美国别无选择，只有对经常帮助恐怖主义的国家发动战争。布什总统警告战争可能是长期的，但他也许并没有抓住要害：美国可能不得不接受长期的政治义务。最近的历史类比是，19世纪反对海盗的战争是殖民主义扩张的重要因素。很可能，一种新形式的殖民，西方管理的前恐怖主义国家，刚刚出现在地平线上。
值得注意的是，是年轻的美国发动了这场反对国际犯罪的斗争（大多数文明国家接受旧罗马法对海盗的定义：人类的敌人）。到18世纪末，阿尔及利亚、突尼斯和的黎波里的统治者接纳海盗，并且自己也从事海盗和白人奴隶贸易活动（主要是俘获的渔人），臭名昭著。欧洲国家发现赎回这些不幸者比走向战争更方便。阿德米罗·纳尔森，英国地中海舰队司令，被禁止去报复。"我的血在沸腾，"他写道，"我不能严惩这些海盗。"
与此相对照，美国决心与海盗开战。海盗是国会于1794年建立海军的主要原因。1805年，美国水兵从埃及穿过沙漠，迫使的黎波里的帕夏求和并交出所有的美国俘虏。美国海军赞美曲回忆这次远征："从蒙特祖玛大厅到的黎波里海岸。"
1815年，当海军准将斯代芬·底卡特和威廉姆·班布里奇指挥了一系列针对这三个北非伊斯兰国家的行动后，反海盗战争加强了。英国感到羞愧，他们也行动起来了。第二年阿德米罗·艾克斯毛斯领主征服了阿尔及利亚人，用到那时为止历史上最猛烈的海军炮火轰击：38667轮加农炮，960枚大口径炮弹，和上百枚火箭。然而，胜利是短暂的。美国和英国舰船一离开，这些头领们撕毁他们被迫签订的条约。
是法国人采取了合乎逻辑的步骤。1830年，法国人不仅用狂风暴雨般的轰击战争了阿尔及利亚人，而且征服了整个国家。法国最终把阿尔及利亚变成大法国的一部分，而且派了一百万殖民驻扎在那里。通过把突尼斯变成保护国，解决了突尼斯的海盗问题。这一模式后来用于摩洛哥。西班牙也消化了北非伊斯兰海岸的一部分。意大利也照此办理，他们推翻了的黎波里的帕夏建立了利比亚。丹吉尔，另一个讨厌的家伙，被四个欧洲国家共同统治。
北非的最终非殖民化是一件肮脏和流血的事情。特别是在阿尔及利亚，法国在那里的统治超过了120年，法国人在经过了一场可怕的战争后才撤退。那场战争有一百万人死亡，并推翻了第四共和国。意大利在利比亚的记录更糟糕，这是Moammar Gadhafi（卡扎菲？）上台和非法活动恢复的关键因素。
在19世纪，正如今天，文明国家试图通过与地方统治者（他们也是受害者）结成联盟来消灭海盗。阿拉伯和波斯湾是由许多小国的拼凑而成的，其中一些是由犯罪的部落所控制，他们在陆上抢劫沙漠大篷车队，在海上则从事海盗活动。海盗酋长受瓦哈比教徒保护，这些人是今日沙特阿拉伯的祖先。1815年，英国不得不采取行动，因为其东印度公司的船只在国际水域遭到攻击。但英国是与两个强有力的盟友，马斯喀特和阿曼的统治者--现在仍是英国的忠实朋友，和埃及的默罕莫德·阿里，一起干的。
英国海军的行动产生了一个反对海盗的总条约，所有阿拉伯海岸和海湾国家的统治者，无论大小都在条约上签了字。但英国从经验中知道，"没有剑的盟约"是无用的，只有当"执行基础"建立起来以后，酋长们才会遵守其条约义务。因此英国发现它成了中东地区的主要权力，在艾登有一个殖民地和基地，其他基地分布在海湾南北，以及与当地统治者的一个条约和保护国的网络，他们的继承人在位于印度的英国王子学校接受教育。
在东南亚和远东的形势没有本质的区别。在这些巨大领地的无数岛屿中，是依靠海盗生存的海上游牧部落。当地统治者太弱小，无法消除他们。只有皇家海军是足够强大的。但是那意味着建立现代基地--新加坡由此建立。那又导致殖民地，不仅是新加坡，而且有马来亚，沙捞越，婆罗洲。荷兰一直在做同样的事。英国人抱怨，美国虽然在这一地区有巨额贸易，但很少派战舰执行反海盗任务。1832年，安德鲁·杰克逊总统的派遣波托马克号护卫舰轰炸Kuala Batu的海盗窝是受欢迎的例外。
因此，在这一地区，反对海盗的行动直接与殖民地化相联系，英国，法国，荷兰，葡萄牙和西班牙都是这样做的。这一事实最终为美国人所认识，那是在美西战争结束菲律宾属于美国之后。美国在那里建了一个庞大的海军基地，其任务之一是搜捕海盗。可以学到的教训是，没有政治控制是无法镇压组织良好的犯罪社区、网络和国家的。
正如当今，伟大的文明国家总是愿意一致行动。但说起来容易做起来难。在中国，一个巨大但不统一的国家，西方贸易权力引入了治外法权的原则，特定的港口被指定为通商口岸，由欧洲法律下的领事和官员操纵。
1900年，一个好战的中国恐怖主义团体，人称"义和拳"，在中国政府偷偷摸摸地准许下控制了北京。西方大使馆遭到洗劫，德国大使被杀害。一支国际军队被组织起夺回北京，包括美国、日本，也有欧洲军队。考虑到德国的损失，英国同意，指挥官由德皇威廉二世任命，但随后此权力被收回，因为这位放纵的君王命令他的陆军元帅：
"决不宽恕，决不赦免。格杀毋论！一千多年以前，匈奴人为他们自己建立了一个人们至今还尊重的名声，你们要使德国的名字成为中国人的记忆，今后一千年里，没有一个中国人，无论是否睁眼，都不敢抬头看德国人。"
美国及其盟友将发现，至少暂时地，他们不仅要用军队占领，而且要管理冷酷无情的恐怖主义国家。这些国家也许最终要不仅包括阿富汗，而且伊拉克，苏丹，利比亚，伊朗和叙利亚。民主政权遵守国际法的意愿将在可能的地方灌输，但在某些时候，西方的政治存在似乎是不可避免的。
我想最好的中期解决方案将是恢复旧国际联盟的委任托管制，它在两次战争之间可以作为受尊重的殖民主义形式。叙利亚和伊拉克曾经是高度成功的托管地。苏丹，利比亚和伊朗同样在国际条约建立的特殊政权的统治下。
不能与邻国和平相处、发动反对国际社会的偷偷摸摸战争的国家不能指望完全独立。有安理会永久成员的支持，在不同程度上，有美国领导的首创性，设计一种新的联合国托管制，将恐怖主义国家置于负责任的监督之下，应该是不困难的。
英文原文：
The Answer to Terrorism? Colonialism.
By Paul Johnson. Mr. Johnson is the author of many books, including"Modern Times" and "The Birth of the Modern."
