本文試圖對「東突」問題做一全面完整的探討，並釐清「東突」的屬性及其與恐怖主義之關聯，並經由個案探討，瞭解911事件後所形成的國際反恐情勢對全球民族分離運動產生之影響，以及中共如何因應911事件後的國際反恐環境，如何運用國際反恐合作處理「東突」問題，以及分析其作法所產生的利弊得失。 本文的研究核心是「東突」分離運動，包括分離主義的形成與發展，以及中共對新疆的統治，國際社會支持等兩外部影響，三個研究客體之間彼此進行影響與回饋，在分離主義未能解決之前，三者不斷進行循環，主要結論為： 東突問題實際上就是新疆地區之維吾爾族在中共政權下倡議的新疆分離運動。民族分離運動主要涉及要求分離之民族對統治政權之不滿，以及分離主義內部所產生之認同感而生。東突之民族歷史記憶雖被中共視為不曾存在之過往，但不論此種歷史記憶之真實性，此已成為東突推動分離運動之主要基石，且民族之成因複雜，「民族」之支配力及影響力絕不亞於身為一個公民之身分。中共之民族政策失誤也是構成東突主張之主要原因之ㄧ，如中共之無神論、社會階段演化論、民族自決論無一不招致反彈，加上中共在新疆實施之移民及同化政策、經濟資源發展與分配、人權迫害及核試爆等作為，均引起當地民眾之不滿，對於主張獨立之維吾爾菁英而言更是難以忍受。 東突分離主義在1933年、1944年曾兩度短暫建國，但在1990年代受到東歐及蘇聯解體，中亞各國紛紛獨立的影響，東突運動再度復興，並採取激進的暴力手段。中共於1996年起與俄羅斯、中亞5國合作反恐，此時已被中共公安部視為恐怖組織之東突組織，亦多於1996年、1997年在大陸境外成立，一方面顯示東突活動更趨活躍；另方面亦凸顯在中共之高壓嚴打政策下，東突份子亦不易在新疆立足，必須在境外尋覓與中共抗爭之基地。 911事件前，中共都將東突議題界定為內政問題，禁止各國以人權之加以干涉，更積極阻止這些分離主義團體將其訴求國際化。911事件後，中共雖然未改這些問題是內政問題之基調，但中共卻將這些問題冠以「恐怖主義」之名目，要求各國予以撻伐，惟西方國家多未認同中共所稱的內部威脅是恐怖組織，僅聯合國和美國僅有認定「東突伊斯蘭運動」組織有跡證顯示與基地組織有關。 東突運動再度受到重視，與911事件及國際反恐活動密切相關，尤其將分離運動「恐怖主義化」則已成為各國打擊分離主義之合理藉口。政治分離運動如何面，東突運動提供一個觀察參考，反恐問題開始與人權問題結合，成為國家主權受到恐怖主義威脅與分離運動追求民族基本權利之拉距戰，而分離運動如何整合發展及強化凝聚力，亦是後續研究值予探討之內容。 關鍵詞：東突、分離運動、恐怖主義、反恐、911事件

本論文以隸屬於俄羅斯聯邦架構中的韃靼共和國和車臣共和國作為分離運動比較研究的兩個案例，進行民族分離運動相關問題的探討，包括民族分離意識興起的原因以及影響分離運動往不同路徑發展的因素。由於俄羅斯屬於前社會主義國家，國家體制曾經歷轉型的過程，因此除了具有一般民族問題的特質外，還必須將多重轉型的特殊性列入考量。 除了原生差異與政經利益考量的工具性訴求外，社會主義國家特有的聯邦制與本土化政策也促使民族意識興起，創造了潛在的民族分離團體。當中央的控制力有了鬆懈的跡象，分離意識便有了發揮的空間，分離運動隨之爆發。 韃靼共和國與車臣共和國分離運動的比較研究證明，作為動員基礎的原生性條件以及工具性訴求僅是影響分離運動發展的次要因素，由於領導人的動員可以決定分離運動發展的方向，因此領導人的策略抉擇才是影響分離運動發展的關鍵因素。而在蘇聯末期政治不穩定的局勢中，由誰來主導分離運動的發展相當程度受到莫斯科、原共和國執政者與民族主義力量三角關係的影響。 韃靼共和國的分離運動由立場溫和的夏米耶夫主導，在不斷的妥協談判後，最終以雙邊條約的方式界定與俄羅斯聯邦的關係，創造了「韃靼模式」，分離運動得到平息。相較之下，車臣共和國的分離運動在杜達耶夫激進的領導風格下一步步朝向完全獨立與脫離俄羅斯聯邦的方向發展。如此極端的立場當然不容於莫斯科。為了維護俄羅斯聯邦領土的完整性，莫斯科最後發動戰爭來解決車臣問題。在整個分離運動的發展過程中，領導者的策略決定了分離運動的發展，可見領導者的路線抉擇才是影響分離運動發展最關鍵的因素。 / This thesis focuses on national separatism in former socialist countries and takes Tatarstan and Chechnya for a case study. My research seeks to answer several questions, such as where did the separatist group originate from? Why did nationalist movements explode? How to explain different attitudes towards secession? I argue that primordial attachment and instrumental consideration about interests are the important causes shaping separatist groups. In the cases of former socialist countries, however, it is necessary to take the institutional factor into consideration, that is－ethnic federalism and korenizatsiya. All these elements combined to create the potential secessionist groups. Once the coercive controls formerly imposed by the central authority were removed, the previously repressed national groups inevitably reemerged and led the secessionist movement. The comparative analysis of the secessionist movements in Tatarstan and Chechnya proves that primordial and instrumental factors can only explain the emergence of secessionist movements, however they are of little significance when it comes to explaining the divergent paths of the movements. What matters more is the leadership’s strategy. The crucial problem is who will lead the secessionist movements? In the chaotic years leading up to the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was the triangular relations among Moscow, republican leadership and secessionist movement that determined the exact leader of the secessionist movement. In our cases, the moderate Shamiev led Tatarstan’s separatism by negotiation and was able to reach agreement with Moscow on a new Sovereignty Treaty. This pattern later came to be called the “Tatarstan Model”. After that, the secession in Tatarstan quieted down. In sharp contrast, Dudaev pursued a radical strategy and sought Chechnya’s complete independence from the Russian Federation. To defend his integrity of territory, Moscow dispatched Russian troops to quell this separatist republic. Leadership strategy thus determined the outcome of secessionist movements, and the choice of leaders proved crucial in the whole process.

