美國詹森政府對布拉格之春的認知與對策

Johnson and Prague Spring of 1968: Leading Bureaucrats’Perception and Response

本研究旨在探討美國詹森政府在1968年「布拉格之春」事件中的認知與對策，並分析其決策過程。本文以理性行為模型為主要分析架構，輔以個人、國內與國際三層級理論，檢視詹森政府核心決策官僚對蘇聯軍事介入捷克斯洛伐克的政策反應。詹森政府的「不作為」並非外交失誤，而是經由理性評估後的戰略選擇。面對蘇聯主導的軍事行動，詹森政府在越戰高峰與國內政治壓力下，選擇以聯合國及輿論譴責等間接手段進行回應，同時避免升高美蘇對抗風險。本文透過《美國外交關係文件集》與主要決策官員，包括：國務卿迪安．魯斯克、國家安全顧問沃爾特．羅斯托、中情局長理查．赫爾姆斯、國防部長勞勃．麥納馬拉以及美國駐蘇聯大使雅各．比姆之原始文件與回憶錄，揭示詹森政府內部在「緩和」政策上的共識與一貫性。本研究指出，理性行為模型能有效說明詹森政府在布拉格之春期間的有限回應模式，其決策反映了冷戰體系下與蘇聯競爭共存的戰略考量。本研究發現，詹森政府在「布拉格之春」議題上採消極不介入立場，係因為關鍵決策官僚認為介入的風險高於獲益，完全不符合國家利益。在理性決策選項，與蘇聯的戰略武器限制談判議題的效益遠超過軍事介入捷克斯洛伐克的民主化運動。

This article examines the perceptions and responses of the Johnson administration during the“Prague Spring”in 1968 and analyzes its decision-making process. Using the Rational Actor Model as the primary analytical framework, this article explores how key U.S. policymakers reacted to the Soviet Union’s military intervention in Czechoslovakia. The decision not intervene militarily was not a diplomatic failure but a calculated strategic choice based on rational assessment. Confronted with a Soviet-led operation amid the height of the Vietnam War and growing domestic political pressure, President Johnson aimed to address the Prague Spring crisis through the U.N. while avoiding direct confrontation with the Soviet Union. Drawing upon The Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series and primary sources from key policymakers—including Secretary of State Dean Rusk, National Security Advisor Walt , this article demonstrates the administration’s internal consensus and consistency in pursuing the Détente policy. The Rational Actor Model effectively explains the Johnson administration’s limited response during the Prague Spring, reflecting strategic calculations of coexistence and competition with the Soviet Union within the Cold War context. The article has found that the administration’s passive, noninterventionist stance stemmed from the belief among key decision-makers that the risks of intervention outweighed the potential gains and thus ran counter to U.S. national interests.