America has no alternative but to wage war against states
thathabitually aid terrorists. President Bush warns the war may be
longbut he has not, perhaps, yet grasped that America may have
toaccept long-term political obligations too. For the
nearesthistorical parallel -- the war against piracy in the 19th
century-- was an important element in the expansion of colonialism.
Itcould be that a new form of colony, the Western-administered
formerterrorist state, is only just over the horizon.
Significantly, it was the young United States that initiated
thisfirst campaign against international outlaws (most civilized
statesaccepted the old Roman law definition of pirates as "enemies of
thehuman race"). By the end of the 18th century, the rulers
ofAlgiers, Tunis and Tripoli had become notorious for
harboringpirates and themselves engaging in piracy and the slave-
trade inwhites (chiefly captured seamen). European states found
itconvenient to ransom these unfortunates rather than go to
war.Admiral Nelson, commanding the British Mediterranean Fleet,
wasforbidden to carry out reprisals. "My blood boils," he
wrote, "thatI cannot chastise these pirates."
By contrast, the U.S. was determined to do so. Pirates were themain
reason Congress established a navy in 1794. In 1805, Americanmarines
marched across the desert from Egypt, forcing the pasha ofTripoli to
sue for peace and surrender all American captives -- anexploit
recalled by the U.S. Marine Corps anthem: "From the Hallsof Montezuma
to the Shores of Tripoli."
It was reinforced in 1815 when Commodores Stephen Decatur andWilliam
Bainbridge conducted successful operations against allthree of the
Barbary States, as they were called. This shamed theBritish into
taking action themselves, and the following yearAdmiral Lord Exmouth
subjected Algiers to what was then thefiercest naval bombardment in
history -- 38,667 rounds of cannonballs, 960 large-caliber shells and
hundreds of rockets. However,these victories were ephemeral. The beys
repudiated the treatiesthey were obliged to sign as soon as American
and British shipswere over the horizon.
It was the French who took the logical step, in 1830, not only
ofstorming Algiers but of conquering the entire country.
Franceeventually turned Algeria into part of metropolitan France
andsettled one million colonists there. It solved the Tunis
piracyproblem by turning Tunisia into a protectorate, a model it
laterfollowed in Morocco. Spain, too, digested bits of the
BarbaryCoast, followed by Italy, which overthrew the pasha of Tripoli
andcreated Libya. Tangiers, another nuisance, was ruled by afour-
power European commission.
