【作者】 玛斯拉（Maseray Ngadie Rogers）；

【导师】 刘德斌； 张乃和；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 世界史， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 本文的主题是美国在阿富汗反恐战争的政治影响(1998-2008)。在不久的将来,人类安全的威胁似乎不会来自稳定政府下的强大的发达国家,而是会来自失败国家。本文考察了1998年非洲(坦桑尼亚和肯尼亚)美国大使馆爆炸事件以来基地组织运动的影响,同时进一步研究了9·11美国世贸中心和五角大楼爆炸事件。本文还将考察美国、北约及世界各国如何进行反恐斗争,尤其是针对基地组织,它的一次恐怖行动在21世纪初将世界带入瘫痪的境地。作为一个超级大国,美国与世界的利益冲突是不可避免的,但从9·11基地组织的爆炸袭击中我们学到的最关键的一课便是:未雨绸缪。第一章:伊斯兰圣战的形成和国际反恐公约1979年12月25日,苏联第40集团军打着建立社会主义制度的旗号开进阿富汗。从此,被激怒的逊尼派伊斯兰开始激进的号召开展圣战,它被称为伊斯兰教第六支柱。逊尼派圣战的性质同欧洲和亚洲的革命运动相似,它开始于苏联入侵(圣战者称1979-1980年的战争为“圣战之母”)。9·11事件前,逊尼派穆斯林对美国在中东的利益相对并没有威胁。这是因为冷战时期,美国更多关注于苏联,他们称其为“邪恶帝国”。当时任何国家或地区只要帮助美国对抗苏联,便会被当做美国的盟友。甚至是逊尼派穆斯林也被美国当做同“邪恶苏维埃无神论”斗争的信徒。这些逊尼派支持者后来投身于圣战运动中,而其便是基地组织的前身。在战争中他们被极大的忽视,因为美国认为当时主要是冷战的世界。当时,甚至是巴基斯坦原教旨主义独裁者穆罕默德·齐亚·哈克将军也被其忽视,他曾积极暗中帮助破坏苏维埃在阿富汗的影响力。而他对抗苏联的行动使得其发展大规模杀伤性核武器和武装逊尼派极端主义者的行为被忽略,美国总统里根甚至视其为盟友。还有瓦哈比教派拒绝建立同“苏维埃无神论异教徒”的外交联系,并暗中摧毁苏联在阿拉伯世界的利益。正是由于这些行动,当然还有该地显而易见的石油储量使得阿拉伯世界的人权问题,对巴基斯坦恐怖主义的资助,对民主反对派的压制,对妇女选举权利的剥夺,以及清教徒式的瓦哈比教派都获得了美国在外交上的承认。激进的逊尼派伊斯兰走私可兰经和颠覆性的文学作品到苏联,从摩洛哥到印尼,逊尼派穆斯林在伊玛目领导下去抱怨苏联对穆斯林同胞的压迫。伴随着许多秘密的间谍行动—情报信息—军事行动,美国帮助逊尼派穆斯林使得苏联深陷阿富汗的泥沼之中。随后便是美国中央情报局,英国军情6处,巴基斯坦三军情报局,沙特阿拉伯军事情报部门,埃及情报部门穆克哈巴拉克,还有令人惊讶的以色列摩萨德的行动,这些都使得潜伏的伊斯兰圣战意识在现实的逊尼派穆斯林世界中得以苏醒,并使苏维埃对阿富汗的占领导致了苏联极大的失败。而这种“中央情报局—圣战”是在各个地区政府情报部门下进行的,这是其行动的非官方的基本的组成部分。这些行动的后果是,失控的人民运动锻造了圣战同胞,而后他们在西方和世界其他地区开展恐怖活动。人们普遍相信人权会使社会远离冲突并给世界带来和平。当代恐怖主义是对全球社会的威胁,没有一个国家可以单独解决它,它需要世界各国的共同努力。本文将研究1968年到2008年将恐怖主义非法化的国际准则的形成和发展。其中有两种类型的关于恐怖主义的国际公约,第一种是13条正式批准的公开准则,虽然只有12条正式生效。第二种类型是区域性多边反恐协定,例如2006年反恐欧洲理事会会议。这些准则的中心是建立于2001年的联合国反恐委员会,它负责监督安全理事会1373号的执行。安全理事会由15个成员国组成,联合国反恐委员会推动各国签订现有的关于反对恐怖主义的联合国公约,还有相关的区域性协定,并推动各国国内相关必要法律的制定。第二章:霸权竞争与正义战争理论在21世纪的应用基地组织的实力及影响促使学者们建立相关模型来评估其战略意义。在最基础的层面,学者们需要重新考虑意识形态及“次国家”因素在均势及霸权理论的概念和政策应用中所扮演的角色。基地组织本身并不构成严重的威胁,但它的意识形态运动却有可能在全球性大国中植根并蔓延开来。与此同时,基地组织的“霸权”战略并不寄希望于动员“圣战”份子来挑战美国权威,而是通过它潜在的意识形态和政治力量来将不同国家或政府排挤到美国的霸权体系之外。基地组织正在使用不同手段来鼓动并支持恐怖团体在各自国家内的颠覆活动。因此,基地组织正在成为全球革命与暴力意识形态的中心,它通过发动暴乱的手法、用不对称的方式来威胁并挑战美国的霸权地位。基地组织的意识形态将会使国家陷入不稳定状态,直至爆发内战。阿富汗和索马里就是很好的例子。国家认同与民族荣耀需要相互结合。美国的实践与政策就代表了这样的一种认同,纪律性机制受到自我认同与民族荣耀的驱使,而国内和国际上的各种势力就可据此使用战术性的手段——例如恐怖主义——来操纵这种认同感,胁迫美国放弃其一贯的政策。恐怖主义者可以采用非常规的手段来实现其目的,这些手段也许会遭到国际社会的批评,并使美国和相关国家蒙羞,并最终牵涉到国家荣誉。也正因为如此,人们使用正义战争理论来判断反恐战争和针对“流氓国家”的军事行动的道德成分及合法性。这也就将我们指向了美国的阿富汗战争。正义战争是指任何一场符合“国际正义”之标准的战争。从这种视角来看,正义战争成为一种在国家诉诸武力时帮助其验证或阐明正义性的工具。恐怖主义也许依赖一些支持其行动的国家给予秘密援助,但这些国家对其恐怖主义行径并不予以公开支持。对正义战争的思考需要公众权威自身维护其利益,但这种目标是难以实现的,因为不存在一个可以作为假想敌的国家来将此战略付诸实施。因此,国家社会大致决议用“正义”的名义来向恐怖主义宣战。第三章:阿富汗反恐战争的过程,以及宗教和现实暴力中的安全政治冷战结束后的国际冲突大多是违反了美国自由主义下国家主权神圣不可侵犯的原则。为了永久的自由,自2001年10月9日起,美英两国的船舰和潜艇开赴印度洋和波斯湾,数百枚战斧式巡航导弹发射至阿富汗。美国空军习惯于用联合直接弹药和激光制导炸弹对已知的基地组织训练场所进行轰炸。美国对基地组织的猛袭表明本·拉登预言的伊斯兰圣战在中亚成为现实。本·拉登成为全球众所周知的人物。文明之间的冲突开始在国际反恐斗争中显现,特别是在9·11事件之后。这是伊斯兰文明与其他文明,特别是西方文明之间的冲突。本文认为,伊斯兰原教旨主义大多是在穆斯林世界建立,本文指出,大多伊斯兰原教旨主义存在于穆斯林世界;总的来说,与其他文明相比伊斯兰文明更易倾向于使用恐怖主义手段来与他国对抗。奥萨玛和他的基地组织给阿富汗带来的困境应给其他国家以教训,即绝不要支持恐怖主义。对于阿富汗人民来说,最好的办法是坚决打击塔利班并迫使他们驱逐本·拉登和他的基地组织离开阿富汗,而不是遭受这些混乱,在2001年美国入侵中失去生命财产,饱受精神折磨和心灵创伤,经历非人化的磨难。而布什反恐战争的中心目标是通过消灭和去合法化恐怖活动来影响其他国家的外交政策,并告之他们必须承担控制其国内恐怖主义的责任。第四章:解决冲突中行动影响观念的方式和反恐战争的可选择战略决定反恐行动成功与否,最关键的一点是对全球反恐战争如何影响国家主权的概念的判定。尽管联合国宪章第二章中已经明确规定了国家主权互不干涉原则,但政治决策还是不停地违背,决策者总是在呼吁解决诸如科索沃的滥用人权,伊拉克的核发展,阿富汗恐怖主义的蔓延等国际问题。这些行动受到有关国家在国际社会中的权利和义务的国际规范的影响。全球第一次组成了同盟对阿富汗进行反恐斗争。在这一案例中,尽管联合国已经谴责塔利班政权支持基地组织,但其还是没有在反恐中履行其国际义务。基地组织和塔利班的关系虽然不是新建立的,但9·11事件是国际社会将反恐斗争作为其政治上优先的转折点。在这一事件中,关于军事干涉正当性的新理由出现,其试图重构对国家主权的争论。在国际体系中,一个国家只有被其他国家所承认,才能拥有独立自主的主权。权利和义务只有在国际社会的背景下才能呈现出不同。在欧洲,北大西洋公约组织曾代表遭遇种族清洗威胁的阿尔巴尼亚的科索沃人和波斯尼亚人干涉前南斯拉夫。在亚洲,联合国曾武装干涉柬埔寨,帮助其建立国家。