冷戰後日本對東南亞援助：以印尼和越南為例

Abstract

二戰結束後，日本，作為二戰戰敗國開始其對外援助。以戰爭賠款為出發，對東南亞國家進行援助。冷戰時期，為本國經濟利益對外大量提供援助，並且於1989年超越美國成為世界最大之援助來源。 然而，其援助遭致西方國家之諸多批判。除了未有明確之援助政策外，其不斷對人權紀錄不佳與非民主國家提供援助亦受到各方之指責。為此，日本於1992年首次提出《政府發展援助大綱》與其之後的大綱修訂及2015年之《發展合作大綱》，揭示日本提供ODA必須考量受援國之人權與民主以及治理情況。然而，日本是否真的如其政策將人權、民主以及治理納入援助考量？ 本研究以日本於東南亞之前兩大援助國印尼與越南作為案例研究對象，發現日本仍以外交/戰略利益以及經濟利益為主要考量。對於人權、民主之考量則為次要，鮮少透過援助對受援國進行懲罰，而是在不影響雙邊關係之下才以漸進方式透過人權與民主之ODA，支持其民主與人權發展。而治理良好與否亦非日本進行ODA之重要考量因素，日本將衡量外交/戰略利益決定是否對治理不良受援國進行ODA。

Japan has started to give aids since the end of World War II and it surpassed the United States, becoming the biggest donor in the world in 1989. During the cold war, Japan gave a large amount of ODA mainly to serve its economic interest. Thus, Japan’s aid allocation had received plenty of criticisms from the western world. It criticized Japan for the lack of clear aid policy and also distributing aids to authoritatrian regimes and states with poor human rights records. To respond to the criticism, the 1992 Official Development Assistance Charter, the 2003 revised version of ODA Charter and the latest 2015 Development Cooperation Charter clearly states the conditions for Japan to allocate ODA. The aforementioned official documents indicate Japan should consider human rights conditions, democracy and governance performance of the receipients. Nevetheless, does Japan indeed take these indicators into consideration when giving aids? This thesis examines Japan’s aid pattern to its top two aid receipients in Southeast Asia, Vietnam and Indonesia. It argues that the major determinants for Japan to give ODA still lie in Japan’s strategic interest and economic interest. Human rights conditions and regime types are only the secondary determinants. Japan would not impose any aid punishment on the recipients for their human rights violations. Instead, it will gradually and indirectly provide related ODA to support human rights and democracy development in recipients under the premise of no negative impact on bilateral relations. Besides, governance performance does not play a vital role in Japan’s ODA allocation. Instead, Japan would evaluate its own strategic interest to determine whether to give aids to recipients with poor governance performance.