange program is truly a practice of educational and cultural diplomacy, which has been operating long before the term was coined. As some liberal theories attribute the fall of the iron curtain to educational elite exchange, Fulbright may be a real case of success for public diplomacy. Thus, I am considering, if this case, which happened with big powers, also applies to smaller powers. Is there a different strategy that may apply better to the smaller powers, while using educational exchange programs as a vehicle for public diplomacy?
Smaller powers or nation-states can be defined “as states with limited resources and with a limited reach of diplomatic efforts. Thus, they have two interrelated central characteristics:
their public diplomacy efforts are concentrated in several key areas and in several key countries, and knowledge about them and their image becomes significantly more blurred as one moves further away from their immediate regions.” (Kočiová, 2014, p. 34) America is a superpower in both hard and soft power, and this binational exchange program for most cases is fated to be an exchange between two nations in asymmetric power. In addition, the
program is structured as a hub-spoke network, and this may have implications regarding the culture infiltration from America to the world. Is the exchange program “teaching America to the world,” or “the world to America, or both? (Garlitz & Jarvinen, 2012)
This is a case study on the Fulbright Program in Taiwan, since its reactivation in 1957, in particular focusing after 1979 when the U.S.-Taiwan relations shifted to an ‘informal’ mode.
My intention is to explore the history of an unique Fulbright program, whose binational commission operates without a basis in formal binational relations, and paves the way for
‘real’ people to people exchange, within the context of “the people of the United states maintaining cultural, commercial and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.”
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(BFS, 1981, p. 23) Hopefully, this research may serve as the first brick of a foundation for research on transnational, non-governmental people to people diplomacy.
The aims are to explore the development and practice of the Fulbright Program in Taiwan and to try to reveal its footprint through archives, for future research. The purposes are to lay a foundation for a further study on comparisons among global Fulbright programs, and to find out the program’s implications and impacts on Taiwan or on the U.S.-Taiwan
relationship. The research will be heavily based on archival review and in-depth interviews with executives and administrators. Four major parts of the program--legal charter, funding, programs, and administration, will be thoroughly examined.
Last, the research purpose is to draw out, if it exists, a pattern of policy diffusion or practice imitation involved in the Fulbright Program, specifically in the international educational exchange domain. If so, I aspire to extract the essence of their impact, especially for the smaller countries and their public diplomacy. A generalization of a nation’s interests or strategic thinking from the perspective of collaborative smaller countries is desired. If possible, the author would like to draw some policy recommendations for smaller countries’
future practice, using Taiwan as an example.
C. Questions
Viewing from a partner country’s perspective, this research aims to answer the questions:
How bi-national educational exchange serves for public diplomacy that benefits both despite lack of diplomatic ties and with growing asymmetrical funding contributions? How important does a ‘reciprocal’ role play in a government funded bilateral exchange program? What truly matters for international educational exchange in service of public diplomacy?
Other issues which also come up in this study of a Fulbright program and which call for further research include: how does actively participating in this ‘American brand’ program, which has been commonly seen as a tool of American public diplomacy, makes sense for a host country? How can a partner country, a smaller power who is inferior to the U.S. super power, gain the benefits of public diplomacy from exchange? What possible incentives, financially or politically, are received by countries, who sign binational executive agreements with U.S., and who want to be part of the Fulbright Program? Is it simply a diffusion of ideas and policies, or are there national interests involved, which include security strategy,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
domestic policy, economic interests, and consumption demands? Or, are there mutual
interests; since the ‘binational’ program is set up for reciprocal, mutual understanding? Or, is there a larger scheme of benefit, a real noble one, world peace?
III. Research Methods
Mainly based on archives and interviews, this case study and complete history of Fulbright Taiwan was the first of its kind, and aims to examine the educational exchange program in the context of its sixty-years of operations, a virgin land for academic research from both U.S. and Taiwan perspectives.
The global Fulbright Program is seen as a flagship of international educational exchange programs and as a U.S. public diplomacy tool to win the hearts and minds of foreign nationals; although the program was structured on a binational basis, for better mutual understanding. Since its inception in 1947, most researchers have worked on the Fulbright Program as a whole, which is also tied with U.S. foreign policy and public diplomacy. The Program has rarely been reviewed as the different practices of individual countries. Some suggest that much of the literature has been written by practitioners or affiliated persons (Bettie M. L., 2014), to strengthen the idea of exchange programs, and that there is a lack of critical, academic studies of the program. It was not until the 1990s, that some essays, from Fulbright participants, called for close analysis of the differences the Fulbright Program made to individual countries. Yet, the first country-based, book-length study, Academic
Ambassadors, Pacific Allies: Australia, America and the Fulbright Program, was just published in 2019 (Garner & Kirkby, 2019).
