本論文研究的主題是泰國為維護其邊界安全作出的國家安全政策。泰國位在印度支那半島的中心點，當周邊國家發生動亂時，泰國就成為政治難民逃難的目的地，而且入侵的人數非常多。先後進入泰國的政治難民有泰北孤軍、馬來亞共產黨及柬埔寨難民。本文探討他們進入泰國的原因、在泰國的行為、及泰國政府處置政治難民的政策及最後的歸屬。當時泰國國內也深受共產主義的迫害，使得泰國政府除了要消除來自國外的威脅，還要利用這些難民來協助阻止泰共的活動，或者利用這些難民團體構建其邊疆的防衛圈，成為防衛泰國邊界的前沿軍隊。最後泰國政府以其維護邊境安全有功的理由給予泰北孤軍和馬來亞共產黨人泰國籍，對柬埔寨難民則採取遣返回國或送至第三國安置的辦法。總之，泰國政府以包容性的政策，容納週鄰政治難民，藉以防衛其邊境並開發其邊疆荒蕪之地，是乃泰國邊境安全政策成功之道。 / This paper focuses on Thailand’s national security policy for its boundary issue. Due to the central position in Indo-Chinese Peninsular, when there happened the political turmoil of the surrounding countries, territory of Thailand has been used as a shelter for a large number of political refugees. Those political refugee groups include the Chinese Nationalist troops (KMT), Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), and Cambodian refugees. The reasons of political refugees entering into Thailand, activities and Thai government policy towards them, would be discussed in this paper. Since the 1950s, Thailand suffered from rebel activities of the Communist Party of Thailand, so Thai government took advantage of combating experience of political refugees to fight against those Thai Communists in bordering area. Thai government even gave them the land and agricultural instruments to cultivate in bordering area and encouraged them stay by giving Thailand nationality to KMT troops and members of CPM, but repatriated those Cambodia refugees to back to Cambodia or to resettle in the third country. Thai government adopted an accommodate policy towards those political refugee groups, by using them to defence its border area and develop the economy, successfully to maitain its border security.

本論文的目的，在於透過五○、六○年代臺灣的內外情勢，以及文復會工作的分析，解釋文復運動出現的原因，以及該會所扮演的角色。文復運動之所以展開，是中華民國政府在反攻戰事日益拖延的情勢下，為了解決動員戡亂與民主憲政的扞挌衝突，所必須塑造的一套正當性基礎。文復會的角色，則從原先主動塑造政府正當性的地位，在經歷七○年代的國際變局後，轉變為被動配合政府追求現代化的輔助機構。 自1950年以來，中華民國政府即面臨必須號召反攻，卻又不能反攻的情勢。隨著時間的流逝，反攻無望等疑問逐漸上升，以及動員戡亂長久維持所產生的弊病，皆嚴重威脅中華民國政府正當性的基礎。在此情況下，藉由中共文化大革命的發生，遂以文化復興運動塑造政府正當性。其方式是建構臺灣為中華文化唯一寶庫，為保衛傳統文化而需繼續與中共奮鬥，並以蔣中正作為道統傳人，將全民團結於領袖之下，換言之，「道統-國父-蔣公」、「三民主義=文化復興=反攻大陸」成為文復運動的主要內涵。總統兼文復會會長，意味著國家最高的領袖同時肩負文化復興的重責大任，對蔣中正而言，這種身份是繼承國父與道統而來，別人所無法取代。能領導文復會的，是道統傳人，是總統，是蔣中正，而這三者在當時構成了領袖一辭的實質內涵。該運動的工作不一定全是創新，但其鞏固中華民國政府統治正當性的作用，具有領導性與積極性。 文復運動繼承五○年代以來國民黨推動文化運動的手法，黨政機關隱藏在後，動員各式團體響應，使運動蔚為風潮，並宣稱此運動為民間自發的運動。由此，當回頭思考文化霸權的理論時，便發現葛蘭西的分析並不適用於文復運動。葛蘭西強調的是一個自主的市民社會，統治階級必須在此爭取認同，說服市民社會承認其在哲學、道德與知識上的領導權。然而，從背景的回顧來看，臺灣當時根本缺乏所謂自主性的市民社會，反對中華民國政府、需要被說服的勢力早已被剷除，這一點也是先行研究者所共同承認的。用文化霸權解釋文復運動，等於假定了一個不存在的市民社會。而所謂民間團體的積極響應，一種看似社會被統治者說服的景象，實際上也是黨政機構運作下的結果。因此，以文化霸權的概念分析，容易造成理論與事實的誤差。在這個運動中，我們必須注意領袖擁有崇高地位的這項特性，這將在文復會的實際工作中展露無遺。 在實際工作中可以發現，文復會所復興的「中華文化」，是經過篩選，而且利於中華民國政府統治。透過加強民族精神教育，傳達三民主義、愛國意識與擁戴領袖的信念；以推行國語運動等方式，壓抑地方文化，塑造官方同意的國有標準文化；從儒家經典的率先註譯中，又可了解道統學說才是文復會的重心所在。換言之，該運動所復興的「中華文化」，不僅強化三民主義與道統的重要性與普及性，同時亦意欲成為全中國均應學習與維護的唯一文化，成為判別正統中國與「偽政權」的標準文化。 另一方面，文復會制訂「國民生活須知」與「國民禮儀範例」，期望從日常生活當中體現文化復興的精神。貫穿須知與範例的最重要精神，在於嚴格克己與長幼尊卑的要求，將生活上的具體情境化為一條條的行為準則，建立起社會的秩序氣息。文復會採取由上而下的推行方式，期望黨政軍各級首長以身作則，達成上行下效的效果。這種依恃道德表率的思考，以人而言就是向尊長學習，以物而言就是向標語學習，以全國而言就是向政府學習，以運動整體而言就是向領袖學習。而在海外方面，運動的推行對象以華僑為主，這意味著文復會希望全球華人皆能體認正確的「中華文化」，藉由宣傳保衛民族遺產而支持中華民國政府，目的在彰顯世界華人對蔣總統復興文化的全力支持。從文復會海內外的工作來看，文復運動的重心，最終在於促進人民對領袖的擁戴。 然而，到了一九七○年代，外交上的挫折對中華民國政府的正當性基礎產生實質傷害，在穩定政權為首要考量下，蔣中正於1972年繼續連任總統，並提名其子蔣經國任行政院長。蔣經國透過多項社會與政治風氣的改革措施，宣示政府革新的企圖與決心，並以建立現代化國家為號召，推動九項建設等重要基礎工程。文復會在變局下，工作內容亦轉而強調現代化的面向，「國民生活須知」的實踐，出現大量維護清潔衛生與交通秩序的工作，透過政府機關的配合，修改法令加強取締髒亂與交通違規的情事。更具象徵意義的是，文復會的工作報告中，出現大量與蔣(經國)院長相關的活動，這對只配合蔣中正言論和政策的文復會而言，顯示在工作上已將蔣經國納入擁戴領袖的對象。整體而言，文復運動從原本具有領導性質的精神動員，在變局之後轉為依附政府對現代化的追求。 文復運動原是為了在不改變既有秩序的情況下，解決民主憲政與動員戡亂的衝突難題，然而變局後中華民國政府的諸多改變，則使文復會的重要性降低。第一任會長去逝之日，正式代表一個以文化命脈與領袖功業相結合時代的過去。文復會見證了此項轉變，但不變的是對領袖與中華民國政府的忠誠擁戴。

