中國大陸災胞救濟總會與遠東難民計畫的國際合作（1954-1962）

Abstract

冷戰時期美國積極鼓勵蘇聯、東歐國家的難民出逃，企圖在心戰層面戰勝共產陣營。1952年前後，為維繫美國在東亞的威望，此一難民政策逐漸擴及東亞。1954年為扶持國民黨政府、安置香港難民，美方遂透過遠東難民計畫（Far East Refugee Program, FERP），與中國大陸災胞救濟總會（簡稱救總）合作，迄1962年方才告終。本文以此國際合作案為例，運用臺美政府檔案與救總史料，分析救總與國民黨政府的難民政策，如何受到華府影響。救總又如何在國家與社會間協商，盡力保持自主，因應各類契約面與執行面的困難。 合作期間FERP大致尊重救總提出的專案，從中擇取具宣傳利益，且成本較低的專案來執行，臺美雙方實是互蒙其利。倘若雙方發生利益衝突，例如FERP不願依循救總請求，將合作案擴大到東南亞時，救總原則上會委曲求全，只在撼動主要利益（美方提議停約）時，透過宣傳戰與外交斡旋迫使美方延約。必須注意的是，國民黨政府雖然創立救總，在入境管制與財政支出上，卻不見得與救總利益一致。執行合約時，救總可透過安全分署、政府協助或自身人脈，找到醫療、就業與職訓上的合作機構。然而，救總仍須面對覓地不易、合作機構辦事不周，以及長期安置所費不貲等等難題。該會雖然都有因應作法，惟從大陸榮村與大陸漁村的案例來看，仍因資訊掌握不充分、缺乏資源，導致安置工作不甚周全。

During the Cold War, the U.S. actively encouraged refugees from the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries to flee, strategically employing psychological warfare to undermine the Communist Bloc. Starting around 1952, this refugee policy was expanded to East Asia in order to maintain the influence and reputation of the U.S. in the region. In 1954, the U.S.-funded Far East Refugee Program (FERP) cooperated with the Free China Relief Association (FCRA) to support the Kuomintang (KMT) government and resettle refugees from Hong Kong until 1962. This thesis utilizes archives from the Taiwan and U.S. governments, as well as historical sources from the FCRA. It analyzes how the FCRA and the KMT government's refugee policies were influenced by the U.S., and how the FCRA coped with difficulties in contracting and implementation, and negotiated between the state and society to maintain its autonomy. The FERP generally respected the projects proposed by the FCRA during their cooperation, and conducted those with propaganda value and cost-effectiveness, for the mutual benefit of Taiwan and the U.S. In cases of conflicting interests, such as the FERP's unwillingness to comply with the FCRA's request to expand cooperation to Southeast Asia, the FCRA would basically make concessions. Only when the main interest was at stake (the FERP wanted to suspend the contract) would the FCRA use propaganda and diplomatic negotiations to compel the U.S. to extend the contract. It should be noted that although the FCRA was organized by the KMT government, their interests did not always coincide, particularly regarding immigration control and fiscal policy. In implementing the contract, the FCRA sought medical, employment, and vocational training partners through the International Cooperation Administration, the KMT government, or their own networks. However, the FCRA still faced challenges in acquiring resettlement sites, the incompetence of partner organizations and the high cost of long-term resettlement. Although the FCRA had strategies to respond to these difficulties, the resettlement efforts in the Mainland Military Families' Villages (Dalu Rongcun) and the Mainland Fishermen's Village (Dalu Yucun) did not achieve ideal results due to insufficient information and resources.