冷戰時期，蘇哈托所統治的印尼雖然標榜著不結盟運動，試圖在東西兩強的夾擊下另闢蹊徑。但是在同樣反對共產主義的主張下，印尼在這段時期，和美國建立起了相當友好的關係，包括軍事和經濟上的援助。在一個近年來已解密的文件中更顯示，福特總統以及季辛吉更曾經和蘇哈托有過正式及非正式的接觸，被認為是美國希望以對印尼軍政府的支持，換取其在反共同盟上的支持。 九十年代之後，印尼政府在人權問題上的處理失當，多次導致美國政府的不滿，進而暫停或取消對印尼的援助。在此事件上，美國國會更採取強硬的立場，要求美國政府必須更仔細而審慎的評估，對印尼的人權表現，是否有明顯的改善。 2001年的九一一事件，代表著美國政府外交政策的巨大改變，在對印尼的外交政策上也出現了明顯的變化。印尼為世界上最大的回教國家，其本身對美國較溫和的立場，使得美國政府在宣揚其反恐理念上，需要印尼的協助。而印尼本身與日俱增的戰略地位，如控制麻六甲海峽，龐大資源，以及在東南亞國協中的大國地位等，使美國政府不得不重新審視其對印尼的外交政策。 本論文主要在探討布希政府在九一一事變後，對印尼外交政策的特點，以及是否和過去出現不同之處。論文組織分為三個主要部分，分別為反恐、人權以及軍事合作。在理論架構方面，本論文借助Steven M. Walt(沃爾特)的同盟理論，希望能釐清兩國在反恐合作方面，是否已具備了同盟的性質。而其他同盟理論的重要內涵，如威脅平衡、意識型態、援助、滲透等，皆會被用來加強本文的論述。 研究發現，在沃爾特的同盟理論架構下，美國和印尼在反恐合作上，的確出現了有如同盟的密切關係。雖然彼此間不存在約束的同盟條約，然而，就同盟的實質而言，恢復的軍事關係和密切的反恐合作等，皆是同盟的重要指標。研究並發現，威脅平衡理論的確較合理的詮釋了美印兩國因反恐而強化的關係。而意識型態、援助和滲透等，對同盟的組成皆有一定程度的影響，但非強大的因素。 / During the Cold War, Indonesia was noted for its leadership in the Non-Alignment Movement, which distinguished itself from the two-polar world. However, the Suharto government had in fact built an amicable relationship with the U.S. under the flag of anti-communism. In the 1990s, due to the notorious human rights records, the U.S. had moved to cancel or suspend military and economic aid to Indonesia. The Congress and Senate of the U.S. took a hard-line stance in dealing with these problems. The 9/11 event marked a significant change in the U.S. foreign policy. As the biggest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia’s comparably moderate nature gains its importance for America in promoting anti-terror in Muslim world. Also, the growing strategic status, like the location in the Malacca Straits, vast resources and key status in ASEAN, necessitates the U.S. to reconsider its policy toward Indonesia. The thesis is primarily dedicated to analyze the Bush Administration’s foreign policy toward Indonesia after the 9/11 event. There are three main pillars in the thesis—anti-terror, human rights and military cooperation. Steven M. Walt’s famous Alliance Theory contributes the analytic framework to this thesis. Also, some other arguments of alliance theory like balance of threat, ideology, foreign aid and penetration will be utilized to deepen the analysis of this thesis. Under Walt’s alliance theory, in spite of the fact that there is no concrete alliance binding between these two countries, the resumed military relationship, and close anti-terror cooperation are all noted indicators that shows the U.S. and Indonesia act as alliance partners. This thesis also demonstrates that the balance of threat theory is a better analytic framework to explain the relationship between the U.S. and Indonesia. Ideology, foreign aid and penetration in this case surely affects the formation of alliance, however, they are not causes of it as Walt concludes.

