淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


  查詢圖書館館藏目錄
系統識別號 U0002-3108200914073000
中文論文名稱 冷戰期間美國杜魯門與艾森豪政府的圍堵政策
英文論文名稱 Evolving Containment Policies under Truman and Eisenhower Administrations
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 美國研究所博士班
系所名稱(英) Graduate Institute of American Studies
學年度 97
學期 2
出版年 98
研究生中文姓名 戴欣宇
研究生英文姓名 Hsin-yu Tai
學號 889220025
學位類別 博士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2009-07-01
論文頁數 160頁
口試委員 指導教授-李本京
委員-劉興漢
委員-趙國材
委員-王高成
委員-柯大衛
中文關鍵字 圍堵政策  杜魯門政府  艾森豪政府  韓戰  國家安全會議第68號文件 
英文關鍵字 Containment Policy  Truman Administration  Eisenhower Administration  Korean War  NSC 68 
學科別分類
中文摘要 本論文係探究美國在1950-60年代,亦即杜魯門政府到艾森豪政府任內,其為對抗蘇聯共產集團所採取的圍堵政策之演進。經由研究顯示,圍堵政策的內涵在杜魯門時期從原先的重點圍堵轉變為全面圍堵,而其全面圍堵政策並由之後的艾森豪政府採用。影響圍堵內涵轉變的因素,包含韓戰的爆發、中共介入越戰,甚至是中共完全無視國際準則規範,迫使美國為確保其在國際間的威信等考量,在政策作為上必須由非對稱圍堵進而轉變為對稱性圍堵。這些因素的背後,係取決於蘇聯與中共之間的互動,連帶影響美國決策者改變其對基本國際架構的認知。換言之,肯楠的圍堵概念係植根於兩極國際體系架構而主張重點式圍堵,但隨著中共開始在亞洲對外擴張其影響力,使美國開始在原先被視為是其亞太地區防線的邊陲地帶,如朝鮮半島、中南半島及臺灣海峽等地投入更多資源,令肯楠的非對稱圍堵概念無法適應國際環境變遷,而被尼茲的全面圍堵政策所取代,並反映在著名的國安會第68號文件當中。全面圍堵的概念隨後為來自不同政黨的艾森豪政府所沿用,此亦明顯地反映出,政策的轉變並非導因於政權輪替或政黨歧見所致,而是取決於最高決策者對基本國際架構的認知改變與否。隨著其認知的演變,決策者因而透過進用新的官員以型塑新的執行方針。以圍堵政策為例,圍堵是普遍的政策概念,卻因決策者的認知不同,而型塑出不同的政策內涵及實行面向。
毫無疑問地,蘇聯是美國在冷戰時期的首要敵人,然而所有在亞洲所發生的熱戰,其背後卻大多有著中共的支助。中共的好戰被美國決策當局視為另一個主要的威脅來源,連帶使美國調整過去肯楠式重歐輕亞的重點圍堵,轉變為尼茲式的歐亞並重的全面圍堵。做為區域的強權,中共透過大幅介入鄰近地區的好戰行動足以展現其作為潛在一極的地位。面對中共此舉,早已擠身強權俱樂部的蘇聯在其外交政策與對外作為上則相對的低調以對,此亦使中共對外行為變得更為好戰並更具威脅性。
透過冷戰時期美中蘇三邊的互動,可將中共視為新崛起的潛在第三極。因為不論從地理位置、國力規模、人口數量、更具革命性的意識形態,以及其直接或間接參與的軍事行動而言,中共無疑是新崛起具威脅的一極。美國採取全面圍堵戰略,其目的便是在因應此一具有實際威脅的新興強權。
值得注意的是,特定時期的外交政策方針確實規範著當時政策之規劃及執行。而政策方針係由決策者的認知型塑而成,但決策者亦受到國際架構的轉變而調整其認知。
因此本論文除檢視美國決策者對國際架構認知所型塑出的圍堵政策外,亦將探究不同圍堵政策對臺海之影響意涵以資佐證。筆者將援引國際體系理論分析從兩極體系轉變到三極體系所造成之影響,並輔以聯盟理論探討美國圍堵政策採取聯盟之考量與作為。
隨著圍堵政策之影響仍延續至今,值得重新對其意義和影響加以審視。
英文摘要 This thesis intends to examine the evolution of containment policy by the U.S. against the communist bloc from the 50’s to the 60’s, i.e., from Truman administration to Eisenhower administration. It is observed that the essence of containment strategy had evolved from pointed containment to comprehensive containment during Truman administration and the later strategy of comprehensive containment was then adopted by Eisenhower administration. There were factors such as Korean War, Communist China’s involvement in the Indochina war, Chinese mainland’s complete disregard of international norms, and the ensuing U.S. concern for its prestige that had effected the shift from asymmetric containment to symmetric containment. But underlying these factors were the division of labor between Communist China and the Soviet Union that led the policy-makers to change their perception on basic international structure. In other words, George Kennan’s containment was based on a bi-polar international structure. But as Communist China began to play an increasingly aggressive role in Asia, the U.S. was forced to concentrate more