众多的案例表明,干涉反映出人们对国家主权观念的改变。反恐战争提供了一次研究国家主权概念是否在国家主体中发生改变的机会。随着冷战的结束,恐怖袭击的增多,特别是在一些主要的非国家体中,全球反恐斗争可以说已经取代冷战,它号召各国共同对抗恐怖主义。在这一时期的美国历史中,没有人可以将反恐从其政治中剥离开来。布什政府具有侵略性的过火反应在9·11事件后初期是必要的,它使美国人民相信政府可以保护他们,同时有必要的话,是可以反应过火的。国家可以通过加强其安全系统来阻止恐怖事件的发生。这其中包括训练有素的国内情报部门,严格的边境管理办法,港口安全举措等一系列方法,以使恐怖分子难以发动袭击。恐怖分子居住在各个国家并仍然可以被管理,轰炸美国的恐怖分子并没有回到阿富汗获取武器,他们使用飞机作为导弹。正因为如此,政府应该对移民有所警惕,需要更加细心的检查各个护照。非法商人应被密切监视,还有军火商也应对其更加警觉,以防他们可能就是恐怖分子。基地组织是已经出现的最暴烈的恐怖组织,因此必须将其消灭。第五章:国际冲突中的布什主义和新反恐战的影响本章考察了9·11后在政治上影响美国外交政策的两个因素。首先是具有扩张性和侵略性的布什主义的发展,其特点是先发制人性质的预防战争。其次是政策舆论圈中关于美帝国和霸权主义的积极言论的复兴。这显示并归类出左派政治上发展的一系列原因,他们探索持续性的基础,试图在布什政府的外交政策方针上寻求改变。从2001年到2006年,布什主义关于国家安全战略经历了三个阶段的变化。而这种变化同布什2000年竞选总统时期有极大的不同,当时布什的外交政策只发挥了很小的作用。2002年,布什政府提出在单边行动,先发制人性的军事打击以及预防任何对美国霸权产生威胁的对手的出现的基础上,整合建立一个更加深远的外交政策。而从安全战略文件中已经可以看出其支持先发制人式的军事行动,或许也更加准确的显示出布什政府试图将激进的预防性战争的概念合法化。这些辩解很容易被任何一个国家用作攻击其他国家的理由,但一直以来在法律界先发制人式战争都是不合法的。战争和政治的区别越发不明显,战争不仅仅变成了政治的工具,还成为了其必不可少的要素。基地组织和布什政府的行动表明战争不再需要政治上的思考。美国甚至将对阿富汗的反恐战争视作对9·11事件一次公平、必需的回应。本文探讨了美国对阿富汗反恐战争的政治结果,其中包括缺点,经验和教训。我们可以得出以下结论:阿富汗的反恐战争必须与缉毒行动相结合才能收获成效;二者缺一不可。更多还原

【Abstract】 This work investigates The Political Consequences of the American War on Terror in Afghanistan (1998-2008). The real security risk in the near future does not seem to come from strong and developed countries, with stable governments, but from failed states. This work examines the impact of the Al Qaeda movement since 1998, with the US Embassy bombings in Africa (Tanzania and Kenya). The work goes further to investigate the despicable bombings of the World Trade Center and Pentagon buildings in USA on September 11, 2001. The work examines how US, NATO and the globe have waged wars on terrorist groups, especially Al Qaeda, which among all the other terrorist groups brought the world to a standstill in a single operation in this 21st Century. As a superpower, a clash between US’s interest and the world is inevitable. But a critical lesson that was learnt from the 2001 Al Qaeda bombings was that it must go to the trouble before the trouble gets at its door.CHAPTER 1. THE FORMATION OF AN ISLAMIC CALIPHATE AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS ON TERRORISM.On December 25th 1979, the USSR 40th“Limited Contingent”rolled into Afghanistan to install a socialist regime. Through this, an embittered radical strain in the Sunni Islam called for a Jihad, which they referred to as the Sixth Pillah of Islam. To understand the rise of the Sunni Jihadism as a revolutionary movement both in Europe and Asia, all started with the USSR’s invasion, (the 1979 - 1980s conflict is referred to in Jihad circles as the“Mother of Jihads”). Before the 9/11, the Sunni Muslims by contrast were less threatening to American interests in the Middle East. The preference for this was that during the cold war, America focused more on USSR, whom they viewed as the“Evil Empire.”Any state or region at this time which could assist the American struggle and power over USSR was regarded as an ally. Even the Sunni Muslims were defined by America as fellow believers in the black and white struggle with the“evil Soviet atheism.”These Sunni allies later contributed to the forging of the Jihad movement that Al Qaeda emanated from. The fault of these Sunni allies with their war were largely ignored as US viewed the world during this time through the lenses of the cold war. During all these events, even the Pakistani fundamentalist dictator, General Zia ul Haq, who actively helped to undermine Soviet influence in Afghanistan, was