中ソ対立下の中国少数民族幹部政策

DOI Web Site オープンアクセス
  • 熊倉 潤
    日本貿易振興機構アジア経済研究所

書誌事項

タイトル別名
  • China’s Ethnic-Minority Cadres Policy during the Sino-Soviet Confrontation: The Case of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (1966–1976)
  • 中ソ対立下の中国少数民族幹部政策 : 新疆ウイグル自治区の事例から(一九六六-一九七六年)
  • チュウソ タイリツ カ ノ チュウゴク ショウスウ ミンゾク カンブ セイサク : シンキョウウイグル ジチク ノ ジレイ カラ(イチキュウロクロク-イチキュウナナロクネン)
  • ――新疆ウイグル自治区の事例から（一九六六―一九七六年）――

この論文をさがす

説明

<p>It is well known that China’s ethnic-minority elites fell during the Cultural Revolution, especially in the periphery areas near from Sino-Soviet border. However, Saifuddin Azizi, who was trusted by Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Kang Sheng and other top leaders, was protected and maintained his position in Xinjiang since the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution. In addition, he was promoted to the first secretary of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Party Committee, which was the post where only Han cadres had taken office before the Cultural Revolution. Han cadres have fallen in the process of Sino-Soviet confrontation and the Cultural Revolution in Xinjiang, and the ethnic-minority elite became the top leader of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. That is in contrast to the process in which the Mongolian cadres, who had held key positions, were being persecuted one after another, starting with the fall of Ulanhu in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, and their status being relegated to the Han.</p><p>The case of Saifuddin indicates that China’s ethnic-minority policy under the Sino-Soviet conflict also has dynamics different from the trend toward persecution. This mechanism has not been considered as a major research target in recent research, but this paper shows that it was relatively well known in research conducted in Taiwan in the same age. However, as those researches at that time had limitations, this paper also uses the historical materials published recently. Analysis shows that Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Kang Sheng and others trusted Saifuddin, and used Saifuddin heavily to realize “Great Confederation” and to strengthen “Unity for Ethnicities”.</p><p>Why are the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, which were the same as the front line against the Soviet Union, were so different? In the case of Inner Mongolia, Ulanhu was criticized before the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution, and the existence of himself in the party was regarded as a problem, and it is clear that the content of the criticism was closely related with the institution of Regional Autonomy for Ethnic Minorities. On the other hand, in the case of the Xinjiang, the main target of criticism was not Saifuddin from the beginning, but Wang Enmao, the first secretary of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Party Committee. As Wang Enmao was considered as the “old cadre” to be excluded from the trunk, he was criticized heavily. The progress of the Sino-Soviet conflict urged the realignment of multi-ethnic governance, but it does not necessarily result in fall of minority leaders. If the “independent kingdom” of Han leader, Wang Enmao, was regarded as bigger problem, it was criticized first.</p>

収録刊行物

  • 国際政治

    国際政治 2019 (197), 197_58-197_73, 2019-09-25

    一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会

関連プロジェクト

もっと見る

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