第二次世界大戰結束以後，以美國為首的西方國家為了嚇阻蘇聯的入侵，遂成立了北大西洋公約組織。這也標誌著冷戰時期美蘇兩強對峙的局面。冷戰結束以後，許多學者因而預言北約即將瓦解。但多年以來，北約卻依然存在，更歷經了三次東擴。本文寫作的目的，便欲透過重新檢視國際關係理論三大主要學派的觀點，對於後冷戰時期的北約存續提出解釋。 在現實主義學者陣營中，摩根索與華爾滋的「權力平衡」論點與北約發展的史實不符；施韋勒的「扈從利益」論點僅部分解釋了國家聯盟行為，對於「扈從」概念的界定又出現前後不一；米爾斯海默的「推卸責任」論點試圖同時涵蓋「制衡」與「不制衡」兩種選項，而純粹的「推卸責任」策略又必須依賴其他國家願意承擔，因此不易成功。瓦特的「威脅平衡」理論雖仍有不足之處，但較適合解釋本文的個案。筆者認為，後冷戰時期的北約便是面臨了大規模毀滅性武器擴散、俄羅斯存在與恐怖主義等威脅，才強化了盟國繼續合作的意願。 從新自由主義學者的觀點而言，國家若欲在無政府狀態的國際體系中維持合作關係，便需要以互惠為基礎而運作的國際制度。當國際制度能隨著成員的需求而調整時，就能獲得更多支持。由於美國的優勢國力受到北約的制度規範與集體決策機制削弱，又具有軟權力的勸服力量，遂吸引了中、東歐國家加入聯盟。此外，民主國家之間較不容易發生戰爭。這些因素都維繫了北約盟國在後冷戰時期的合作關係。 由於後冷戰時期的北約在訴求「內群體」偏袒的同時，卻未激化「外群體」歧視。建構主義學者認為，若隨著聯盟關係的發展，成員之間能培養出休戚與共的集體身份，將個別的國家安全問題視同為集體的安全議題時，彼此便超越了傳統軍事聯盟在攻擊與防禦上合作的功能，而達到安全共同體的境界。北約所具備的規範特性也進一步增強了其對盟國的型塑能力。 聯盟的本質在於合作。但關鍵是國家為何合作、如何促進合作，以及如何決定合作對象或競爭對手。事實上，後冷戰時期的北約並未放棄對付共同威脅的核心目標，卻也逐漸發展出安全管理的功能，不但參與了維和行動，也建立起和俄羅斯與烏克蘭的對話機制，更凝聚了盟國的信念而形成具有集體身份的安全共同體。 / In the aftermath of WWII, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), mainly led by the U.S., was formed to deter U.S.S.R.’s aggression. This organization signified the bipolar system of international relations. When the Cold War came to an end, many scholars once predicted NATO would collapse. However, the alliance still endures for decades and enlarges eastward three times. The purpose of the dissertation is to reappraise the perspectives from three major schools of International Relation theory and provide some explanation of NATO’s endurance in the post-Cold War era. In the camp of realists, the balance-of-power theory raised by Hans J. Morgenthau and Kenneth N. Waltz is inconsistent with the facts of NATO’s development. The bandwagon-for-profit theory proposed by Randall L. Schweller only gives partial explanation of international alliances and takes a contradictory position on the concept of bandwagon. The buck-passing theory maintained by John J. Mearsheimer tries to include both the options of balance and not-balance on the one hand, while depends heavily on other states’ willingness to take the responsibility of balance on the other hand. As far as we know, the latter seldom results in success. Although the balance-of-threat theory sustained by Stephen M. Walt still has some shortcomings, it can provide a better explanation of the case discussed in the dissertation. This author concludes that NATO faces multiple threats of the spread of WMD, the existence of Russia and transnational terrorism in the post-Cold War era. That’s why the allies continue to cooperate. From the standing points of neo-liberalists, if states want to maintain cooperation under the anarchical international system, they will need international institutions based on reciprocity. When international institutions can be adjusted with the demand of their member states, they will obtain more supports. Because the primacy of the U.S. was reduced by the institutional rules and joint decision making process in NATO and accompanied with persuasive soft power, some Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) were drew to join the alliance. Moreover, there are few wars among democracies. For all these reasons, NATO still survives until now. When NATO seeks to develop in-group favoritism in the post-Cold War era, it does not activate out-group discrimination. Constructivists state that if members of alliances can cultivate their collective identities and transform national security problems into collective ones, they can go beyond traditional military alliances and become security communities. Features of norms in NATO also strengthen their capabilities in shaping the alliance. The essence of alliance is cooperation. Its key points for states lie in why they cooperate, how to facilitate their cooperation and how to choose their partners or opponents. As a matter of fact, in the aftermath of the Cold War, NATO doesn’t give up its core purpose of fighting against common threats, while it develops the function of security management gradually. Besides, NATO takes part in the peace-keeping operations and builds the mechanisms for communication with Russia and Ukraine. In the end, NATO solidates the belief from its member states and turns into a security community of collective identity.