Where Minds Meet: The “Professionalization” of Cross-Strait Academic Exchange

Günter Schucher *

Table of contents

I. Introduction II. A Two-Dimensional Framework for Cross-Strait Academic Exchange A. International Relations B. The Internationalization of Higher Education C. Forms and Actors in Transnational Academic Exchange III. Cross-Strait Academic Exchange A. State-Centered Public Diplomacy B. Actors in Cross-Strait Academic Exchange C. Development of Cross-Strait Academic Exchange D. The Professionalization of Cross-Strait Academic Exchange IV. Conclusion

As the largest continent in the world, Asia is home to the most populous democracy as well as the most populous authoritarian regime. It is home to some of the most vibrant democracies as well as four out of the five remaining Communist countries. Asia is thus the front line in the ideological battle for the hearts and minds of the people. (’s former Vice President Hsiu-lien Annette Lu)1

Economic cooperation and cultural exchange are two pillars underpinning state-to- state relations. Economic cooperation aims at promoting mutual benefit and win-win progress, and cultural exchange opens hearts and minds of peoples. (’s Premier Wen Jiabao)2

* Günter Schucher is a senior research fellow at the GIGA Institute of Asian Studies in Hamburg. His research focuses on social issues in the PRC as well as on cross-strait relations. Dr. Schucher is the treasurer of the German Association of Asian Studies and editor of the refereed journal A sien. He was an international visiting fellow at the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy in 2008. The author can be reached at [email protected]. This research was supported by a grant from the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD); I am especially grateful for the support of TFD staff members Kiel Downey and Bo Tedards. Moreover, I would like to thank the Institute of International Relations at National Chengchi University and its director, Dr. Tuan Y. Cheng, for their hospitaity and help. I would also like to acknowledge Tang Shaocheng, Chen Chih-jou, Patrick Köllner and Martin Beck for their very helpful comments, and all the other people who shared their views with me. This paper was presented at the TFD’s seminar on April 14, 2008, and at the Sixth Conference of the European Association of Taiwan Studies in Madrid on April 17, 2009. 1 Hsiu-lien Annette Lu, Remarks at the Community of Democracies’ Roundtable on Democracy in Asia (Jan. 23, 2007) (transcript available at http://www.wfda.net/UserFiles/File/ VP%20Lu%20Remarks%20(Public%20Release.pdf). 2 Wen Jiabao, Speech at the Japanese Diet (Dec. 4, 2007) (transcript available at http://www.fmprc. gov.cn/eng/wjdt/zyjh/t311544.htm).

71 Chinese (Taiwan) Yearbook of International Law and Affairs

I. introduction

Academic exchange as understood in this article includes all kinds of cross- border academic mobility, that is, physical movements of either the consumer or the provider of education as well as researchers. Traditional types of mobility have been supplemented by new types of transnational higher education, which have become an integral part of the internationalization of higher education. These various types, however, cannot be clearly differentiated and comprise forms such as cross-border supply, consumption abroad (traditional student mobility), commercial presence (e.g., the establishment of facilities in another country), and the provision of educational services.3 Researchers mainly travel for more traditional reasons; their activities range from short-term trips to make contacts and gather information, participation in transnational conferences, and lecture tours to fieldwork and joint research projects. But they are also attracted by the growing international market for academic personnel.

In international relations, transnational academic exchange is understood as a form of scientific, educational, and cultural transnational contact between the intellectual communities of two countries and is usually seen as a function of the quality of bilateral relations. Like culture in general, it is seen as a tool of diplomacy aimed at winning the “hearts and minds” of intellectuals in another country. And as a kind of public diplomacy, the development of educational exchange not only follows the twists and turns of foreign policy, but its specific use is also shaped by the intent of foreign policy. Whether it is used to one- sidedly influence the counterparty, to build trust through the exchange of ideas, or to achieve a common goal through joint projects depends to a large extent on high politics.

Expansion of cross-strait academic exchange, however, seems to contradict established knowledge. In the Taiwan Strait, educational exchanges gathered momentum in 1996, when presidents of universities on both sides of the Strait held their first meeting to discuss higher education and arranged academic exchanges. They accelerated further after 2000, when the rule of the so-far dominant party, (KMT), ended and President Chen Shui-bian took over in the name of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). That means exchange has increased while the official relationship between Taiwan and China has changed for the worse in the course of an increasingly Taiwanese-identity-oriented policy.

This seemingly paradoxical situation results from the “special” kind of relationship that exists between Taiwan and mainland China.4 The unresolved questions of sovereignty and security complicate cross-strait exchange: while

3 Philip G. Altbach & Jane Knight, “The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and Realities”, 11 J. Stud. in Int’l Educ. 290 (2007). 4 In referring to the exchange between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, I will speak of “cross- strait exchange” as the special character of cross-strait relations. This corresponds to the term “transnational exchange,” which is commonly used to differentiate relations between non-state actors from “international” contacts at state level. Furthermore, I will refer to the Republic of China as “Taiwan” and the People’s Republic of China as “China.” It is beyond the scope of this article to clarify the status of both entities in international law, although the use of Taiwan instead of the ROC has recently been heavily contested within Taiwan.

72