overlooked. Because of his actions against USSR, his propensity for developing bona fide nuclear weapons of mass destruction and arming Sunni extremists was overlooked, as President Reagan of US saw him as an ally. Even the Wahhabi Saudis refused to establish diplomatic ties with the“Soviet atheist infidels”; and helped to undermine Soviet interest in the Arab world. Because of this and most notably the oil, the Saudis human rights record, sponsorship of Palestinian terrorism, repression of democratic opposition, disenfranchisement of women, and the medieval interpretation of puritanical Wahhabi Islam were accepted by US diplomats. Radical Sunni Islamic Brotherhood smuggled Qurans and subversive Islamic literature into USSR. From Morocco to Indonesia, Sunni Muslims were led by imams to bemoan the oppressions of their fellow Muslim brothers and sisters in the USSR. With great covert espionage– intelligence– military operation, US helped the Sunni Muslims to turn Afghanistan into quagmire for the Soviets. The subsequent operation driven by the CIA, British M16, Pakistan Inter-Service Intelligence, Saudi Istikhabarat (Military Intelligence), Egyptian Mukhabarat (General Intelligence), and most surprisingly, the Israeli Mossad, was to revive the dormant concept of Jihad in the Secular Sunni world and turn the Soviet occupation into a bloody defeat for USSR. While much of this“Operation CIA-Jihad”was conducted under the supervision of the various intelligence agencies under their governments and regions, there was an unofficial grass-root component to the operation itself. The result of all this was to breed an uncontrollable people’s movement which forged the Jihadist brotherhood, that would subsequently wage terror on the West and other parts of the world. People generally believe that the implementation of human rights will remove conflicts from societies and bring peace in the universe. Modern terrorism consists of threats to the global community, a threat which no nation can resolve alone, except with the help of a global response. The work has examined the creation and development of these international norms that had delegitimized terrorism between 1968 to 2008. There are two types of international conventions on terrorism. There are those that are open to ratification. There are 13 in number, although only 12 are in force. The second type is the regional multilateral terrorist conventions such as the Council of European Convention for Prevention of Terrorism (2006). At the center of all, lies United Nations Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC), created in 2001 to monitor the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1373. Consisting of all 15 members of the Security Council, the CTC pushes states to ratify all existing UN Conventions on terrorism - as well as related regional agreements, and to enact the domestic legislation necessary for their enforcement. So far, all the conventions obligate states to refrain from organizing, instigating, financing, assisting and abetting terrorist acts.CHAPTER 2. HEGEMONIC COMPETITION AND THE APPLICATION OF THE JUST WAR THEORY IN THE 21ST CENTURY.The powers of Al Qaeda and its influence require scholars to develop models that consider its strategic significance. At the most basic level, scholars need to reconsider the role of ideology and the relevance of sub-national actors in the theoretical and policy implications of balance of power and hegemonic theories. It