resources in even the originally peripheral areas such as the Korean peninsula, Indochina, and the Taiwan Strait, making Kennan’s concept of asymmetric containment unfit to the evolving international environment and was therefore replaced by Paul Nitze’s version of comprehensive containment-NSC 68. The conception of “comprehensive containment” was then followed by the administration from a different party. It was obvious that the change of policy was not a result of change of administrations or of different political parties’ orientations, but by change of perceptions of top policy-makers on basic international structure. As their perception evolved, policy-makers recruited new crews to shape new guidelines for implementation. Containment is a general policy idea that can be shaped into different directions.
There was no doubt that the Soviet Union was the prime enemy of the U.S.; however, all the hot wars were fought in Asia and the enemies against the “free world” were mostly supported by Communist China. Communist China’s belligerence was seen by U.S. policy-makers as another main source of threat, forcing it to adjust its Kennen-style Europe-first pointed containment to Nitze’s comprehensive containment by gradually shifting strategic weight to Asia. Communist China, as a regional superpower, took a corresponding polar position through its heavy involvement in the threatening activities in its neighborhood. Compared with communist China, Soviet Union, as an established member of the superpower club, was relatively refrained in its foreign policy and behavior. This made communist China’s outward behavior even more belligerent and threatening.
It is assumed that there existed an emerging tri-polar structure in the cold war era. In terms of its geographic location, size and population, more revolutionary ideology, and wars it directly and indirectly engaged, China was no doubt an emerging threatening polar. The shift to a comprehensive containment was a response to an emerging power with a real threat.
It is noted that foreign policy guidelines of a certain time tended to guide policy directions and their implementations for that certain period. As guidelines were molded by perceptions, perceptions were shaped by the evolving international structure.
Besides the examination of containment policies molded by perceptions on international structures, the thesis also studies the implications of various containment policies to the Taiwan Straits to support its arguments. The author was obliged to use the theory of international structure to elaborate the impact produced by evolution from a bi-polar system to a tri-polar system and the theory of alliance to explain the considerations and implementations affecting the alliance behaviors in the U.S. containment policy.
As containment policy’s legacy still lingers, it is worthwhile to reexamine its meanings and implications.