In addition, public diplomacy is a relatively new academic field, both in theoretical
development and application. Some researchers preferred to apply well-developed, existing theories from psychology, sociology, communications, and international relations, to illustrate the exchange programs. I rather flow with new tide, and I hope to exploit a new possibility, to build a block on a newer concept of public diplomacy for fundamental grounding, which may serve as a stepping stone for future research.
Thus, I followed the steps of most archival research on Fulbright Program and went to University of Arkansas to plow through the ‘wonderland’ of its ‘Special Collections’ of
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
historical archives/files of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (CU)5, formerly the Division of Cultural Relations and of documents on the development of U.S. international educational and cultural exchange activities, including the Fulbright Program. “The collection comprises 366 linear feet of correspondence, reports, studies, minutes, photographs, publications, audiovisual materials, and other records concerning various international exchange programs dated circa 1938-1983.” (Special Collections) Surprisingly, or not, I walked out with semi-empty hands for my case study of Fulbright Program in Taiwan. Most of the documents in the archives were related to general policy statements, reports on overall exchange programs, and less on individual countries. Documents on Taiwan were found sparingly in earlier times, and even fewer found dated after 1979. Many earlier documents had been retired to the U.S. National Archives before the donation of the collections was made to University of Arkansas by the United States Information Agency in the spring of 1983. Future, post-dissertation research may lead me back to the National Archives if the early period becomes a focus.
Going back to the origin in FSE’s archives, I found a complete documentary of its board minutes, since the very first ‘informal’ Board Meeting on 30 December 1957; although a very few pages and Appendixes were missing. Given the circumstance that the Foundation’s office quarters had been moved about ten times, it is a remarkably well-kept resource which made archival research approachable and possible. Mainly based on these minutes, along with semi-structured interviews providing complementary information, four themes are drawn from this historical narrative and explored in the case study chapter: legal charter, funding, programs, and governance. The ebb and flow of relations between the two Governments, as well as their funding contributions for exchanges, reveals a great deal about the purposes and practices of the Fulbright Program in Taiwan.
These well-archived documents with its digitalization have made this research approachable as most important operative information was transparent. In general, FSE’s minutes of the Board meetings were well taken with details of the decision making processes which covers brain-storming discussions, debating, and semi-chatting conversations among the Board
5 In 1959, the exchange function was separated from U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Public Affairs and was assigned to a newly created Bureau of Educational and Cultural Relations, with an initial of “CU”. Then, the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs was established to administer the exchange function after the Fulbright-Hays Act passed in 1961. (https://eca.state.gov/about-bureau/history-and-mission-eca)
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
members, a vivid revelation of scenes of interaction at the meetings. Furthermore, all kinds of formal/official reports from American grantees, Treasurer’s, and selection committees are included as appendixes in the minutes, and most administrative reports on mid-year
conference, FSE’s annual reports, and ED’s reports. Just a few reports were missing, and they did not harm the overview of a whole picture of FSE’s 70-year history.
Furthermore, I explored and filled these gaps by in-depth interviews, which are also better in revealing nuances and are regarded as the most effective way to learn details beyond the records. In particular at times the minutes of board meetings were a brief record with no discussion but only agenda and its conclusions; and no explanation of decisions that had been made during the Board’s adjournment, either.
In the past few years, I have done some research on related subjects and had the privilege to meet and interview Fulbright family members. All those conversations contributed to this research. Some thoughts and suggestions have been formed in the process, and the author owes debts to the participants. To avoid any sensitive issues that may apply, no quote will be made unless it is publicly announced or with explicit permission. For the record, I formally interviewed, in semi-structured format, two EDs of Fulbright Taiwan, Dr. Wu, Jing-jyi and Dr. William C. Vocke6, who respectively served from 1977 to 2009 and 2011 to 2019. In addition, to the case study of Taiwan, some interviews were conducted with staff at FSE with their consent, with a prominent alumnus Mr. Chiu, Cheng-hsiung, who also was the former president of Taiwan Fulbright Alumni Association and former Vice Premier of ROC (Taiwan) Government. Other interviewees include: Dr. Lonnie Johnson, ED of Fulbright Austria, 1997-2019; Ms. Jai Ok Shim, ED of Fulbright Korean from 2004 to 2019; Ms.
Benjawan Ubonsri, ED of Fulbright Thailand since 2014, Ms. DeDe Long, the President of Fulbright (Alumni) Association since January 1, 2020.