By the end of the twentieth century, there were many secessionist groups, but, the move towards Taiwanese secessionism has arguably been the most significant of these. It triggered the 1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis, which resulted in a historical military confrontation between Mainland China and the US. As will be shown, from 1988 to 2000, Lee Teng-hui, as president of Taiwan, manipulated the political Cross-Straits relationship to promote what was ultimately a secessionist policy. This caused Mainland China to react strongly and triggered sharp tension between Taiwan and Mainland China. This thesis considers what motivated Lee Teng-hui to implement a secessionist Cross-Straits policy and why he supported unification while adopting a substantive secessionist policy. It looks at how he was able to instigate Taiwanese hostility towards Mainlanders, to transform the hostility into a sense of Taiwanese national identity and ultimately into Taiwanese secessionist ideology. A historical approach was used in exploring the origins of secessionism, and descriptive and analytical methods to review systematically and comprehensively political developments in the ROC and its civil war, and to study Lee Teng-hui’s life; the national identity of Taiwan and Mainland China; the implementation of Lee Teng-hui’s political Cross-Straits policy; and the reaction of Mainland China. The study showed that the main cause of Taiwanese secessionism was ethnic conflict between Taiwanese and Mainlanders. It originated from the 228 Incident of 1947, in which Mainlander-led troops slaughtered many Taiwanese. Soon after, the Mainlander-led government fled to Taiwan from Mainland China, and many Taiwanese (including Mainlanders) were killed during the State of Emergency in the 1950s and 1960s. Since the Mainlander-led government fled to Taiwan in its original central government form, the Mainlander élite occupied key positions in the government during the 1950s and 1960s. It resulted in unfair power-sharing for Taiwanese, and caused the Taiwanese élite to believe that they had to establish their own government (nation). Lee Teng-hui had participated in the CCP and had been under political surveillance by the Mainlander-led government for over twenty years. He weathered these political difficulties, but by reasonable inference, there was a close relationship between the political oppression by the Mainlander-led government and his secessionist political Cross-Straits policy. Because Taiwanese residents were indoctrinated by Chiang Ching-kuo and his father, Chiang Kai-shek’s administration for about 40 years, Chinese ideology was dominant and Lee Teng-hui initially paid lip-service to Cross-Strait unification whilst working towards secessionism as reflected in the Chingdao-Lake Incident (1994); the private dialogue between Lee Teng-hui and Shiba Ryotaro (1994); the address at Cornell University (1995); and his two-state theory (1999). However, due to strong pressure from Mainland China, he did not reach his secessionist goal during his presidential term (1988-2000). In conclusion, this thesis shows that Taiwan Island’s geopolitical importance is at the heart of the US’ support for Taiwan’s secession from the Mainland. Therefore, Lee’s secessionist