本文的研究主軸是從哈薩克與俄羅斯雙邊外交互動的情形，來探討哈薩克俄羅斯人的歸屬問題，並以族群政治衝突的模式，分析哈薩克的俄羅斯人其處境。 哈薩克的俄羅斯人數，僅次於前蘇聯各加盟共和國的拉脫維亞，居中亞各國之首，且在哈薩克獨立之前或獨立初期，俄羅斯人的人口數都還遠超過哈薩克族，佔國內總人口數的半數以上，使其境內的俄羅斯人問題成為俄羅斯與哈薩克雙邊關係運作的一個重要變數，是雙方政府在其外交與內政問題上，必須同時面對並保持密切互動與接觸的議題。 因此在探討中亞的民族問題時，除了受「911」事件影響，重視伊斯蘭教的宗教極端主義之外，我們也不能忽視「俄羅斯人」這個受政治變遷所造成的民族問題。這些俄羅斯人在蘇聯解體後，失去其原有的優勢地位，且因為哈薩克有計畫的自境外移入哈薩克人，使俄羅斯人在哈薩克境內的人口數降到總人口數的50%以下，變成少數民族，如此政治社會上的情況轉變，引起俄羅斯人在哈薩克的適應問題與族群間的緊張關係。 本文從歷史、制度與現實三個層面來分析哈薩克境內的俄羅斯人，瞭解何以蘇聯時期出現大規模的移民現象？而蘇聯的蘇維埃化政策對移民地區的政社經濟情勢的變化有何影響？在哈薩克獨立後的國情變遷，以及此過程中，哈薩克政府如何處理其內部的俄羅斯人問題，以及此問題所引發與俄羅斯雙邊關係發展上的變化為何？俄羅斯政府如何在其對哈薩克的外交與內部的民族政策運作上取的協調？以及哈薩克國內的俄羅斯人在俄哈雙邊的外交運作中如何自我定位與調適？最後本文希望藉由探討1991年至1999年俄羅斯人與俄哈政府三邊的歷史互動，除了瞭解上述幾項問題之外，還能夠思考出對族群之間政治衝突解套的方法，以做為未來台灣族群政治問題研究之借鏡。 / This thesis focuses on the Russian who reside in Kazakhstan and on foreign relationship between Russia and Kazakhstan. The approach that the author takes is an Ethnopolitical Conflict model which analyzes the status of Russian-Speaking population in Kazakhstan. Among the former republics of Soviet Union, the Russian population in Kazakhstan is next to that in Latvia, and is the largest in Central Asia area. Moreover, in the beginning stage after Kazakhstan’s independence, the Russian, which is the ethnic majority, outnumber the Kazakh. So this issue becomes an important variable to bilateral relationship between Russia Federation and Kazakhstan in political, economic and social levels. When exploring the ethnic problems in Central Asia, in addition to the Islam religious extremism, we could not neglect the influence of Russian ethnic problems caused by political transition. After the collapse of Soviet Union, those Russian lost their advantages because of Kazakh immigrants so that the Russian became minority instead. With the change in political and social situation, it roused the Russian adaptation problems and racial tense. In order to study the mass migration phenomena in Soviet Union period, the author intends to analyze the Russian in Kazakhstan in historical, institutional and realism aspects. Besides, the author examines what impact the Sovietization policy might have on the political, social and economic changes in migration area. Moreover, it would be detailed that, after Kazakhstan’s independence, how Kazakhstan government deals with the Russian -Speaking Population issue, which affects the diplomatic change in the relation with Russian Federation. In addition, the author depicts how the Russian government strikes a balance between its diplomatic and ethnic policy. Accordingly, it is also examined how the Russian -Speaking Population in Kazakhstan define and accommodate themselves in Russia-Kazakhstan bilateral interaction. Finally, by exploring the context of trilateral relations among Russian-Speaking Population, Russian government and Kazakhstan government from 1991 to 1999, the author seeks a resolution for the racial disputes, and hopes it might be a lesson for studying Taiwan’s racial problems.