The interviews with ED were focused on the dynamic among board members, the circumstances of decision process and policy implementation, and were far beyond the minutes of board meetings and written documents. Luckily, Dr. Wu, Jing-jyi served as ED for thirty-two years, and added with eight and half years of service from Dr. William Vocke, that is a total of forty years that covers more than two-thirds of FSE’s history. As this
6 For transparency, I have been and am married to Dr. Vocke, and had many opportunities to talk with Fulbrighters during his 8+ years as Executive Director.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
research interest focuses on recent development, and after 1979; their interviews provide valuable information, opinions, and ideas. It is truly my great honor to have many open discussions with both of them.
Staffs at FSE are keys in the operations, and interviews are aimed to clarify their
understanding of FSE’s missions and their impacts on the results of educational exchange.
Their interpretation of the Program’s policy is reflected in their implementation and their interactions with Fulbrighters. Last, organizational behaviors and organizational climate are hidden in between the lines, which cannot be found in archives. These interviews were crucial in this understanding.
The time frame is 1947 to 2019, and focuses is on post-1979. Since 1979, the U.S. and Taiwan had moved to an unofficial relationship, and the ‘binational’ commission was renamed to the Foundation for Scholarly Exchange (FSE), which continued its operation of exchange programs without a single day of suspension. Presumably, FSE is one of the few formal threads that link the two nations, and could serve as a channel of communications for two Governments’ diplomats and counterparts; since they gathered to meet on a regular basis at the binational Board Meetings. Both the program of educational exchange and the
foundation itself could be important tools of ‘public diplomacy’ for U.S.-Taiwan relations, which are more important for Taiwan than for the U.S. due to Taiwan’s special international status after it withdrew from the United Nation in 1971.
The aim is on reviewing the program from Taiwan’s perspective to explore how it served and/or if it could be an effective public diplomacy tool for Taiwan. This research focuses on practices of operation of the Fulbright program, a case study of Taiwan, in the context of Fulbright commissions in East Asia and the Pacific. Four themes: legal charter, funding, programs, and governance and administration were focused in the case study. Exhaustive research has been done on Minutes of Board Meetings of Fulbright Taiwan, which covers 332 meetings dated from December 1957 to December 2019.7 Also, extensive research has been done on the binational executive agreements, as amended, signed in EAP, annual reports of BFS and FFSB, and official publications and records.
The primary sources in archives include:1) FSE documents, publications, manuscripts,
7 References to the Minutes of Board of Directors meetings are in the following format, [246:1987/5/13, p.3], i.e. [board meeting number: year/month/date/, page]
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
clippings, Minutes of the Board Meetings from its initiative informal meeting on December 30, 1957 to the end of 2019, the 332nd Board Meeting. 2) University of Arkansas Special Collections: MC 468 Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs historical Collection (CU) Records c. 1938-84. 3) Annual Reports and Statistics by Board of Foreign Scholarships (BFS) and its successor J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board (FFSB). 4) U.S.
Public Laws: Fulbright Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-584), United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-402, known as the Smith-Mundt Act), Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (P.L. 80-480, known as Food-for-Peace Act), Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-256, the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchanges Act of 1961), Taiwan Relation Act of 1979; 5) binational executive agreements and their amendments; 6) official documents, publications, and websites; 7) Memoirs of Fulbright Scholars.
Also, I explored studies on public diplomacy and soft power, which focus on smaller countries, and on the practice of international educational exchange programs. This secondary research has extended to all the practices of the Fulbright Program in EAP and worldwide. A brief comparison of the Fulbright programs in EAP has been made for analytic purposes for the case study on Taiwan. This effort may also provide a stepping stone for future research on educational exchange and public diplomacy in other Fulbright programs, from non-American eyes.
IV. Limitations
The first limitation is the accessibility of archives and the completeness of the records and information obtained. As Taiwan departed from the normal system of U.S. Fulbright Programs since 1979, its statute (legal status), funding (financial support), operations and administration (Board, personnel, accounting, office quarters, annual reports, etc.) all
appeared to lose its solid ground and run under an ad hoc basis. It is just like a stepchild who inherited a mixed blessing from ‘extra-legal’ and ‘guerillas.’ Some archives are missing and/or hidden that could not be recovered. In addition, Taiwan’s new regulations regarding the access of official archives has made academic research harder. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in 2020, put limits on the free mobility of people and hindered my archival research at University of Arkansas. I regret that there may still be some missing puzzle pieces to be discovered.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
There has to be a halt and limit, just like COVID-19 has impacted people’s lives. A news alert on the homepage of Fulbright Malaysia’s website was: “Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, global Fulbright programs have been suspended temporarily.” (MACEE) Likewise, ECA’s (the U.S. authority in charge) website says “Temporary Pause of International Exchange Program Due to COVID-19.” (ECA, About Fulbright)
Also, during the past seventy years, there were a few times of re-organization regarding
Also, during the past seventy years, there were a few times of re-organization regarding