Cross-Strait policy aside, US national interests lie in containing Mainland China and it has, therefore, always played an important role in the secessionist issue and always will. From the perspective of Mainland China, either in terms of nationalism or national security, Taiwan’s secession is a life-and-death issue. If Taiwanese authorities were to declare independence, the only option for Mainland China would be to launch a unification war. For the US, Taiwan is only a pawn that it uses to contain Mainland China. Therefore, in the Cross-Strait issue, the US has more options than Mainland China, namely, to use military intervention in the future to deter Chinese unification or to decide to share common peaceful international relations with Mainland China by accepting Cross-Strait unification. / Thesis (DPhil (International Relations))--University of Pretoria, 2004. / Political Sciences / unrestricted

戰後在海外發展的台灣獨立運動，藉由抨擊國民黨政府在台灣的施政、質疑關於台灣地位歸屬中國的論述，對國民黨政府統治台灣的「正當性」與「合法性」構成雙重挑戰。雖然國民黨政府在公開場合中，總是強調所謂的「台獨運動」不過是「一小撮人」的「荒謬主張」，是「分裂祖國」的「險惡陰謀」，這些從事台獨的運動者甚至被稱為「叛國者」；然而，海外台灣獨立運動在1960年代快速發展乃至1970年初，美國、日本、加拿大與歐洲等地台獨組織整合成立「世界台灣獨立聯盟」（World United Formosans for Independence，W.U.F.I），將海外台獨運動帶入另一波新階段卻也是不爭的事實，如此之發展自然非國民黨政府所樂見。在反對任何形式「台獨」的原則下，國民黨政府究竟採取怎樣的因應策略來「對付」此一情勢，便是值得深究的課題，而本文將集中探討美國台獨運動的案例。 本研究將利用各單位所典藏之「外交部檔案」，輔以海外台獨團體所發行的刊物、文宣、時人的回憶錄、口述訪談等資料，試圖以較系統性的方式探討國民黨政府如何從面對突發「海外台獨」案例後，開始摸索因應原則，進而在具體案件中實踐，事後檢討成效、修訂策略，又此歷程中反映出哪一些的侷限與挑戰，國民黨政府又是如何設法（或無法）克服或跨越，乃至確立一套因應機制，整合性地運用各種手法的過程。 本文透過分析一手史料並將視野置於「島外」，不僅為海外台獨運動的發展歷史提供一個「官方觀點」的面向，也為國民黨政府在台灣的統治機制提供一個更全面的觀點。 / By criticizing the KMT rule in Taiwan, questioning the claim about Taiwan being retroceded to China, overseas Taiwan Independence Movement brings double challenges to the KMT government in Taiwan. In public, the KMT government always claims that the so-called “Taiwan Independence Movement” is just an absurd proposition claimed by merely a handful of people as well as a malicious scheme to separate Taiwan from the motherland, and participants in Taiwan Independence Movement are labeled as“seditious elements’’. However, overseas Taiwan Independence Movement grew rapidly in the 1960s. In the early 1970s, groups in the United States, Japan, Canada and Europe worked together to establish the “World United Formosans for Independence’’ (W.U.F.I), which brought overseas Taiwan Independence Movement to a new stage, a fact the KMT government doesn’t want to face. The strategies the KMT government, opposing any type of“Taiwan independence”adopts in response to the situation is a topic deserving in-depth study, and this thesis will focus on the case of the United States. This thesis consults materials such as the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, magazines, oral materials, memoirs and reminiscences of those who were involved in Taiwan Independence Movement. It resorts to a more systematic methodology to explore how the KMT government faces the challenges that the overseas Taiwan Independence Movement brings about. It attempts to uncover the strategies the KMT government adopts in different stages in the process of dealing with various actions launched by the activists. By analyzing the primary sources and focusing its perspective on events "outside the island ", this thesis not only gives an “official perspective” on the development of the overseas Taiwan Independence Movement, but also provides a more comprehensive viewpoint about the ruling mechanism of the KMT government in Taiwan.