美國與英國國家安全戰略報告之擬定

The Making of National Security Strategies in the United States of America and United Kingdom

常態性地發布國家安全戰略是現代化國家的國安會制度化過程中的趨勢之一，不僅落實民主治理，也有助於政策的協調整合與國內外溝通。本文首先比較英國與美國在國安會組織與功能上的異同；其次，因這些異同造成兩國在擬訂國家安全戰略過程與內容上的差異；最後以英美兩國的經驗，提出我國在重啟國家安全戰略的建議。英國與美國的國安會在組織上具有（一）為國家安全相關事務之決策與協調整合平台群、（二）設有常態幕僚單位、（三）獨立於行政部會之外以及（四）領導人個人色彩重與政治性強等四項相同特點。但因為政體的不同，在內閣制的英國，國安會的權力地位較低，國家安全顧問常隱身幕後並扮演各相關部會間公平仲介者的角色，低調地遂行溝通、協調各部會的功能。在美國，國安會的權力地位較高，政策主導性強，國家安全顧問常扮演政策的指導者或甚至總統的代理人的角色。也因此，美國的國家安全戰略擬定常限縮於少數參與，並採取由上而下政策指導的途徑，以充分反映總統對國家安全的願景為先。而英國的國家安全戰略研擬，則持較為開放的途徑，各部會的參與度高，有嚴謹的財力規劃，落實的可行性較高。值得注意的是，美國的國家安全戰略重戰略，所以常忽視現時與現實的資源需求，容易變為只是可望而不可及的願景文件；而英國重計畫，容易忽略中長期的國家發展方向，常使得國家安全戰略文件成為各部會本位利益的彙整。但兩國之間彼此學習對方的優點來改進自己在國家安全戰略上的弱點。我國自2008年後再也沒有發佈國家安全戰略，未來應以定期發佈國家安全戰略為國安體制改革的首要重點。其次，應學習英美兩國在擬定國家安全戰略時的均衡點，一方面朝向既能宣示領導人國安理念又擴大參與以注入民主價值。另一方面，除應於國家安全戰略對於資源需求有所評估外，平衡戰略與計畫更須發展以計畫取向的特定議題國家戰略文件或部會的戰略文件以補實國家安全戰略的主張。

Regular publication of national security strategy (NSS) is a significant feature in the institutionalization of the modern states' National Security Council (NSC). The NSS is not only indicative of democratic governance but also vital to interagency coordination as well as domestic and international communication in national security realm. This research begins with the organizational and functional comparison between the United States of America (USA) NSC and United Kingdom (UK) NSC, then infers the comparison to the procedural and substantial distinctions between USA NSS and UK NSS, and finally, by lesson learning, suggests some advices for Taiwan's future NSS. The USA NSC and UK NSC share some similarities: Both NSCs are (1) the platforms for national security decision-making and policy coordination; (2) supported by standing staff units; (3) independent from executive departments/ministries; and (4) close to the president/prime minister and highly politicalized. However, due to the polity difference, the power status of UK NSC is relatively lower; and the national security advisor (NSA) often plays a fair broker role and functions interagency coordination with low profile and behind the stage. In the USA, the NSC is powerful in guiding policies; the NSA often acts as influential policy counselor if not president's agent. As a result, the making of USA NSS is often confined to few participants and takes a top-down approach for policy guidance in order to reflect president’s national security vision. However, it is more open in making UK NSS. The higher degree of interagency participation and budgetary planning leads to higher probability in implementation. Remarkably, the USA NSS emphasizes more on strategy and often ignores the required resources in real world or in short term. That makes the USA NSS a visionary but unfeasible document. While the UK NSS stresses on planning and often discounts the long term national development. That leads the UK NSS is a combination of ministerial interests. Both states learn from other to overcome its own weakness in making NSS. In Taiwan, there has been no further NSS since 2008. In the future, it is vital to institutionalize the NSS publication as the first priority in NSC reform. Secondly, we should learn the balance from USA NSS and UK NSS in making our NSS. On the one hand, it should represent leader’s national security ideas as well as expand the degree of participation for infusing democratic value. On the other, it must strike a balance between strategy and planning. Resource requirement should be assessed in the NSS. Other planning oriented, specific agenda focused strategies at national or ministerial level also need to be developed in order to support the claims in the NSS.