臺灣傅爾布萊特獎助計畫（1947-2019）：國際教育交流做為公眾外交之個案研究 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)Fulbright Program in Taiwan (1947-2019): A Case Study of International Educational Exchange as Public Diplomacy 臺灣傅爾布萊特獎助計畫（1947-2019）：國際教育交流做為公眾外交之個案研究. 李素春. 學 Advisor: Dr. Der-Yuan Wu 吳得源博士. Nat. er. io. sit. y. ‧. ‧ 國. 立. 治政 Carol Li Vocke 大. a. n. v. l C A Dissertation Submittedn ito h e n gincAsia-Pacific hi U International Doctoral Program Studies (IDAS) National Chengchi University. 中華民國 110 年 1 月 January 2021. Copyright © 2021 Carol Li Vocke (Su-Chun Li). DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(2) DEDICATIONS Thanks be to God! and To my husband, William who loves me, indulges me, and adores me more than “all the tea in China”. Without his support and insistence, this simply cannot be done. Alone, I cannot walk this far! THANK YOU. To my family, both in Taiwan and in the U.S. I love you all!. 謹此獻上最深的感謝給耶和華神！. 立. 以及. 政治大. ‧ 國. 學. ‧. 我的先生，威廉，他是如此的愛我、疼我、喜歡我，用他的話，其愛多過海邊的沙、中國的茶。若沒有他的支持與堅持，這本論文是不可能完成的。倘若獨自一人，我是不可能可以走這麼遠的路！謝謝你。. n. al. er. io. sit. y. Nat. 我的家人，在臺灣和美國的所有家人，我愛你們！. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(3) Acknowledges An initial interest in doing a study on Fulbright Taiwan was encouraged by a young Professor Fu Kai Jo, to whom my term paper “A case study of leadership at Fulbright Taiwan,” for 2015 Fall Semester, seemed to be insightful research. Thanks to the many staff in FSE and two Executive Directors, Dr. Wu, Jing-jyi and Dr. William C Vocke, who took time out of their busy schedules to answer the questionnaires and interviews. This preliminarily research finding was pondered in my heart for years; and those interviews have been kept sealed, as I promised. As a career civil servant, who dedicated herself to public affairs particularly in public diplomacy and cross-cultural exchanges, this has been a mission driven calling. The last straw fell as timing, with the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020, when human beings were under attack by a novel virus. Most countries’ borders were closed, and travel was impeded. A never-ever-happen situation occurred, and I wish it had never happened.. 政治大. New times call for new responsibilities. During this challenging time, special thanks to the team at the University of Arkansas, in particular to Mr. Geoffery Stark and Ms. Blair Hollender, at Special Collections at University of Arkansas Libraries for their extra effort and support to ‘virtual’ research on the archives of Fulbright Programs. This also highlighted the importance of digitalization of Fulbright’s archival documents for future research. A bookdigitizing project was embarked on in 2002 by Google with major university libraries, and at least 25 million books were digitized by 2017. I took advantages of its free access through interlibrary loans in my sheltered-at-home research. Earlier annual reports and publications of FSB and FFSB, as well as other documents, were attained in digital files. 立. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. Nat. y. sit. n. al. er. io. As to my work at the University of Arkansas, a huge debt is owed to Dr. J. Lawrence Hare, Director of International and Global Studies, Associate Professor & Chair of the Department of History, and Ms. DeDe Long, the president of Fulbright Association. It will never be a more difficult and challenging year in international studies than in 2020. I am honored and grateful to be part of it.. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. Also, thanks for the grant for research at the University of Arkansas which was sponsored by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China. (MOST-109-2917-I-004001) For a transparency of insight, many thanks to all ‘Fulbrighters’ who shared their thoughts and enthusiasm which became valuable resources and insights for this research that was not the intention at first. They are too many to be enlisted; instead, I would like to dedicate this research to the family of Fulbright Taiwan as a whole. Special thanks to Dr. Joe Eaton, an independent FSE Board member, and a historian at NCCU, who also works on a history book of the Fulbright program in Taiwan; and, Dr. Paul Cheng-hsiung Chiu, a prestigious alumnus, Board member, and President of Taiwan Fulbright Alumni Association. Also, as wife to the second longest ED of Fulbright Taiwan, William Vocke, with great privilege, I had many opportunities to know and to observe how hard the staff at FSE worked during those 8½ years to make all the progress. Truly, they, as a team and individuals, deserve a big applause. It was their contributions that have made a tremendous difference of U.S.-Taiwan educational exchanges. For this dissertation, special thanks to Emilia, Sam, and. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(4) Eric making all archives in files and in digital available. Now, I know that FSE’s staff works with a purpose: ‘a little more knowledge and a little less conflict.’ Thanks to many EDs in EAP and in Europe, from whom I was inspired, and from whom I have learned the features and characteristics of his/her commissions, and their leaderships: Jai Ok Shim (South Korea), Matthew S. Sussman (Japan), Lonnie R. Johnson (Austria), Dr. James Coffman (Malaysia), Terhi Mölsä (Finland), Alan H. Feinstein (Indonesia), Benjawan Ubonsri (Thailand), Penelope Borland (New Zealand), Hana Ripková (Czech Republic), Ersel Aydinli (Turkey), Oliver Schmidt (Germany). Thanks also for their collegiality to those in ECA who had direct responsibilities for the Taiwan Program, Mary Kirk, Matt McMahon, Tory Augustine, Adam Meier, and Anita Chan. Thanks to many Board members from the U.S. and Taiwan Governments, some are old colleagues and friends and some are anew acquaintances, and to officials from AIT, ECA, MOE, MOFA, with whom I chatted, joked, and shared our stories of cross-cultural exchanges. It was never an easy job of keeping the ball rolling, in particular at a difficult time. But, I still believe it is right thing to do; and, let’s do it right.. 政治大. Finally, thanks to professors and classmates at IDAS, your kindness, patience, and hearty embrace of a ‘senior’ student does make a difference. Your instructions, contributions, and companionship were always in my thoughts when I wrote, and that contributed to making this research better.. 立. ‧ 國. 學. ‧. Most, thanks all the committee members, Dr. Wu, Jing-jyi, Endowed Chair in Creativity & Emeritus Professor at NCCU; Dr. Hsu, Szue-chin Philip, Professor, Department of Political Science at NTU; Dr. Huang, Kwei-bo, Associate Professor, Department of Diplomacy at NCCU; Dr. Li, Da-jung, Associate Professor, Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies at Tamkang University for your instructions and corrections.. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. And sincere thanks to my advisor Dr. Max Der-Yuan Wu, who has wholeheartedly supported this research, from its very beginning through a challenging time in his career and family who live in Toronto Canada. Like a mentor, like a friend; he selflessly shares his experiences, thoughts, and knowledge. I do appreciate your help very much, for I could not finish this research without your support, kindness and patience. THANK YOU.. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. Of course, there are mistakes and errors in this dissertation, any are unintentional but are my full responsibility. “Differences brought us together, and together we made a difference!” Quote from our wedding vows, March 17, 2004.. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(5) “I planted, Apollos watered, but GOD gave the growth.” 1 Corinthians 3:6, ESV. 政治大 “He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; 立 and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.”. ‧ 國. 學. 2 Corinthians 9:6, KJV. ‧. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(6) FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. 1 Abstract. The Fulbright Taiwan, officially known as the Foundation for Scholarly Exchange (FSE), is a U.S.-Taiwan binational commission, and facilitates the Fulbright program in Taiwan since 1979 when the relation of two nations went into unofficial mode. Its history traces back to 1947, the first Fulbright program in the world. A legendary program became atypical, the only one of 49 Fulbright commissions worldwide not built on a formal binational relationship, a true people-to-people exchange. Since there are no official ties, traditional diplomacy is hindered, but public diplomacy can serve a more important channel with its unlimited possibilities. This research removes the veil of a hidden history. This is a fascinating story of a resilient. 政治大 ambiguous legal status, to an energetic and thriving Fulbright commission, a model to many. 立 This is inspiring for all non-profit organizations. Where there is a will, there is a way. foundation, which has transformed from barely surviving, working around a fine line of. ‧ 國. 學. Limited not to the ‘formal’ binational relationship of U.S.-Taiwan, FSE outreaches to thousands of Americans, winning hearts and minds, linking two peoples with endless. sit. y. Nat. U.S. and Taiwan.. ‧. remembrances of real-life stories. Also, it has served as a third channel for dialogue between. n. al. er. io. Keywords: International Educational Exchange, Public Diplomacy, Educational Diplomacy, Soft Power, Fulbright Program, Fulbright Taiwan, Foundation for Scholarly Exchange, Fulbright Commission, East Asia and Pacific. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(7) 2. FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN 摘. 要. 臺灣傅爾布萊特，正式的組織名稱是學術交流基金會，其董事會由臺美兩國代表所共同組成，它是自 1979 年兩國斷交，雙方關係僅於非官方的模式之後，負責執行傅爾布萊特在台灣的獎助計畫。然而，學術交流基金會的歷史可以回溯至 1947 年，全球的第一個傅爾布萊特獎助計畫。如今，這個傳奇性的學術交流計畫卻變成了一個非典型的傅爾布萊特獎助計畫，在全球現有的 49 個董事會中，成為一個獨一例外不是建立在與美國有正式雙邊關係的國家裡，算是一個真正的人民與人民之間的交流計畫。在缺乏官方的關係下，傳統的外交會有阻礙，公眾外交卻有無限的可能性，而可以成為一個更重要的管道。. 政治大. 本項研究揭去一件隱密歷史的面紗。這是一個深富彈性與生命力之基金會的故事，從. 立. 因處於模糊不明的法律地位，行事多賴遊於法規間以求生存，到如今躍身為一個充滿. ‧ 國. 學. 活力、不斷成長精進的組織，成為全球許多傅爾布萊特獎助計畫的典範。這個故事對所有非營利組織都非常具有啟發性。所謂：有志者、事竟成。它並未受到台美兩國沒. ‧. 有正式邦交關係的限制，積極向外推展，觸及成千上萬的美國人，贏得他們的心；透. y. Nat. 過交流，連結著兩國人民的情感，是許多令人珍藏的真實生活記憶。同時，它也成了. al. er. io. sit. 台美兩國對話的第三管道。. v. n. 關鍵字：國際學術交流，公眾外交，教育外交，軟實力，傅爾布萊特計畫，台灣傅爾布萊特獎助計畫，學術交流基金會，傅爾布萊特委員會，亞太地區. Ch. engchi. i Un. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(8) FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. 3. Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………..1 List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………….6 List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………….9 List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………9 Chapter I Introduction………………………………………………………………………..10 I. Background……………………………………………………………………………13 II. Research Motivations, Purposes, and Questions……………………………………...20 A. Motivations………………………………………………………………………..20 B. Purposes…………………………………………………………………………...21. 政治大 III. Research Methods……………...……………………………………………………..23 立 IV. Limitations……………………………………………………………………….........27 C. Questions………………………………………………………………………….22. ‧ 國. 學. Chapter II Literature Review and Conceptual Framework…………………………………..29 I. Research on the Fulbright Program in Taiwan………………………………………..29. ‧. II. Research on the Fulbright Program: A Public Diplomacy Tool……………………...30. y. Nat. III. The Theoretical Development of Public Diplomacy…………………………….........34. sit. IV. Educational Exchange at the Service of Public Diplomacy…………………………..37. al. er. io. V. International Mobility, Educational Diplomacy, and Soft Power……………….........40. iv n C Chapter III A Historical Review of the Fulbright in Taiwan h e n gProgram hi U c from 1947 till 1979……………………………………………………………...49 n. VI. Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………….........42. I. 1908-1947: U.S.-China Educational Exchanges before the Fulbright Program……...50 II. 1947-1957: From Inception to Reactivation of the Fulbright China Program………..52 A. The Establishment of the First Fulbright Program in the World: Making Use of War Surplus for Educational Exchange……………………….........52 B. The Re-activation in Taiwan of the First Fulbright Program………………….........55 III. 1957-1979: From Rebirth to Transformation…………………………………………59 A. The Legal Charter…………………………………………………………………...60 B. By-Laws and Policies: The Board of Directors……………………………………..67 C. Funding……………………………………………………………………………...69 D. Programs……………………………………………………………………….........72. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(9) 4. FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN E. Governance, Policy, and Administration……………………………………………77 F. Problems and Resolutions…………………………………………………………...80 IV. A Brief Summary…………………………………………………………………….83. Chapter IV A Narrative of the Fulbright Program in Taiwan: 1979-2019…………………...85 I. An Atypical Fulbright Commission……………………………………………………85 II. The Statute, Operation, and Development of FSE……………………………………..88 A. The Legal Charter…………………………………………………………………...88 B. Funding……………………………………………………………………………...92 C. Programs and Activities…………………………………………………………......97 1. Discontinued Programs……………………………………………………...........99 a) The Modern Management Foundation Fellowship: 1981-2006………………..99 b) Chinese Scholar-in-Residence at University of Virginia: 1985-1988………...100. 政治大. c) Herbert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program: 1985-1995………………………101. 立. 2. The Two Core Programs………………………………………………………...102. ‧ 國. 