is not Al Qaeda itself that becomes the threat, but its ideological movement which might take root in the globally powerful states. Al Qaeda’s hegemonic nature rests not on its ultimate ability to use the power of a global champion to challenge the US for hegemony, but its potential to undermine US ideologically and politically; while breaking nations and regimes out of the US hegemonic system. It does provide inspirational, operational supports, and an ideology for many groups who seek to overthrow the status quo in their nations and regions. Because of this, Al Qaeda as the centerpiece of a revolutionary and violently militant ideology can be seen as a global insurgency which presents an asymmetric challenge to US hegemony throughout the world. Al Qaeda ideology could plunge nations into instability or civil wars. Examples of these are Afghanistan and Somalia. The self-identity needs of states are manifested in their sense of honor. Thus the US practice represents policies that reflect identity commitments. Because these disciplinary mechanisms are driven by self-identity and protecting the honor of the US, domestic and international actors can use tactics as terrorism to manipulate such identity in order to coerce the US into ending its practices. Terrorists can expose practices in ways that contradicts the private efficiency of modern punishment. Such manipulations can produce criticism in the international community, to shame US or any other state involved; and such shame is inversely associated with honor. Because of this, the just war theory has been used of late to evaluate the morality of military actions by states against terrorists and rogue states. This has come about as a result of America’s involvement in Afghanistan. Just War refers to any war that generally accepts international criteria of justification. Through this view, a Just War is a means of national self help through which states attempt to enforce rights actually or allegedly based on International Law. While the terrorist group may depend on clandestine assistance from states willing to help them secretly, they are not publicly responsible to them. Since contemplation of Just War requires public authorities to act on their behalf, that objective cannot be met because there is no identifiable enemy state against which to act. As a result of this, the international community has decided to declare war against terrorism in general as“just.”But to remove barriers and confusion from the international community in this 21st century, the Just War theory must be revisited to meet challenges of terrorist activities and rogue states.CHAPTER 3. COURSES, PROCESSES OF THE WAR ON TERROR AND THE SECURITY POLITICS BEHIND RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR VIOLENCE IN AFGHANISTANEvents around the globe since the end of the Cold War have been those of conflicts, many of which are violations of the sanctity of state sovereignty in the definitive character of the US liberal doctrine. Operation Enduring Freedom, which began on October 9, 2001 took the form of hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from US and British ships and submarines operating in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf on Afghanistan. During the resulting bombing campaign, US air power was used to rain Joint Direct Ammunitions (JDAM) and laser guided bombs on all known Al Qaeda training facilities. The US response to Al Qaeda assault indicates the