論文目次 目 錄
章節名稱 頁碼
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與研究目的 1
第二節 研究方法、範圍與限制 11
第三節 論文章節架構安排 18
第四節 結 語 20
第二章 研究理論 23
第一節 國際體系理論 25
第二節 聯盟理論 33
第三節 結 語 40
第三章 圍堵政策的緣起 43
第一節 二次大戰後美蘇關係之轉變 44
第二節 肯楠與圍堵政策的發韌 51
第三節 綜合分析 62
第四章 杜魯門時期的圍堵政策 65
第一節 圍堵政策的內涵-從非對稱轉向對稱性圍堵 66
第二節 圍堵政策的個案分析 80
第三節 綜合分析 107
第五章 艾森豪時期的圍堵政策 111
第一節 圍堵政策的內涵-新貌政策的推動 112
第二節 圍堵政策的個案分析 122
第三節 綜合分析 138
第六章 結論 143
參考文獻 149

圖 表 目 錄
表目錄 頁碼
表1-1 影響美國對中共戰略行為之因素 2
參考文獻 參考文獻
中文部分
(一) 官方檔案
中華人民共和國外交部、中共中央文獻研究室編,1990。《周恩來外交文選》。北京:中央文獻出版社。
中華人民共和國外交部暨中共中央文獻研究室編,1994。《毛澤東外交文選》。北京:中央文獻、世界知識出版社。
毛澤東,1993。《毛澤東軍事文集(第六卷)》。北京:軍事科學、中央文獻出版社。
(二)書籍
大衛.麥可洛夫著,劉麗貞、王凌霄譯,1995。《杜魯門》。臺北:麥田出版社。
中國社會科學院近代史研究所譯,顧維鈞著,1989。《顧維鈞回憶錄第九分冊》。北京:新華書店。
中國社會科學院近代史研究所譯,顧維鈞著,1989。《顧維鈞回憶錄第八分冊》。北京:新華書店。
王景弘,2001。《採訪歷史:從華府檔案看臺灣》。臺北:遠流出版事業股份有限公司。
王曉波編,1992。《美國對臺政策機密檔案:1949-1989》。臺北:海峽評論雜誌社。
包宗和、吳玉山主編,1999。《爭辯中的兩岸關係理論》。臺北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
呂亞力,2006。《政治學》。臺北:三民書局。
呂秋文,2007。《如何撰寫學術論文:以「政治學方法論」為考察中心》。臺北:臺灣商務印書館。
周谷編著,2001。《胡適、葉公超使美外交文件手稿》。臺北市:聯經,2001年。
林添貴譯,Jay Taylor著,2000。《蔣經國傳》。臺北市:時報文化出版社企業股份有限公司。
林博文,1999。《歷史的暗流:近代中美關係秘辛》。臺北市:元尊文化。
林碧炤,1997。《國際政治與外交政策》。臺北:五南圖書出版有限公司。
約翰.史班尼爾著,方海鶯譯,1986。《當代美國外交史》。臺北:桂冠出版社。
倪世雄,2003。《當代國際關係理論》。臺北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
郝平,2002。《無奈的結局---司徒雷登與中國》。北京:北京大學出版社。
馬凱南、湯麗明譯,邵玉銘著,2003。《傳教士 教育家 大使-司徒雷登與中美關係》。臺北:九歌出版社有限公司。
梅寅生譯,Gordan H. Chang著,1992。《敵乎?友乎? 美國分化中蘇聯盟內幕:中美蘇關係探微(1948-1972)》。臺北市:金禾出版社。1992年。
溫洽溢譯,Jonathan D. Spence著,2001。《追尋現代中國》。臺北市:時報文化。
徵信新聞報編譯室譯,Karl L. Rankin著,1964。《藍欽使華回憶錄》臺北市:徵信新聞報。
閻學通、孫學峰,2001。《國際關係研究實用方法》。北京:人民出版社。
戴萬欽,2000。《中國由一統到分割:美國杜魯門政府之對策》。臺北:時英出版社。
(三)期刊
孫德剛,2004。〈國際安全之聯盟理論探析〉,《歐洲研究》,2004年第4期,頁42。
張淑雅,1993/6。〈安理會停火案:美國因應第一次臺海危機策略之一〉,《中央研究院近代史研究所集刊》,第22期,頁63-106。
張淑雅,1993/9。〈中美共同防禦條約的簽訂:一九五○年代中美結盟過程之探討〉,《歐美研究》,第23卷第3期,頁51-99。
張淑雅,1995/6。〈金馬撤軍?美國應付第一次台海危機策略之二〉,《中央研究院近代史研究所集刊》,第24期,頁411-72。
張淑雅,1996/6。文攻武嚇下的退縮:美國決定與中共舉行大使級談判的過程分析,1954-1955〉,《中央研究院近代史研究所集刊》,第25期,頁379-424。
張淑雅,1998/3。〈藍欽大使與一九五○年代的美國對台政策〉,《歐美研究》,第28卷第1期,頁193-262。
劉海軍,2002。〈試論美國的聯盟霸權-兼與19世紀的英國比較〉,《國際政治與安全》,2002年第2期,頁33-34。
(四)網際網路
黃清龍,2009/8/12。〈兩岸六十年回首來時路系列之2-臺灣篇:韓戰爆發 兩岸分立〉,《中國時報》,
英文部分
I. Government Publication
“216 - Statement by the President on Announcing the First Atomic Explosion in the U.S.S.R., September 23, 1949,” The American Presidency Project, .
