治絲益棼的新疆:何以漢維族群關係持續惡化?

Abstract

本研究探討新疆漢維族群衝突的根源,並評析現行治疆政策的有效性。綜觀當代新疆族群衝突的研究,無論是咎責於三股勢力、檢視中共少數民民族政策、側重經濟社會因素,還是歸結多重綜合因素,皆缺乏族群政治理論的指引。因此,本文引入族群政治與國家處理族群差異的研究框架,以歷史研究法、文本分析法為主,輔以訪談法,綜觀政治、經濟、社會、文化與國際等面向,探究新疆族群衝突的根源,並評估中共治疆的成效。 研究發現,中共基於馬列主義的意識形態,並維繫政權統治,其治疆策略一 直由整合同化與霸權控制所構成,僅不同時期比重上有所調整。然僅剛柔交錯或兼施的治理格局並未能處理到所有問題,故無法有效遏止族群衝突,遑論改善族群關係。欲完整呈現漢維族群衝突的根源,必須整合族群政治理論中的本質論、工具論與建構論三者:漢維族群間存在由血緣、語言與宗教文化等本質的既定資源稟賦不易跨越,更常被國際強權與政治菁英操弄,透過賦予前述原生性連結政治意涵,以追求政經利益;而在整體環境鉅變的過程中,當族群身份成為獲取政經社權益的關鍵時,不僅本質的差異為當前的不平等提供解釋,同時建構成為新的集體記憶,更加深原生性的差異,進而形塑極易產生族群衝突的環境,同時又為政治菁英提供新的藉口動員群眾。 而中共治疆策略對漢維族群本質原生性差異的輕視,雖積極改善經濟社會差距,政治地位的落差依舊,僅照顧到部份建構的權益,致使當局大力推動整合同化的成效不彰。最後,當局日益仰賴霸權控制工具性的手段維持新疆穩定,於是治理陷入惡性循環。

This thesis aims to explore the root of ethnic conflicts between Han Chinese and Uyghur in Xinjiang and to evaluate the Chinese Communist Party’s policies in the area. Most of the current literature ascribe the causes into either the external influence (the so-called Three Forces), the failure of CCP’s policies in terms of, Xinjiang’s particular socioeconomic disparity, or a mix of all factors above. While generating rich fruits, these researches suffer from lack of theoretical frameworks. Identifying this gap, this study instead uses analytical tools that have been developed by ethnic politics disciplines and adopts a state-centric approach. In the empirical part, this thesis employs the methods of historical analysis, text analysis, as well as interview to explore the root of conflicts and to evaluate Xinjiang policies from different perspectives. The study finds that the CCP has been using a mixed strategy to govern Xinjiang: on the one hand, the government actively assimilated Uyghur into Han society, particularly through promoting socio-economic development; on the other, it exerted a tight hegemonic control in the socio-political perspective, repressing any resistance to these policies of assimilation. This way of mixed strategy was made based on the Marxist-Leninist ideology and an aim at stabilizing the CCP’s control over Xinjiang, by which actions of integration and assimilation as well as hegemonic control were prioritized at different times. However, such a carrot-and-stick strategy failed to relieve ethnic conflicts. Rather, it even worsened the relationship between the two ethnic groups. The study also argues that the concepts of essentialism, instrumentalism, and constructivism of ethnic politics help to explain Han-Uyghur conflicts in Xinjiang. These two ethnic groups are very different in terms of features of blood relationship, language, religion, and culture, which have alienated both groups at the first place. These differences then were gradually politicalized overtime due to the CCP’s failed policies and manipulations from international powers and local political elites for the political and economic interests. In the process, new collective memories about conflicts between the two ethnic groups were created. As a result, the original differences between the two ethnic groups were more accentuated. This, in turn, further alienated Han Chinese and Uyghur. The confrontations between the two ethnic groups then motivated a new wave of mass mobilization and policy intervention. A vicious circle was formed. This thesis contends that the failure of the CCP’s Xinjiang policies lied in its disrespect for ethnic diversity. The authority failed to recognize the Uyghur as a unique ethnic minority. Although the government actively reduced the socio-economic gap between the two ethnic groups, Uyghur’s political status remains inferior and no expectation for improvement. This crippled the authority’s efforts to integrate and assimilate Uyghur into Han Chinese. Finally, as the government increasingly relied on authoritarian mechanisms to control Xinjiang, the CCP’s governance of Xinjiang became trapped in the vicious circle mentioned above.