glorious Jihad predicted by bin Laden, which would materialize in Central Asia. Bin Laden has become the most known figure in the globe. An emerging clash of civilization has revealed itself in international terrorism especially after 9/11. This is a conflict between Islamic civilization and other civilizations, particularly the West. The embarrassment which Osama and his group brought to the Afghans should be a lesson to other nations, not to support terrorists in any way. It would have been better for the Afghans to stand firmly against the Taliban and force them to drive out bin Laden and his group than to have gone through all the chaos, loss of lives and properties, mental torture, trauma, and the dehumanization they went through during the US invasion in 2001. The central goal of Bush’s War on Terror however is to eliminate or de-legitimate terror as a method to influence other states in formulating their foreign policies; and to send a message to other states that they must assume responsibility for controlling terrorists within their borders. The War on Terror is not a war against Muslims. Bin Laden was a wanted man by the UN for his involvement in the 1998 Africa terrorist bombings. Even his citizenship was taken away from him in 1994 by the Saudi government, where he was born; all because of his evil ideology.CHAPTER 4. HOW ACTIONS AFFECT IDEAS IN RESOLVING CONFLICTS, AND ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES TO COMBAT TERRORISMThe cost and success of an actions outcome are critical in predicting how global war on terrorism affects notions of sovereignty. Although the norm of sovereignty and non-intervention are clearly stated in the UN Charter under Article 2, yet they are continually violated by political decision-making bodies to address pressing international issues such as human right abuse– Kosovo, nuclear development– Iraq, and the spread of terrorism– Afghanistan. All these actions are influenced by international norms concerning states rights and responsibilities in the global community. The case in Afghanistan is the first time a global coalition has intervened on behalf of counter-terrorism. In this case, the Taliban regime failed to fulfill its international obligation in thwarting terrorism, though there had been previous condemnation by UN against the Taliban for its support of Al Qaeda. While the relationship between the Al Qaeda and Taliban is not new, 9/11 served as a turning point for the international community to prioritize combating terrorism in their policy. Amidst events, new justification for military intervention has emerged which sought to reframe the debate on sovereignty. A state cannot be sovereign unless it is recognized so by other states in the international system. Rights and obligations vary according to the international context. In Europe, NATO intervened in the former Yugoslavia on behalf of Albanian Kosovars and Bosnians threatened by ethnic cleansing. In Asia, the UN military intervened in Cambodia and helped build the country. In many of these cases, the decision to intervene has reflected peoples changing ideas about state sovereignty. The War on Terror provides an opportunity to observe whether or not conceptions of sovereignty have changed among state actors. With the end of the cold war and the rise in terrorist attacks, especially on major powers by non-state actors, the global War on Terror arguably replaces the cold war, as it has called on states to collectively