“56 - Special Message to the Congress on Greece and Turkey: The Truman Doctrine, March 12, 1947,” The American Presidency Project, .
“Memorandum by Mr. Charles E. Bohlen to the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Nitze), Washington, April 5, 1950,” Foreign Relations of the United States (hereinafter FRUS), 1950, Vol. 1, pp. 221-225.
“Memorandum by Mr. Charlton Ogburn, Jr., of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, Washington, November 2, 1949,” FRUS, 1949, Vol.9, p. 161.
“Memorandum by the Counselor (Bohlen) to the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Nitze), Washington, May 19, 1952,” FRUS, 1952-1954, Vol. 2, pp. 17-18.
“Memorandum by the Counselor (Bohlen), Washington, August 22, 1951,” FRUS, 1951, Vol. 1, pp. 163-166.
“Memorandum by the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan) to the Secretary of State and the Under Secretary of State (Lovett), Washington, August 5, 1948,” FRUS, 1948, Vol. 1, part 2, p. 599.
“Memorandum by the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan),” FRUS, 1949, Vol. 9, pp. 356-364.
“Memorandum for the National Security by the Acting Executive Secretary (Gleason), Washington, October 12, 1951,” FRUS, 1951, Vol. 1, pp. 193-207.
“Memorandum of a Conversation Between the President and the Secretary of State, Washington, March 6, 1955, 5:15 p.m.,” FRUS, 1955-1957, Vol. 2, pp. 336-337.
“Memorandum of Conversation, Sept. 2, 1958, 12:15-1:47 p.m.,” FRUS 1958-1960, Vol. 29, pp. 115-122.
“Memorandum of Discussion at the 213th Meeting of National Security Council, Washington, September 9, 1954,” FRUS, 1952-1954, Vol. 14, part 1, p. 586.
“Memorandum of Discussion at the 232nd Meeting of the National Security Council, Washington, January 20, 1955,” FRUS, 1955-1957, Vol. 2, pp. 69-82.
“Memorandum of Meeting, Aug. 25, 1958, 3:02-3:55 p.m.,” FRUS 1958-1960, pp.73-75.
“Memorandum of Meeting, Aug. 29, 1958, 9a.m.,” FRUS 1958-1960, Vol. 29, pp. 96-99.
“NSC 162/2,” in Paul Kesaris, ed., 1980. Documents of the National Security Council, 1947-1977. Frederick, MD: University Publications of America. reel 3.
“NSC 166/1,” in Paul Kesaris, ed., 1980. Documents of the National Security Council, 1947-1977. Frederick, MD: University Publications of America. reel 4.
“NSC 20,” in Paul Kesaris, ed., 1980. Documents of the National Security Council, 1947-1977. Frederick, MD: University Publications of America. reel 1.
“NSC 20/1,” in Paul Kesaris, ed., 1980. Documents of the National Security Council, 1947-1977. Frederick, MD: University Publications of America. reel 1.