加拿大自脫離英國政府的殖民統治以來，至今已經有一百三十多年的歷史。期間雖經歷了保守黨、自由黨之輪流執政，仍無法完全解決長期以來魁北克人民對於「獨特社會」地位、保護法語文化及傳統的要求。尤有甚者，一九七六年魁人黨（Parti Quebecois）在魁北克省執政成功，並分別於一九八○年及一九九五年針對獨立與否議題舉辦兩次魁省公民投票。雖然最後魁北克人企圖獨立的公投失敗，但其所帶來的衝擊、餘波，更強力震撼了加拿大的政治生態。 一九九三年柯瑞祥（Jean Chretien）領導的自由黨在大選中擊敗執政長達九年的穆隆尼（Brian Moulorney）保守黨政府，順利當選加拿大聯邦總理後，一直致力於改善失業率，通貨膨脹率及削減預算赤字等國內經濟問題。然一九九五年魁北克公投期間，柯瑞祥被許多聯邦派人士批評過於輕忽國家統一問題及魁北克分離派（separatist）的實力。最後聯邦主義者（federalist）雖以1.2％約五萬五千票的差距取得勝利，但獨立派人士卻揚言要繼續推動第三次公投以尋求最後的成功。 本論文主要探討柯瑞祥政府對魁北克獨立運動的因應策略，其中主要以經濟、政治、法律等三個層面予以分析。在經濟層面探討柯瑞祥政府的安撫策略（carrot strategy）及強硬策略（stick strategy）；政治上則探討魁人治魁的傳統策略，以及提前大選策略、外交策略、多元文化策略等；法律上則探討密契湖協議（Meech Lake Accord）與查洛城協議（Charletown Accord），以及九五年公投法律分析、Ｂ計畫 (Plan B)、澄清法案（Clarity Bill）等。由於一九九五年魁省公投對加拿大聯邦政府帶來的衝擊，使得柯瑞祥不得不更謹慎處理國家統一問題。其後，從一九九七年的大選和一九九八年的魁北克省長選舉得票結果可知，魁北克獨立勢力似乎已有見緩的趨勢。因此柯瑞祥政府在經濟、政治和法律面上對魁北克獨立運動策略之成效為何，以及魁北克獨立運動的未來可能發展，均值得探討，此乃本論文之主軸。 由於國內研究加拿大的學者不多，特別是針對魁北克獨立問題的研究更是鳳毛麟角，因此引發筆者的研究動機。面對近來因民族主義意識而興起之獨立運動風潮，魁北克的獨立議題實值得深入分析。 / It has been more than 130 years since Canada stopped being an English colony. Although conservative and liberal governments had come and go, none had managed to resolve completely and permanently the Quebec people's demands for a "distinct society" status and moves to protect the French language and culture. The quest for the former is especially worth mentioning. In 1976, Partis Qucbecois was voted into power in Quebec and held 2 state referendums to decide whether to be independent in 1980 and 1995. Despite failing to get a majority in the referendum, these events sent the shockwaves throughout the political world. In 1993, the Liberal party led by Jean Chretien beat the conservative government led by Brian Moulorney, which had been in power for 9 years. After Chretien became the federal prime minister of Canada, he concentrated on cutting down the unemployment rate and other internal economical problems such as the inflation rate and the deficit. In spite of this, he was criticized by many federalists as neglecting the country unification issue and the power of Quebec's separatists. Although, in 1995's referendum, federalists managed to win with a margin of 1.2% (around 55,000 votes) in the end, independents vow to seek a referendum again until they win. This thesis aims to analyze strategies taken by the Chretien government against the Quebec independent movement from three viewpoints: Economical, Political and Legal. From the economical viewpoint we'll take a look at Chretien's "Carrot and Stick Strategy". From the political viewpoint, the traditional "Quebecers rule Quebec" policy as well as the "earlier election" policy, foreign policies, multicultural policies, etc. are examined. From the legal viewpoint, the Meech Lake Accord, the Charletown Accord as well as 1995's referendum law analysis, Plan B, the Clarity Bill, etc. are examined. Due to shockwaves to the federal government brought about by 1995's Quebec Referendum, Chretien had to handle the country unification problem with even more care. After 1995, as can be seen from 1997 general elections and 1998 Quebec's provincial election, the Quebec Independence Movement started to lose steam. Therefore, it is worthwhile to examine the effects the economical, political and legal polices the Chretien government took had on the movement, as well as possible developments of the movement. That will be the main topic of this thesis. The author was motivated to do research on this topic as there aren't many researchers on Canada locally, especially researchers on the problems of Quebec's Independence Movement. Facing the independent movement recently due to heightening nationalist sentiments, Quebec's Independence Movement case study is worth an in-depth analysis.