fight terrorism. At this time of the US history, one cannot take terrorism out of its politics. The aggressive overreaction by the Bush administration at the initial stage of the 9/11 attacks was necessary, to assure the citizens that the government was able to protect them, and can also overreact if the need arise. Terrorist activities can be checked by states through strengthening their security system. This can include well trained domestic intelligence, strict border control measures, port security initiatives, and any other measures that can make it harder for terrorists to successfully attack a state. Terrorists can live in any state and still operate. Those that bombed US did not go back to Afghanistan to acquire weapon; they made use of airplanes as missiles. It is because of this that immigration in states should be vigilant, by inspecting every passport more carefully. Illegal arms merchants must be under close scrutiny, while weapon dealers should be more vigilant about individuals who might be terrorists. Al Qaeda is yet the most violent terrorist group that has come up. It therefore needs harsh options to either put fear in them or crush them totally.CHAPTER 5. UNDERSTANDING THE BUSH DOCTRINE IN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS, AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW TERRORThis work examines two aspects of the politics of post 9/11 foreign policy. These include the development of an expansive and aggressive Bush Doctrine, characterized by preemptive and preventive war. Secondly, the revival of a positive discourse on US Empire and hegemony within policy and opinion circle is examined. It shows and categorizes a range of interpretations of these developments from the political left, which seeks to explore elements of continuity and change in the foreign policy approach of the Bush Administration. The Bush Doctrine evolved through three phases from 2001 to 2006 National Security Strategy. This change was quite different from that in his 2000 campaign in which foreign policy played only a minor role. In 2002, the Bush administration put together the elements of a more far-reaching foreign policy doctrine based on unilateral action, preemptive military strikes, and prevention of the emergence of any strategic rivals to US supremacy. While the security strategy document has been seen to endorse preemptive military action, it might more accurately be seen as attempting to legitimize the radical concept of preventive war; or a decision to attack now to prevent a real threat in the future. While such justification could easily be used by any country to attack any other, it has long been established in the legal circles that preemptive war is completely illegitimate. The difference between war and politics is becoming more obscure as war is not merely an instrument of politics but has become an essential form of it. The actions of both Al Qaeda and Bush show that war no longer needs political reasoning. US even see the war on terror in Afghanistan as a just and necessary reaction to 9/11, while Al Qaeda saw the bombing as the hand of god falling on the enemy. This work investigates the political outcome of the War on Terror on both US and Afghanistan, which includes the flaws, victories and losses. It makes a conclusion that counter terrorism can only be achieved in Afghanistan when it is fought side by side with counter narcotics operations; one cannot succeed without the other.更多还原