學. 3. Initiatives………………………………………………………………………...106 a) Non-Academic Professional Awards…………………………………………106. ‧. b) English Teaching Assistantship (ETA) Program……………………………..108 c) Fulbright Foreign Language Teaching Assistant (FLTA) Program…………..111. Nat. sit. y. d) Degree Programs in Partnership with Taiwan Universities…………………..113. er. io. 4. Hyphenated Programs…………………………………………………………...114 5. Regional Activities and Programs………………………………………….........115. n. al. Ch. i Un. v. 6. Establishment of the Chinese Foundation Alumni Association…………………117. engchi. D. Governance, Policy, and Administration…………………………………………..118 E. Problems and Resolutions…………………………………………………….........123 1. Legal Issues……………………………………………………………………...123 2. Funding Issues…………………………………………………………………...125 3. Administrative Issues……………………………………………………………129 4. Grants Issues……………………………………………………………….........130 III. A Brief Summary……………………………………………………………………134 Chapter V Portraits of Fulbright Commission Programs in East Asia and the Pacific..........136 I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………….........136 II. Portraits of Commission Programs………………………………………………….141 A. The Philippines…………………………………………………………………….142 B. New Zealand……………………………………………………………………….145. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(10) FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. 5. C. Australia………………………………………………………………………........147 D. South Korea………………………………………………………………………...150 E. Thailand…………………………………………………………………………….153 F. Japan………………………………………………………………………………...155 G. Malaysia…………………………………………………………………………….157 H. Indonesia……………………………………………………………………………159 III. Comparative Reviews of Fulbright Commissions in EAP…………………………..162 A. A Snapshot of Fulbright Commissions in EAP……………………………………163 B. Statistics of Fulbright Commissions in EAP in 2017……………………………...165 C. A Historical Review of Fulbright Commissions in EAP in 1979…………….........166 Chapter VI Research Findings and Conclusions …………...……………………………....167 I. People-to-People Exchange…………………………….....………………………....168. 政治大. II. Adaptive to the Host’s Need…..……………………... ..…………………………...178. 立. III. Merit-Based Practice………………………………………….....…………………..183. ‧ 國. 學. IV. Conclusions and Suggestions…….…………………………………………….........187. ‧. Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………..192 I. Primary Sources...………………………………………………………………........192. Nat. sit er. io. Appendixes. y. II. Bibliography……………………………………………………………………........194 I. A Brief Timeline of the Fulbright Program in Taiwan, 1947-2019. n. al. Ch. i Un. v. II. List of Board Chairs of the Fulbright Program in Taiwan, 1957-2019. engchi. III. List of Executive Directors of the Fulbright Program in Taiwan, 1957-2019 IV. U.S.-ROC Binational Executive Agreements and Letters-of-Exchange V. By-Laws of Fulbright Taiwan VI. Related U.S. Congressional Acts. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(11) 6. FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. List of Abbreviations AAFC. Australian-American Fulbright Commission. AAPSS. The American Academy of Political & Social Sciences. ACPD. U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. AFAA. Australian Fulbright Alumni Association. AIT. American Institute in Taiwan. AIT/T. American Institute in Taiwan, Taipei Office. AIT/W. American Institute in Taiwan, Washington Headquarters. AMINEF. American Indonesian Exchange Foundation. ANZUS. Australia-New Zealand-United States. BFS. Board of Foreign Scholarship (now known as FFSB). CAO. Cultural Affairs Officers. CCNAA. 政治大 Coordination 立Council for North American Affairs (now known as Taiwan Council for U.S. Affairs), in Taiwan. ‧ 國. 學. Commission on Higher Education, in Philippines. CIES. Council for International Exchange of Scholars, in U.S.. CLAIR. Council of Local Authorities for International Relations, in Japan. COVID-19. 2019 novel coronavirus. CU. U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural. ‧. CHED. n. al. sit. er. io. DAAD. y. Nat. Relations (today’s ECA). i Un. v. Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (German Academic. Ch. Exchange Service). engchi. DFAT. Department of Education and Training, in Australia. DOS. U.S. Department of State. DOS/CU. U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Relations (today’s ECA). DOS/ECA. U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. DSTO. Defence, Science and Technology Organisation, in Australia. EAP. East Asia and the Pacific. ECA. U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. ED. Executive Director. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(12) FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. 7. FPASP. Fulbright-Philippines Agriculture Scholarship Program. ETA. English Teaching Assistant(ship). FLTA. Fulbright Foreign Language Teaching Assistant Program. FFSB. J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. FSE. Foundation for Scholarly Exchange (also known as Fulbright Taiwan). FICHET. Foundation for International Cooperation in Higher Education in Taiwan. GKS. Global Korea Scholarship. Global UGrad. Global Undergraduate Exchange Program. GOI. Government of Indonesia. HEP. Higher Education Partnership. ICDF. International Cooperation and Development Fund, in Taiwan. ICEF. International Consultants for Education and Fairs. IMF. International Monetary Fund. IIE. Institute of International Education, in U.S.. JET. The Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme. JUSEC. Japan-United States Educational Commission. KAEC. Korean-American Educational Commission. MACEE. Malaysian-American Commission on Educational Exchange. MOE. Ministry of Education of the R.O.C.. MOEA. Ministry of Economic Affairs of the R.O.C.. MOFA. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the R.O.C.. MOST. Ministry of Science and Technology of the R.O.C.. MOU. Memorandum of Understanding. NCCU. National Cheng-Chi University, in Taiwan. NCKU. National Cheng-Kung University, in Taiwan. NIIED. National Institute for International Education, in South Korea. NSC. National Science Council (now known as Ministry of Science and. 學. Nat. n. al. Ch. engchi. er. io. sit. y. ‧. ‧ 國. 立. 政治大. i Un. v. Technology) of the R.O.C. NTCPA. National Taiwan College of Performing Arts, in Taiwan. NTU. National Taiwan University, in Taiwan. PAO. Public Affairs Officer. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(13) 8. FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. PAEF. Philippine-American Educational Foundation. PD. Public Diplomacy. PL79-584. Public Law 79-584, also known as the Fulbright Act, 1946. or PL 584 PL80-402 or PL 402 PL80-480 or PL 480 PL87-256. Public Law 80-402, U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act, 1948 (also known as Smith-Mundt Act) Public Law 80-480, Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act, 1954 (also known as Food for Peace Act) Public Law 87-256, Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961. or PL 256 ROC. Republic of China. ROK. Republic of Korea (South Korea). TAFS. Taiwan Fellowships & Scholarships. TECRO. Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. TCFL. Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language. TFA. Thai Fulbright Alumni Association. TUSEF. Thailand-United States Educational Foundation. USAID. United States Agency for International Development. USED. United States Department of Education. USEF/A. United States Educational Foundation in Australia. USEF/C. United States Educational Foundation in China (Republic of China). USEC/K. United States Educational Commission in Korea. USEF. United States Educational Foundation. USEF/ROC. United States Educational Foundation in the Republic of China. USIA. United States Information Agency. USIS. United States Information Service. 學. Nat. n. al. er. io. sit. y. ‧. ‧ 國. 立. 政治大. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(14) FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. 9. List of Tables Table 2.1 Author-affiliated Fulbright Literature………………………………………....31 Table 3.1 List of the First Board of Directors and Advisers of USEF/C………..……….54 Table 4.1 BFS’s Statistics of Fulbright Grants with Taiwan, 1977-1980…………..…..103 Table 4.2 BFS’s Statistics of Fulbright Grants with China, 1977-1980……………..…103 Table 4.3 Taiwan ETA Program, 2003-2019…………………………………….…..…110 Table 4.4 FSE’s Accumulated Funds…………………………………………………...128 Table 5.1 Fulbright Binational Commissions in East Asia and the Pacific..…………...137 Table 5.2 Fulbright Grants 1946-2016……………………………………………….....138 Table 5.3 Number of Grantees by Countries in EAP Region, 1949-2016……………...139 Table 5.4 A Snapshot of Fulbright Commissions in EAP……………………………...163. 政治大 Table 5.6 A Historical Review of Fulbright Commissions in EAP in 1979…………....166 立 Table 5.5 Statistics of Fulbright Commissions in EAP in 2017………………………..165. ‧ 國. 學. List of Figures. ‧. Figure 2.1 International Educational Exchange in the Process of Public Diplomacy…..45 Figure 4.1 Taiwan ETA program in chart, 2003-2019…………………………………110. Nat. n. al. er. io. sit. y. Figure 4.2 Statistics of Taiwan Fulbright Board Meetings, 1958-2019………………..120. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(15) 10. FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. Fulbright Program in Taiwan (1947-2019): A Case Study of International Educational Exchange as Public Diplomacy Chapter I Introduction When the Fulbright Program was initiated in 1946, there was no ‘fancy’ term of public diplomacy. But, international educational exchange, across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans had been in practice for many decades. Three examples often referred to were: the Rhodes Scholarship since 1903, the Boxer Indemnity Scholarships begun in 1909, and the BelgianAmerican Exchange Fellowship Program since 1920. The lexicon of public diplomacy and the association with exchange programs were developed relatively recently. An old diplomatic practice, which academia traced to more than a century ago, had a new life with. 政治大. purpose in the name public diplomacy (PD).. 立. Although the U.S. government was involved in the latter two aforementioned programs,. ‧ 國. 學. America’s transnational cultural activities in the early 20th century remained mostly in private hands. The first policy guided exchange was with Latin America, under President. ‧. Roosevelt’s “good neighbor” policy in the late 1930s. The U.S. government’s involvement in international educational exchange was far behind the private sector and other great powers.. io. sit. y. Nat. (O'Neill, 1972, pp. 2-5). n. al. er. Modern China, before the Republic was established in 1911, had taken part in the educational. i Un. v. exchange with the U.S. government based on the Boxer Indemnity, which was also publicly. Ch. engchi. referenced with the Fulbright Program. Thus, to the Chinese, maybe not to the other parts of the world, Fulbright might have been started on a wrong footing by that connection as it reminds them of the national humiliation of the Indemnity. It just made no sense that China would like to be the first country to participate in “another” exchange program based on war surplus, a relation to the World War II (WWII) that killed 18 million Chinese. Yet, in the midst of Chinese civil war, did the ROC government have other options? Would it refuse the initiative of a good-will proposal, from a strong ally who helped bring China a victory of WWII? On the other hand, international politics always has two sides of a coin, two stories of one history. Following the end of WWII, the world order changed. The Fulbright Program, the U.S.’s biggest attempt beyond the Western Hemisphere on educational exchange, is an iconic. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(16) FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. 11. American-brand program and is argued to be serving the best U.S. national interests. But, why are participating countries ‘willing’ to take part and join this ‘binational’ programs? What has been learned from this educational exchange, beyond joining a band-wagon? What benefits are gained over decades of people-to-people exchanges, with or without the intentions of the host country? Presumably, there must be something that supports the partnerships and keeps the program operating for many decades. In Taiwan’s case, it is over sixty years. Further, is there a role that the government of the host country can play to make a difference, to use this people’s exchange program equally to serve its own interests and for public diplomacy purposes? I intend, from the host country’s perspective, to develop an overview of the Fulbright Program. The origin of the Fulbright Program is from a former Rhodes Scholar, who then was a junior. 政治大 Rhodes scholarship in 1925 that立 was “responsible” for this exchange idea. “The Rhodes U.S. Senator from Arkansas, Mr. J. William Fulbright. It was his own experience of the. scholarship made all the difference in the world. It was almost like a dream,” said Fulbright.. ‧ 國. 學. (Sussman, 1992, p. 53) After sixty-six years, in his remarks at an interview in 1991, Senator Fulbright vividly recalled the ‘life-changing’ impacts of living in England and studying in. ‧. Oxford. This resonated in a young-girl’s mind too. Ms. Chi, Pang-yuan [齊邦媛]1, a. sit. y. Nat. Fulbrighter from Taiwan, recalled her first night in Washington D.C. “like a dream, like real. (Chi, 2014, p. 356) And, in 2018, a young Filipino attorney returned home with an. io. n. al. er. experience of his ‘wildest dreams’ fulfilled after his Fulbright study at Harvard University.. i Un. v. (PAEF, 2018) As Richard Arndt has written, in Introduction of The Fulbright Difference,. Ch. engchi. 