“NSC 20/2,” in Paul Kesaris, ed., 1980. Documents of the National Security Council, 1947-1977. Frederick, MD: University Publications of America. reel 1.
“NSC 20/4,” in Paul Kesaris, ed., 1980. Documents of the National Security Council, 1947-1977. Frederick, MD: University Publications of America. reel 1.
“NSC 34,” in Paul Kesaris, ed., 1980. Documents of the National Security Council, 1947-1977. Frederick, MD: University Publications of America. reel 1.
“NSC 37/1,” FRUS, 1949, Vol. 9, pp. 270-275.
“NSC 37/2,” FRUS, 1949, Vol. 9, pp. 281-282.
“NSC 37/3,” FRUS, 1949, Vol. 9, pp. 284-286.
“NSC 37/5,” FRUS, 1949, Vol. 9, pp. 290-296.
“NSC 37/8,” FRUS, 1949, Vol. 9, pp. 392-397.
“NSC 37/9,” FRUS, 1949, Vol.9, pp. 460-467.
“NSC 41,” FRUS, 1949, Vol. 9, p. 834.
“NSC 5501,” in Paul Kesaris, ed., 1980. Documents of the National Security Council, 1947-1977. Frederick, MD: University Publications of America. reel 4.
“NSC 68,” FRUS, 1950, Vol. 1, pp. 234-235.
“Policy Planning Staff Memorandum, Washington, September 22, 1951,” FRUS, 1951, Vol. 1, pp. 172-715.
“PPS 39, Washington, September 7, 1948,”FRUS, 1948, Vol. 8, pp. 146-155.
“PPS/4: Certain Aspects of the European Recovery Program from the U.S. Standpoint,” .
“Record of the Eighth Meeting (1950) of the Policy Planning Staff of the Department of State, Washington, February 2, 1950, 11 a. m. to 1 p. m.,” FRUS, 1950, Vol. 1, pp. 142-143.
“Record of the Meeting of the State-Defense Policy Review Group, Depart6ment of State, Monday, February 27, 1950, 3 p. m. to 6 p. m.,” FRUS, 1950, Vol. 1, pp. 168-169.
“Record of the Meeting of the State-Defense Policy Review Group, Depart6ment of State, Friday, March 10, 1950, 3 p. m. to 5:30 p. m.,” FRUS, 1950, Vol. 1, p. 190
“Record of the Meeting of the State-Defense Policy Review Group, Department of State, Friday, March 16, 1950, 3 p. m. to 6:45 p. m.,” FRUS, 1950, Vol. 1, p. 196.
“Report by the Special Committee of the National Security Council to the President, Washington, January 31, 1950,” FRUS, 1950, Vol. 1, p. 517
“Report to the National Security by the Acting Executive Secretary (Gleason), Washington, October 12, 1951,” FRUS, 1951, Vol. 1, pp. 182-192.
“Report to the National Security by the Executive Secretary (Lay), Washington, June 5, 1952,” FRUS, 1952-1954, Vol. 2, pp. 20-53.
“Report to the National Security by the Executive Secretary (Lay), Washington, August 15, 1952,” FRUS, 1952-1954, Vol. 2, pp. 81-86.
“Report to the National Security by the Executive Secretary (Lay), Washington, September 25, 1952,” FRUS, 1952-1954, Vol. 2, pp. 142-163.
“Report to the National Security by the Secretary of State and Defense and the Director for Mutual Security, Washington, January 19, 1953,” FRUS, 1952-1954, Vol. 2, pp. 209-222.
“Report to the National Security Council by the Executive Secretary (Lay), Washington, September 30, 1950,” FRUS, 1950, Vol. 1, p. 400.
“Report to the National Security Council by the Executive Secretary (Lay), Washington, December 8, 1950,” FRUS, 1950, Vol. 1, pp. 425-426.
“Report to the National Security Council by the Secretary of Defense (Forrestal), Washington, July 12, 1948,”FRUS, 1948, Vol. 1, part 2, p. 592, fn. 1.