本論文之主旨即在系統析述民國二十（一九三一）年冬在瑞金所建立之「江西蘇維埃 」諸般狀況，由而採討其所產生之影響。 本論文全十章，分三部綜論其建立，作為及崩潰。 本論文第編含三章，分別析述其建立背景、建立經過、及建立後之組織型態。 第二編論蘇維埃政權之主要作為，四、五兩章即分析其土地鬥爭及軍事鬥爭之實質。 第六章探討中共政權如何克服財政困難，如稅制、幣券、公債、及征糧工作等諸般作 為。第七章論「肅反」工作，蓋中共承受了俄共肅反鬥爭特質，對於黨內黨外固然經 常以「肅清反革命」排斥異己，即政務之推行亦以「紅色恐怖」為依恃，此種肅反工 作實為中共政權之主要特質。 第八章析論該時期中共重要黨務活動及黨內派系鬥爭。在江西時期，中共黨內派系之 爭，以留俄派與毛澤東集團為兩大陣營，幾乎無「時」不鬥，無「事」不鬥，爭端尤 其集中於「富農路線」、與「游擊主義」，至於反「羅明路線」鬥爭乃是具有代表性 的著名事例。 第三編論蘇維埃政權之崩潰，其中第九章說明崩潰經過，第十章分析其崩潰原因。第 五次圍勦歷時一年，國軍採用新戰略，配合經濟封鎖，政治動員及農村復興諸般方略 ，以雷霆萬鈞之勢向贛南步步進逼，國民政府是以組織民眾、動員民力、改善民生作 為最高作戰策略，由於國軍在軍事上的勝利，同時誘發了蘇區民眾長時期潛在的反共 意識轉而化為行動，乃更加速了共黨政權的潰敗，其間雖歷「閩變」，仍未能挽回紅 色政權之厄運，至民國二十三年（一九三四）年十月，紅朝乃終告全面崩潰。

在擴大對「蘇聯文化」研究的基礎上，本論文探討蘇聯的文化政治與政策施作，其終極目標乃透過命名的權力來建構文化的社會主體性，也即「蘇維埃人」這樣的歷史共同體。為求例證之多樣性，本論文綜合了文化研究與歷史研究途徑，以文本分析和文獻分析作為研究方法，並將指涉的文化政策範圍縮限於文學與藝術領域，以及對文化公共財，如圖書館、博物館、劇院的擴充。 對布爾什維克而言，爭取文化霸權就是建構並傳播蘇維埃意識形態，透過意識形態國家機器，即藝文團體、報刊媒體等來體現，繼而將個人建構為主體，製造出一批批本應如此的「形象」。因此，蘇維埃意識形態始終驅動著蘇聯文化政策的開展。配合主政之領導人，國家對政策的指導可簡化為「文化革命─社會主義寫實主義─公開性」的歷程，並對應由逐漸緊縮到開放的程度。其中，由列寧發起的文化革命可謂蘇聯文化政策的承先啟後階段，尚且容許藝文團體的多元發展。進入史達林時期後，所推出的社會主義寫實主義既是一種創作風格，也是政策的依歸。從寫作到編曲，從繪畫到電影，它為蘇聯的文藝創作設置理論與框架，並成為作品能否公開展演及獲得國家獎勵的唯一標準。至於戈巴契夫的公開性則帶來蘇維埃意識形態更為人性化的修正與文化政策的轉折。 另一方面，本論文透過觀照經蘇維埃化所產生之新蘇維埃人的日常生活片斷，概括蘇維埃文化的若干特徵，點出其指導大眾邁向由官方營造之理想人生的規訓功能，繼而探究蘇聯社會中不同身分的互動，析論政策造成的後續影響。藉由對精英、婦女與青年等文化研究關鍵面向的討論，可以發現蘇聯文化政策的差別待遇模式，以及未將文化納入政策考量的若干失誤。

無論是沙皇政權或是蘇維埃政權，都會在侵略併吞而來的土地上實行俄化或是蘇維埃化的政策，希望能建立一個大一統的國家，創造一個享有共同文化、共同語言、甚至是有共同認同的民族。但是，1991年蘇聯的解體，不只打破了蘇共創造「蘇維埃民族」的美夢，還證明了蘇聯民族政策的嚴重錯誤。 19世紀以前，進入波海地區的俄羅斯人數量並不多。19世紀之後，沙皇政府開始在此區實行大規模的俄化，並開始將大批的俄羅斯人遷移至此。從第一次世界大戰以後到第二次世界大戰這段期間，波海三國享有了一段短暫的獨立國家時期。這個時期，基本上，波海三國對其境內的俄羅斯人是採取尊重的態度。第二次世界大戰爆發，因為德蘇密約的簽訂，使波海三國再次地被蘇聯併吞。史達林佔領波海三國之後，立刻大規模地流放波海三國的人民，並將大批的俄羅斯人引進，使愛沙尼亞與拉脫維亞兩國在人口統計學上的俄化情形十分嚴重。 1985年戈巴契夫上台以後，波海三國利用改革的機會，追求獨立，最後，以非暴力的方式獲得成功，重建獨立國家。波海三國獨立以後，俄羅斯人的地位有了很大的改變，一下子從優勢的統治地位變成弱勢的少數民族。愛沙尼亞與拉脫維亞因為懷疑俄羅斯人的忠誠度以及擔心會被滅族，所以採取了排外的公民權法，使大部分的俄羅斯人都無法獲得公民權。另外，因為大部分的俄羅斯人都不會說愛沙尼亞語或拉脫維亞語，所以不僅在取得公民權上有困難，在經濟與社會處境上也變得比較差。至於俄羅斯人的認同，可以說是複雜的。大多數的俄羅斯人在政治上是對所居住的共和國忠誠，在文化上還是認為自己是屬於俄羅斯文化的一部份。至於立陶宛，賦予境內大部分的俄羅斯人公民權，因此，立陶宛的族群關係較緩和。 俄羅斯政府自認為是境外俄羅斯人權益的捍衛者，但是，對於波海三國的少數民族政策所能造成的影響並不大。相反地，西方政府的批評與建議常常能成功地影響波海三國的決策。主要的原因在於波海三國急切地想回歸歐洲、西方政府與組織能提供援助、滿足國家安全需求與歐安組織派遣使節到愛、拉兩國。 / No matter what it was the Czar’s regime or the Soviet government, it would always implement a policy of Russification or Sovietization on invaded lands, in order to establish a united nation with common culture, shared the same language and national identity. However, since the breaking down of the Soviet Union in 1991, not only the dream of the ‘Soviet People’ broke down, but it also suggested a misleading of ethnic-national policy. Before the 19th century, there were not many Russians in the Baltic area. After the 19th century, the Czar’s