1948-1992, “There have doubtless been Fulbright grantees, returned from their experience abroad, who do not report a life-change. The fact is, I have never met one.” (Arndt & Rubin, 1993, p. 1; Dudden & Dynes, 1987) The purposes of the exchange may be different and the funding of the program may vary, but the impact on the hearts and minds of people in the exchanges resounds across many different nations. There will never be shortage of personal life-changing examples in international educational exchange, yet personal experience is not the focus of this research. My interest is on the projection of its potential impact on societal and national levels, which implies a. 1. Chi, Pang-Yuan[齊邦媛], a two-time Fulbrighter, in 1961 and in 1967, is the 2018 Laureate of FSE’s Hall of Fame. She has been highly regarded as instrumental in introducing western literature to Taiwan and Taiwanese literature to the western world through translations.. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(17) 12. FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. broader, collective influence in people’s world views and values, as a result of living in a foreign country for an extended period. The goal of exchanges is that sympathy and empathy will be nurtured in favor of the host country. Regarding the case study, in 1979, the U.S. and Taiwan broke diplomatic ties, and all relations between the two nations went into an informal mode, in a format of public diplomacy. People to people’s non-official relations defined all aspects. Even political communications are through a channel of ‘non-profit’ organizations, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and Coordination Council for North American Affairs (CCNAA)2. As of 2020, there are only fifteen countries that officially recognized Taiwan, the Republic of China; hence, public diplomacy is extraordinarily important to Taiwan. Fulbright Taiwan serves one important channel in public diplomacy for the U.S. and Taiwan relations, and beyond.. 政治大 For the traditional theory of public diplomacy, an ideal outcome is a favorable policy toward 立 the host country, or at least a no-harm policy, will result when a critical time comes. Yet, a. ‧ 國. 學. new paradigm of public diplomacy, a limits model, urges focusing on the early influences of PD on the policy-making process: changing perceptions and setting agendas. This involves. ‧. the creation in the target country of public awareness and a favorable environment toward the. y. Nat. host country, which in turn sets unfavorable agendas off-limits. This echoes Nye’s second. sit. and third faces of changing policy: controlling agendas and establishing preferences. Nye. al. er. io. asserts “if a country can shape international rules that are consistent with its interests and. iv n C and follows rules that encourage other countries h e n gtocchannel h i Uor limit their activities in ways it prefers, it will not need as many costly carrots and sticks.” (2004, pp. 10-11) n. values, its action will more likely appear legitimate in the eyes of others. If it uses institutions. In Taiwan’s case, limiting foreign countries’ policy options to comply with the universal values of freedom, democracy, peace, and self-determination is optimal, i.e. Taiwan’s future should be decided by the people of Taiwan. Furthermore, a declaratory policy or statement of. 2. Because of the ending of diplomatic relations, no formal relationship could occur between the two governments. Hence, in the U.S. a ‘non-profit corporation’ was established headquartered in Virginia, The American Institute in Taiwan (AIT/W). The headquarter office in the U.S. serves as a liaison with its counterpart organization, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO). Similarly, in Taipei an independent committee was established, the Coordinating Council for North American Affairs (CCNAA), which was recently renamed as the Taiwan Council for U.S. Affairs on June 6, 2019, as a counterpart to AIT’s Taipei office (AIT/T). Officially, the communications between the two governments went through these non-profits; although informally and increasingly over the years there is direct contact and interaction between the governments.. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(18) FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. 13. ‘opposition to unilateral changes to the status quo’ of cross-Strait relations could mean a lot to Taiwan in world politics. (Glaser et al., 2020) The Fulbright Program has been established as a spoke-hub system of exchange programs. It was initiated and started from the good will of the U.S. government, then expanded to a reciprocal basis, and now some individual programs are even mainly funded by host countries, especially among the ‘commission-based’ programs. The hub has in-part been displaced by the spokes, in terms of financial contributions, and Taiwan is one of the many cases. I. Background The Fulbright program was established by the U.S. government in 1946, and aimed to. 政治大. promote international exchange and understanding in the wake of the devastation of World. 立. War II. It was first initiated by Senator J. William Fulbright, passed by the Congress, and. ‧ 國. 學. signed into law. The Fulbright Act, Public Law 79-584, was signed by the U.S. President Harry Truman on August 1, 1946. The Act relied on an earlier amendment inserted into the. ‧. Surplus Property Act of 1944 almost without reflection and certainly without controversy. Accordingly, the Department of State was designated as the disposal agency for war-related. Nat. sit. n. al. er. io. the preamble.. y. surplus property outside the continental United States and for “other purposes” as stated in. i Un. v. As Harry P. Jeffrey described, this bill “whisked through” the Senate with one minor change. Ch. engchi. and no debate, without a roll call vote. Passage by the House came even more quickly; after a debate lasted less than ten minutes it passed with a “whoop and a holler.” “It didn’t involve a lot of money, so what the hell? Nobody paid any attention to it,” said Senator Fulbright. (Jeffrey, 1987, p. 47) This seemingly innocuous amendment to a major piece of legislation was very significant politically. It meant that no U.S. budget funds would have to be appropriated for Fulbright exchanges, and there would be little objection within Congress to a program that did not require expenditures. It wasn’t until 1961, after the Fulbright-Hays Act, that the program would become part of the ongoing U.S. yearly budget. This original idea transformed ‘war junk’ into educational exchange (Lebovic, 2013), and was perhaps the best use of the U.S. war surplus property overseas. “A disarmingly simple idea” for post war planning to secure a “creative peace” turned out to be “the biggest, most. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(19) 14. FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. significant movement of scholars across the face of the earth since the fall of Constantinople in 1453,” as suggested by a don at Oxford, Ronald B. McCallum. (Jeffrey, 1987; Vogel, 1987, p. 12) Senator Fulbright argued that “we can overcome the human tendency toward aggression only by changing our way of thinking,” and he believed that “it is possible---not very probable, but possible---that people can find in themselves, through intercultural education, the ways and means of living together in peace.” (quoted from Shim et.al., 2010, p. 8) Later, the U.S. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson echoed these thoughts on May 9, 1961 by saying: “Arms can never make us invulnerable nor our enemies invincible, but the support we give to education can make freedom irresistible.” (quoted from Johnson & Colligan, 1965, p. xi). 政治大 curtain in the 1990s. “The exchange of scholars and other exchanges play a very important 立 role in Soviet politics because through these exchanges Russian intellectuals were After a half-century, Mikhail Gorbachev’s ‘new thinking’ contributed to the fall of iron. ‧ 國. 學. westernized,” explained Russian political analyst Sergei Markov. (Richmond, 2003, p. ix). Educational exchange, which resulted in or led to Gorbachev’s glasnost program (openness. ‧. policy), was one catalyst for the end of Cold War. This peaceful result was one realization of. y. Nat. Senator Fulbright’s vision: "Education is a slow-moving but powerful force. It may not be. n. al. Ch. er. io. available." (quoted from Druett, 1989, p. 9). sit. fast enough or strong enough to save us from catastrophe, but it is the strongest force. i Un. v. As of 2019, there are more than 160 countries participating in this bi-national exchange. engchi. program, with 49 binational commissions in operation. As to the other 100 some countries, these programs are run by the U.S. Embassies. In total, more than 390,000 ‘Fulbrighters’ have participated in the Program since its inception; over 247,000 scholars and students have visited the United States to conduct advanced research, study, and teach in U.S. universities, and more than 140,000 U.S. scholars and students have traveled internationally for similar purposes. Now, the Fulbright Program awards approximately 8,000 grants annually. (ECA, n.d.) And, “it is considered by many the flagship of international exchange programs.” (Vogel, 1987, p. 12) More than one third of grantees are Americans who come home with a foreign cultural experience, and may produce a ripple effect in their networks. As Senator Fulbright suggested, the program is more to educate Americans about the outside world than foreign nationals. (Shim et al., 2010, p. 57). DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(20) FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. 15. In East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) region, there are now 29 countries and areas that offer Fulbright grants, but only 9 are run under binational commissions. They are in Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Thailand. Among them, Taiwan (the Republic of China), the Philippines, and New Zealand were the first, third, and fifth countries which signed executive agreements with the U.S. (Fulbright New Zealand, 2008, p. 4) This merit-based, binational exchange program was first designed to be implemented in host countries by a scheme of independent commissions, composed of representatives from two nations. This “Commission model” is the “uniqueness” of the Fulbright Program and the binational character makes the program a success, as Ralph H. Vogel suggested. (Vogel, 1987, p. 14) It was the primary focus of the Fulbright program from its inception when most. 政治大 1990s, when the latest commission 立was established in Poland in 1995, there was no. funding was essentially from either war-surplus, lend-lease, or food-for-peace. After the late expansion of Fulbright programs based on commissions. Fulbright exchanges also take place. ‧ 國. 學. in countries where no independent commissions exist or where commissions become inactive (i.e. Burma), and these are managed through the U.S. Embassies, as are current programs in. ‧. mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau.3 Furthermore, since its beginning, the program was. y. Nat. mainly run under the U.S. State Department’s authority and their counterpart in foreign. io. sit. countries; although the Fulbright program is dedicated to educational exchange. Obviously,. n. al. er. for the U.S. government, the initiating actor of the Fulbright exchange program, this is a. i Un. v. matter of diplomacy, or foreign affairs, rather than a ‘simple’ educational purpose.. Ch. engchi. The Fulbright Act for educational exchange was “the first such [U.S.] official program to be tried outside the Western Hemisphere” (Fairbank, 1976, p. vii) and “the first large-scale effort by the U.S. Government in the field of international education.” (Jeffrey, 1987, p. 40) Prior to that, most U.S. international educational exchanges were operated by the private sector and focused on Latin America and Western Europe. The private foundations — Carnegie, Guggenheim, Rockefeller, and Rosenwald—had financed the study of several thousand foreign students in the U.S. and had sent hundreds of American scholars to foreign countries for research work for about thirty years, before the Fulbright began. (Hanson, 1944,. 3. The Embassy/State Department, for three countries, has subcontracted for some of the program management to an independent nonprofit, the Institute for International Education (IIE). These have been Russian, Ukraine, and the China.. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(21) 16. FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. pp. 8-9) However, this U.S. government initiative was not new to the world; in fact, “the United States was the last great power to become officially involved in international cultural affairs.” “The French government had been engaged in this field since the latter half of the 19th Century. The governments of Germany, Italy, Japan, Great Britain and the Soviet Union initiated exchange activities in the decade between the two world wars.” (O'Neill, 1972, p. 4) However, this late comer, the Fulbright program, has been operating educational exchanges for more than 70 years, and it seems not only to keep growing, outpacing the others, but also to set a model for a new paradigm. The first funding was made available in local/foreign currencies from the sale overseas of U.S. war surplus property, and was to be used only on foreign soil. There were no U.S. dollar funds, and no funds could be used in the continental U.S. Later, under the Smith-Mundt Act. 