“Report to the President by the National Security Council, Washington, August 8, 1951,” FRUS, 1951, Vol. 1, pp. 127-148.
“Special National Intelligence Estimate, Sept. 4, 1954,” FRUS, 1952-1954, Vol. 14, pp. 563-571.
“Study Prepared by the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Nitze), Washington, February 8, 1950,” FRUS, 1950, Vol. 1, pp. 145-147.
“Telegram From the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Commander in Chief, Pacific (Felt), Aug. 29, 1958, 2:26 p.m.,” FRUS 1958-1960, Vol. 19, pp. 100-101.
“The Charge in the Soviet Union (Kennan) to the Secretary of State, Moscow, February 22, 1946,” FRUS, 1946, Vol. 6, pp. 696-709.
“The Consul General at Taipei (MacDonald) to the Secretary of State, Taipei, October 31, 1949,” FRUS, 1949, Vol. 9, p. 404.
“The Counselor (Bohlen) to the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Nitze), Washington, July 28, 1951,” FRUS, 1951, Vol. 1, pp. 106-109.
“The Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan) to the Under Secretary of State (Acheson), Washington, May 23, 1947,” FRUS, 1947, Vol. 3, pp. 223-240.
“The President to the Secretary of State, Washington, January 31, 1950,” FRUS, 1950, Vol. 1, p. 141.
1968. United States Relations with China with Special Reference to the Period 1944-1949. New York: Greenwood Press.
II. Books
Acheson, Dean, 1969. Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Bush, Richard C., 2004. At Cross Purposes- U.S.- Taiwan Relations Since 1942. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc..
Chen, Jian, 2001. Mao’s China & the Cold War. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Cohen, Warren I., 1980. Dean Rusk .Totowa, New Jersey: Cooper Square Publishers.
Crabb, Cecil V., 1982. The Doctrines of American Foreign Policy. Baton Rouge and London: Louisiana State University Press.
Etzold, Thomas H. & John Lewis Gaddis, eds., 1978. Containment: Documents on American Policy and Strategy, 1945-1950. New York: Columbia University.
Foot, Rosemary, 1995. The Practice of Power-U.S. Relations with China since 1949. New York: Oxford University Press Inc..
Gaddis, John Lewis, 2005. Strategies of Containment. New York: Oxford University Press Inc..
Halperin, Morton H., 1966. The Taiwan Strait Crisis of 1958: A Documented History. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation.
Harding, Harry, 1992. A Fragile Relationship. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Ikenberry, G. John ed.,1989. American Foreign Policy: Theoretical Essays. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Isaacson, Walter & Evan Thomas, 1986. The Wise Men-Six Friends and the World They Made. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kaplan, Morton A., 1975. System and Process in International Politics, Repr. ed. New York: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.
Kennan, George F., 1967. Memoirs: 1950-1963. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.
Kennan, George F., 1983. Memoirs 1925-1950. New York: Pantheon Books.
Liska, George F., 1962. Nations in Alliance: The Limits of Interdependence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Morgenthau, Hans J., 1978. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred. A. Knopf.
Nitze, Paul, 1989. From Hiroshima to Glasnost: At the Center of Decision. New York: Grove Weidenfeld.
Rosenau, James N., ed., 1969. International Politics and Foreign Policy. New York: The Free Press.
Rothstein, Robert L., 1968. Alliances and Small Powers. New York: Columbia University Press.
Taylor, Jay, 2009. The Generalissimo: Chiang Kai-shek and the Struggle for Modern China. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Truman, Harry S., 1963. Memoirs by Harry S. Truman Vol.2 1946-1952 Years of Trial and Hope. New York: Doubleday.
Walt, Stephen M., 1987. Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Waltz, Kenneth N., 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading: Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
III. Periodicals
Lijphart, Arend, 1971/9. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 65, No. 3, pp. 682-693.
Mr. X, 1947/7. “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” Foreign Affairs, No 4, Vol. 25, pp. 566-582.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2014-09-03公開。
  • 不同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信