後蘇聯地區民族分離主義衝突比較研究

Abstract

本論文為後蘇聯地區民族分離主義衝突因果因素的系統性研究。研究先指定潛在的因果變項及將其與一系列蘇聯解體後的衝突找出關聯，最後發展出一個具有四層衝突嚴重性的民族分離主義衝突模型。衝突層次嚴重性最低為民族異質性的存在，最高為分離主義實體的實存獨立。 此一模型被運用來解釋三組發生在三個不同前加盟共和國的分離主義衝突：喬治亞（阿扎爾及阿布哈茲�南奧塞梯）、俄羅斯（韃靼斯坦及車臣）及摩爾多瓦（加告茲及德涅斯特河沿岸）。在每一組當中，衝突的嚴重性具有顯著差異，前者在基本上沒有使用暴力的情況下被保留在主國內，但後者與主國間曾發生全面性戰爭。 本論文融合Brubaker的三元關係理論（按照Laitin等學者的後續發展）與民族認同凝聚性說，依此發展出一套四層二階段的分析框架。第一與第二層衝突（簡單的民族異質性及分離主義動員的存在）之間的差異被描述為蘇聯解體時少數和主體民族認同凝聚性對比的結果。研究發現若少數民族群體具有相對大的民族認同凝聚性（通常為蘇聯解體當中所發生的「民族復興」之產物）使得少數群體在主國有時間鎮壓之前進行動員，會讓分離主義運動形成。 第三與第四層包含武裝衝突或至少暴力鬥爭的威脅（成功的重新融入領土範圍及事實上的獨立）。跟簡單的動員不同，前蘇聯地區少數群體發動的武裝反抗主要依靠外部支持，而且上述兩個衝突層次之差異來自所受到的外部支持與主國反應能力的對比（但主國本身也可能受到外部支持）。一旦少數群體凝聚性的強度足以克服主國阻止少數群體動員的企圖以及有足夠的外部支持，則其能牽制主國，踏入實存國家之行列。 模型展示民族認同凝聚性及其隨時間的變動如何影響動員能力，以及來自外部行為者公開和隱蔽支持對分離主義實體形成的影響。所建立的分析框架可貢獻於分離主義和衝突研究的領域，以及提供幾個欠缺受到關注的前蘇聯地區後續之相關研究。

This thesis is a systematic examination of causal factors behind ethnic secessionist conflicts in the post-Soviet space. It identifies potential causal variables, correlates them with a series of conflicts occurring in the former Soviet Union since its dissolution, and develops a model of ethnic secessionist conflict with four levels of conflict intensity, ranging from simple ethnic heterogeneity to de-facto independence of the secessionist entity. The model is then used to describe three pairs of secessionist conflicts each occurring in three different former Union Republics: Georgia (Ajaria vs. Abkhazia/South Ossetia), Russia (Tatarstan vs. Chechnya) and Moldova (Gagauzia vs. Transnistria). In each pair (a dual example in the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia), there is a marked difference in the intensity of the conflict, with the former in each pair being successfully kept within the host state through essentially no use of violence, while the latter in each pair involved all-out war with the host state. The thesis combines Brubaker’s Triadic Nexus Theory (as developed by Laitin and others) with the ethnic cohesion argument to develop a two-part, four level framework of analysis. The difference between the first and second levels of conflict (simple ethnic heterogeneity vs. secessionist mobilisation) is described as the result of contrast between the identity cohesion of the minority and titular ethnicities at the time of the Soviet collapse. It is found that a greater ethnic cohesion on the part of the minority group (often as a result of “ethnic revival” occurring around the collapse) allows mobilisation before the host state can react to suppress, and therefore allows the formation of a secessionist movement. The third and fourth levels involve armed conflict or at least the threat of violent struggle (successful reintegration vs. de-facto independence). Unlike simple mobilisation, armed resistance on the part of minority groups in the former Soviet Union relies on outside support as a chief factor, with the difference between the two levels being the amount of external support received compared with the ability of the host state to react (and which may also receive external support itself). Once a group’s cohesiveness is enough to overcome the host state’s attempts to prevent mobilisation, and if outside support is sufficient, it can keep the host state at bay and join the ranks of de-facto states. This model shows how ethnic cohesion and its variations over time can influence mobilisation, as well as the influence of overt and covert support from outside actors in the formation of secessionist entities. The analytical framework adds to the fields of secessionism and conflict study, as well as provides research into several rather under-studied areas of the former USSR.