政治大 appropriations provided the major 立funding, in U.S. dollars. Also, in the 1950s, similar to the of 1948 and more importantly the Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961, U.S. congressional. war surplus program, funds were made available from the Food-for-Peace sales of surplus. ‧ 國. 學. U.S. agricultural products, which led to an expansion of 15 new Commissions between 19551960 (L. Johnson, personal communication, January 5, 2017), and gave additional sources of. ‧. funds to revive some of the initial 27 commissions. Taiwan and Korea are two examples.. y. Nat. sit. As Smith-Mundt Act stated, the purpose of exchange is “to promote a better understanding of. al. er. io. the United States in other countries and to increase mutual understanding between the people. iv n C transformative program, in which ‘hard’hmoney in the form e n g c h i Uof surplus was turned into ‘soft’ money for financing educational and cultural exchange. Through peoples’ exchange, soft n. of United States and the people of other countries.” Fulbright exchange was seen as a. power was developed by promoting universal values of democracy and world peace, which served the interest of the U.S. Recently, more and more Asian countries not only outpaced the U.S. on funding Fulbright programs, but also endeavored to establish their own scholarships for educational exchange. Some were “benchmarked” on the Fulbright Program, as Korean government announced in its ‘Global Korea Scholarship’ in 2010. (Shim et al., 2010). Another example, the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Programme is spotlighted as one of the most successful cases in cultural exchange and public diplomacy. Begun in 1987, JET at present has about 6000 participants from 57 countries, annually. Its participants are employed not only as Assistant. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(22) FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. 17. (English) Language Teacher, but also as Coordinators for International Relations and Sports Exchange Advisors. (JET) Furthermore, contributions from the private sector and cooperative programs became major revenue to Fulbright commissions in EAP. In 2018, Fulbright Australia announced a $10 million donation from a private foundation to establish the “Fulbright Future Scholarship”. (AAFC, 2018) One push for most participating countries in Asia, like China (the Republic,) and Korea, to first jump onto this Fulbright bandwagon was because of the U.S. war surplus sales. Later, a pull force came from the Smith-Mundt Act and the Fulbright-Hays Act, as their funding primarily originated from U.S government appropriations. Binational exchange programs. 政治大. became a free-ride for the participating countries.. 立. Now, with the increased interest in the rising importance of soft power and public diplomacy,. ‧ 國. 學. “diplomatic historians and historians of education have begun to explore the confluence of international education and foreign affairs” and to assess the goals and efficacy of. ‧. international educational programs. (Garlitz & Jarvinen, 2012, p. 2) The Fulbright Program is one of the longest, largest, and most prestigious exchange programs. It may shed light on the. Nat. sit. y. impact of public and people’s diplomacy. The first Fulbright program in the world, now. er. io. known as Fulbright Taiwan, could not be a better example as the program has evolved through different political relations between two nations, from strong allies to de-recognition.. n. al. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. Furthermore, most research on Fulbright programs has been done from a U.S. perspective, and is very positive in supporting the program and evaluating its performance. (Jeffrey, 1987; Snow & Taylor, 2009; Vogel, 1987; Woods, 1987) Some may attribute this to the efforts of U.S. State Department for its budget justifications and to Senator William J. Fulbright’s 30year-long service as Chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Until recent years, little research has focused on an individual country’s program (Abbas, 2015), or is from a partner nation’s perspective. (Garner & Kirkby, 2019) Imbalanced research interests and goals heavily tilt toward writing from an American standpoint, which may reflect a more U.S. dominant program than the binational format originally indicated. Also, facing a threat of dramatic budget cuts from Trump Administration, this American focus motivates Fulbright supporters, from the U.S. and globally, to gear up advocacy in. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(23) 18. FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. Washington D.C., and on global cooperation, to promote Fulbright and attract research interests, which may bring public attention, to the Fulbright Program. Crisis creates its own opportunity, and may lead to a new wave of research interest on the Fulbright Program. A historical review of Fulbright Australia and a collective work on ‘the legacy of J. William Fulbright’ were both just published in 2019. A grant project “International Exchange and the Future of Fulbright Internationalism4” at University of Arkansas, was funded to digitalize the Program’s archival documents and to promote related research. A perfect storm has just being created for advocacy and research interest on Fulbright Program, said DeDe Long, the Chair of the Fulbright Association of alumnae in the U.S. (personal communication, March 15, 2020). 政治大 by arms but values, won people’s hearts. One of the largest movements of people in world 立 history has then emerged through educational exchange. Soft power is about winning hearts. The Fulbright Program was initiated after World War II. A new measure for world peace, not. ‧ 國. 學. and minds. The essence of educational and cultural exchange fits right into that category; because for people in exchanges, living in a host country and interacting with its people. ‧. results in one’s empathy and sympathy being altered.. Nat. sit. y. Joseph S. Nye points out that soft power is relational, and that it is “useful to distinguish three. er. io. aspects of relational power: commanding change, controlling agendas, and establishing preferences.” (2011, pp. 10-11) He calls these the “three faces” which can be used to change. n. al. Ch. i Un. v. policy. It is important to note that only the first face involves directly altering policy, while. engchi. the second and third faces are indirect approaches that set limits or establish parameters within which policy is constructed. Hence his conception of soft power adds a dimension to the traditional focus on resources by the important inclusion of relational power. (2011, pp. 915) While realist research focuses on big power politics, which is based upon resources and practices of Great Powers, constructivist and neo-liberal research is more likely to include soft power and/or public diplomacy along with power. Even with this added, relational dimension of power capable of indirectly influencing policy, most of the existing soft power. 