The eventual decolonization of North Africa was a messy and
bloodybusiness. In Algeria in particular, which the French had ruled
forover 120 years, they withdrew only after a horrific war
thatproduced over a million casualties and overthrew the
FourthRepublic. The Italian record in Libya was so bad that its
memorywas a key factor in Col. Moammar Gadhafi"s seizure of power and
theresumption of outlaw activities.
In the 19th century, as today, civilized states tried to put
downpiracy by organizing coalitions of local rulers who suffered
fromit too. Arabia and the Persian Gulf were a patchwork of
smallstates, some of which were controlled by criminal tribes
thatpursued caravan-robbing on land and piracy at sea. Pirate
sheikhswere protected by the Wahabis, forebears of the present ruler
ofSaudi Arabia. In 1815 Britain had to take action because ships
ofits East India Company were being attacked in international
waters.But it did so only in conjunction with two powerful allies,
theruler of Muscat and Oman, still Britain"s firm friend, and
MohamedAli of Egypt.
British naval operations produced a general treaty against
piracysigned by all the rulers, great and small, of the Arabian Coast
andPersian Gulf. But Britain had learned from experience
that"covenants without swords" were useless, and that the sheikhs
wouldonly stick to their treaty obligations if "enforcement bases"
wereset up. Hence Britain found itself becoming a major power in
theMiddle East, with a colony and base in Aden, other bases up
anddown the Gulf, and a network of treaties and protectorates
withlocal rulers, whose heirs were educated at the British school
ofprinces in India.
The situation in South-East Asia and the Far East was notessentially
different. Amid the countless islands of these vastterritories were
entire communities of orang laut (sea nomads) wholived by piracy.
Local rulers were too weak to extirpate them. Onlythe Royal Navy was
strong enough. But that meant creating modernbases -- hence the
founding of Singapore. That in turn led tocolonies, not only
Singapore but Malaya, Sarawak and Borneo. TheDutch had been doing the
same. It was a matter of complaint by theBritish that the Americans,
while trading hugely in the area,rarely sent warships on anti-piracy
missions -- President AndrewJackson"s dispatch of the frigate Potomac
to bombard the piratelair of Kuala Batu in 1832 was a welcome
exception.
In this area then the war against piracy was directly linked
tocolonization -- British, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish --
afact finally recognized by the U.S. when it annexed the
Philippinesafter the Spanish-American War. The U.S. established a
large navalbase there, one of whose duties was pirate-hunting. The
lessonlearned was that suppression of well-organized
criminalcommunities, networks and states was impossible without
politicalcontrol.
The great civilized powers, as now, preferred to act in concert.But
this was easier said than done. In China, a vast but
incoherentcountry, the Western trading powers had introduced the
principle ofextraterritoriality, whereby certain harbors were
designated treatyports and run by Western consuls and officials under
European law.
In 1900, a militant Chinese terrorist group known as the Boxersseized
control of Peking, with the covert approval of the Chinesegovernment.
Western embassies were sacked and the German ambassadormurdered. An
international force was organized to retake Peking,and it included
Americans and Japanese as well as European troops.In view of the
German loss, Britain agreed that the commander couldbe nominated by
Kaiser Wilhelm II, but was taken aback when thatintemperate monarch
instructed his field marshal:
"No pardon will be given and no prisoners taken. Anyone who fallsinto
your hands falls to your sword! Just as the Huns created
forthemselves a thousand years ago a name which men still respect,
youshould give the name of German such cause to be remembered in
Chinafor one thousand years that no Chinaman, no matter if his eyes
beslit or not, will dare to look a German in the face."
America and her allies may find themselves, temporarily at least,not
just occupying with troops but administering obdurate
terroriststates. These may eventually include not only Afghanistan
but Iraq,Sudan, Libya, Iran and Syria. Democratic regimes willing to
abideby international law will be implanted where possible, but
aWestern political presence seems unavoidable in some cases.
I suspect the best medium-term solution will be to revive the
oldLeague of Nations mandate system, which served well as
a"respectable" form of colonialism between the wars. Syria and
Iraqwere once highly successful mandates. Sudan, Libya and Iran
havelikewise been placed under special regimes by international
treaty.
Countries that cannot live at peace with their neighbors and
wagecovert war against the international community cannot expect
totalindependence. With all the permanent members of the
SecurityCouncil now backing, in varying degrees, the American-
ledinitiative, it should not be difficult to devise a new form
ofUnited Nations mandate that places terrorist states
underresponsible supervision.