regime started to implement the policy of Russification on a large scale, and it also moved many Russians to settle there. During the period of the First World War and the Second World War, the Baltic States had enjoyed a short period as independent nations. In this period, the Baltic States basically treated the Russians within their states with respect. Because Germany and Russia had signed a treaty before the Second World War, therefore, when the war erupted, the Baltic States were once again occupied by the Russia. After Stalin took over the Baltic States, he exiles people from the Baltic States on a large scale, while moving many Russians into these countries. As a result, Estonia and Latvia were seriously Russificated demogranphically. In 1985, Gorbachev gained the power. While the Russia government was reforming its political entity, the Baltic States seized the opportunity to go independent. They successfully gained their independence through non-violent method and rebuild themselves as independent states. Ever since the Baltic States became independent, the status of the Russians within their regions had changed rapidly. The Russians were once the dominant ruling class and suddenly became the ruled minority. Estonia and Latvia are concerned with the issues of royalty of the Russian people, also they were worried that they would become extinct as an ethnic group, therefore, they adopted an exclusive citizenship laws. Because most of the Russians could not speak Estonian and Latvian languages, therefore, they had difficulties to acquire the citizenship and they also did poorly financially and politically within these two nations. As for the notion of the Russian identity, it was a very complicated issue. Most Russians are politically royal to the Republics they reside, but culturally they still considered themselves as part of the Russian culture. In Lithuania, it granted most of the Russians that reside in its nation the citizenship; therefore, the ethnic relationship within the country was less tense comparatively. Russian government always views itself as the protector of the rights of its people that reside in other countries. However, this does not affect the policies regarding the minority in the Baltic States. On the other hand, the criticism and suggestions from the western governments can often affect the process of the policy-making in the Baltic States. The main reason is that the Baltic States are eager to return to Europe, and they can acquire aids from the western governments and organizations, securing their nations. Another reason is Estonia and Latvia hopefully get rid of the representatives from OSCE as soon as possible.