4. With great pleasure and honor, the author and this dissertation research can be part of the project “International Exchange and the Future of Fulbright Internationalism,” led by Dr. J. Laurence Hare, Director of International & Global Studies at University of Arkansas.. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(24) FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. 19. literature focuses primarily on the practices of the United States and the People's Republic of China, such as the Confucius Institutes. Nevertheless, these are great powers, and much of PD's conceptualization is often based on these countries’ experiences. Hence, looking at lesser powers provides an important additional research focus; since less attention has been paid to middle or small countries (hereafter refers to smaller countries). (Wu D.-Y. , 2015) Large countries also often have hard power to spare, and can apply it to all three of Nye’s faces. They also have the capacity to develop and use extensive soft power. Using this mixture of relational and resource power can potentially color the understanding of the role of PD and soft power in each of the faces Nye identifies. In effect, hard power may for large countries be credited with too much impact. In contrast, smaller countries may have relatively little hard power. They may not only be more dependent on soft power, but there may also be. 政治大 “For Taiwan, soft power matters立 a great deal. Soft power offers Taiwan a vital if uncertain. less chance that hard and soft power will be confused when trying to determine the impact. substitute for hard power resources that it otherwise lacks.” (deLisle, 2010, p. 494) This. ‧ 國. 學. research assumes that the smaller countries’ experience in this regard is insightful and deserves systematic study.. ‧. y. Nat. Following the introduction and a subsequent literature review, a conceptual framework of. sit. research is constructed; the case study of Taiwan, which will be illustrated in two chapters, is. al. er. io. defined by the watershed of 1979. Then, there will be a brief discussion of the establishment. iv n C Pacific region. This is laid out as background and for comparisons. Finally, the h e ninformation hi U c g chapter of research findings will discuss how the Fulbright program in Taiwan and, in n. and development of the other commission-based Fulbright programs in East Asia and the. general, how international educational exchange can serve as an effective vehicle for Taiwan’s public diplomacy, and how a ‘limits model’ of public diplomacy may apply as a new paradigm for suggestions. From traditional public diplomacy’s focus on people’s face to face contact, to a new public diplomacy in the digital world focused on virtual contacts, one essence remains—people share values through exchanges or interactions; although the channels have changed. However, an ironic scenario occurred while the author conducted this dissertation research on educational exchange for public diplomacy. An un-precedent pandemic of Coronavirus (COVID-19) pushed all nations to close their borders to foreign citizens, and governments, universities, and companies have called all their people to come home as soon as possible.. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(25) 20. FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. 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,. 政治大. values, and ways of thinking. As I write, we are under attack by a novel virus.. 立. By September 29, 2020, the coronavirus pandemic has sickened more than 33.3 million. ‧ 國. 學. 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. sit. al. er. io. A. Motivations. y. Nat. II. Research Motivations, Purposes, and Questions. ‧. to New York Times (2020) database.. n. iv n C As is often the case; this research is of personal regarding the subject. I am a retired h e n ginterest chi U 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?. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(26) FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. 21. 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. 政治大 elite exchange, Fulbright may be a real case of success for public diplomacy. Thus, I am 立 considering, if this case, which happened with big powers, also applies to smaller powers. Is term was coined. As some liberal theories attribute the fall of the iron curtain to educational. ‧ 國. 學. 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. Nat. sit. y. limited reach of diplomatic efforts. Thus, they have two interrelated central characteristics:. er. io. 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. n. al. Ch. i Un. v. one moves further away from their immediate regions.” (Kočiová, 2014, p. 34) America is a. engchi. 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.”. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(27) 22. FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. (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. 政治大 exchange domain. If so, I aspire to extract the essence of their impact, especially for the 立 smaller countries and their public diplomacy. A generalization of a nation’s interests or. imitation involved in the Fulbright Program, specifically in the international educational. ‧ 國. 學. 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’. io. sit. y. Nat. C. Questions. ‧. future practice, using Taiwan as an example.. n. al. er. Viewing from a partner country’s perspective, this research aims to answer the questions:. i Un. v. How bi-national educational exchange serves for public diplomacy that benefits both despite. Ch. engchi. 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,. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

(28) FULBRIGHT PROGRAM IN TAIWAN. 23. 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. 政治大. nationals; although the program was structured on a binational basis, for better mutual. 立. understanding. Since its inception in 1947, most researchers have worked on the Fulbright. ‧ 國. 學. 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. Nat. sit. y. critical, academic studies of the program. It was not until the 1990s, that some essays, from. er. io. 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. n. al. Ch. i Un. v. Ambassadors, Pacific Allies: Australia, America and the Fulbright Program, was just. engchi. 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. DOI:10.6814/NCCU202100347.

臺灣傅爾布萊特獎助計畫（1947-2019）： 國際教育交流做為公眾外交之個案研究 - 政大學術集成

臺灣傅爾布萊特獎助計畫（1947-2019）：國際教育交流做為公眾外交之個案研究 - 政大學術集成