原作者：
来源Gadhafi’s choice — power or prison?
译者疯子航
Editor’s note: David Frum writes a weekly column for CNN.com. A special assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2002, he is the author of six books, including “Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again,” and is the editor of FrumForum.
Washington (CNN) — “The Elba option is impossible in the modern world,” sighed an unhappy German diplomat.
Elba is a small, scenic island off the coast of Tuscany. Napoleon Bonaparte was awarded the island as a tiny principality in a face-saving deal after his first abdication in 1814. (Napoleon quickly reneged, returned to France and met his Waterloo — but that’s another story.)
编者按：大卫·弗拉姆是CNN的每周专栏作者。他在2001年至2002年间任乔治 W. 布什总统的特别助理，他还出版了六本书，其中包括：《卷土重来：能够再次获胜的保守主义》，并且还是FrumForum网站的编辑。
华盛顿，CNN——“埃尔巴不再是现代世界的选择了。”一位德国外交家不高兴地表示。
埃尔巴是座落于托斯卡纳海岸外的美丽小岛。拿破仑·波拿巴在1814年被授予这座岛屿，作为他在当年被第一次流放后的挽回面子的交易。（拿破仑很快就卷土重来，回到法国然后遭遇了滑铁卢——不过那是之后的事情了。）
A century or two ago, overthrown rulers like Napoleon were often allowed a plush retirement. Even the German kaiser, who had plunged all of Europe into the bloodbath of World War I, was allowed to live out his days in a palace in the Netherlands.
一两百年前，像拿破仑那样被推翻的统治者常常可以拥有豪华的退休生活。即使是把整个欧洲卷入了第一次世界大战的血雨腥风的德国皇帝也可以在一座荷兰宫殿里度过他的余生。
Modern dictators meet grimmer endings.
现代统治者们的遭遇就要残酷得多了。
The shah of Iran sought refuge in six countries before finally dying in Egypt 18 months after he left his country.
伊朗国王先后在六个国家里寻求庇护。离开祖国18个月后，他在伊朗逝世。
Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia died in a Dutch prison. Manuel Noriega of Panama still lives inside a French one. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was hanged, Liberia’s Charles Taylor is incarcerated and Augusto Pinochet’s legal immunity was revoked and he was held in Britain on a warrant from Spanish authorities, then sent to Chile to face charges there.
塞尔维亚统治者米洛舍维奇在一所荷兰监狱逝世。巴拿马统治者梅纽·诺列加现在仍然在法国监狱里。伊拉克统治者萨达姆·胡赛因被绞死，利比里亚统治者查尔斯·泰勒入狱，皮诺切特失去了法律豁免权，在西班牙的授权下被英国政府关入监狱，后来被送回智利接受审判。
These trials represent a great step forward for justice. But they also create an incentive problem: the modern dictator has no exit. If he loses power, he faces the penitentiary.
这些时间代表了向正义的进步。但它们也同样造成了一个刺激性的问题：现代领导人无路可退。如果他不再掌权，他就面临着牢狱之灾。
As The New York Times reported Sunday, the Obama administration is facing the consequences of this new reality as it struggles to find an end-game to the war in Libya.
正如纽约时报星期日所报道的，奥巴马政府正面临着这个问题，他们正设法结束在利比亚的战争。
“The Obama administration has begun seeking a country, most likely in Africa, that might be willing to provide shelter to Col. Muammar el-Gadhafi if he were forced out of Libya …. The effort is complicated by the likelihood that he would be indicted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988, and atrocities inside Libya.
“奥巴马政府正着手寻找一个能够为卡扎菲提供庇护的国家，应该是非洲国家，如果他被利比亚驱逐的话。”但卡扎菲可能会被海牙国际刑事法院指控1988年在苏格兰轰炸美国泛美航空飞机103和在利比亚的独裁，形势因而变得复杂。
One possibility, according to three administration officials, is to find a country that is not a signatory to the treaty that requires countries to turn over anyone under indictment for trial by the court, perhaps giving Colonel Gadhafi an incentive to abandon his stronghold in Tripoli.”
根据三位官员，一种可能性是寻找一个国家，这个国家没有签署关于移交任何被法院起诉的人的条款，也许这可以给卡扎菲一个放弃他牢牢掌控的的黎波里的刺激。
Ironies abound here.
真是讽刺。
When the Obama administration pressed for a U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing force against Gadhafi, the resolution included language authorizing an International Criminal Court prosecution of Gadhafi.
当奥巴马政府强迫联合国授权他们攻打卡扎菲的决议时，这个决议包括了关于授权国际刑事法庭起诉卡扎菲的条款。
During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-candidate Obama praised the work of the ICC as “in America’s interests.”
在2008年的总统选举上，那时的候选者奥巴马高度评价ICC（国际刑事法庭）的工作“符合美国的利益”。
Since the election, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has welcomed ICC prosecutions of persons responsible for atrocities in Darfur.
选举之后，国务卿希拉里·克林顿一直欢迎ICC起诉应为达尔富尔地区的暴虐负责的人。
Unnamed State Department officials have told the media that Bush-era opposition to ratification of the ICC treaty is “under review.”
不愿透露姓名的美国国务院官员告诉媒体，布什时代对ICC条款的反对正在检查中。
Yet had the Obama policy on the ICC moved faster, the Obama administration’s plans for Libya would look even messier than those plans now do.
如果奥巴马关于ICC的政策执行得更快的话，奥巴马政府关于利比亚的计划会比现在的更乱成一团。
The Obama administration is fighting a half-hearted war in Libya. It is applying force in increments, hoping that something will turn up to rescue the administration from a commitment it seems to have regretted as soon as it was issued. The administration wants a negotiated outcome, yet it has deprived itself of the most important instrumentality to achieve that outcome: a credible promise that Gadhafi can quit power and survive.
奥巴马政府正在利比亚打一场不热心的仗。它正增加的利比亚的军事部署，希望有什么东西能够帮助他们拯救一个他们以签署就感到后悔的事情。美国政府希望有一个协商后的结果，但现在它自己剥夺了达到这个结果的工具：一个卡扎菲能够全身而退的承诺。
There exists a network of foreign-policy thinkers — many of them now working in the Obama administration — who believe they can achieve international peace by entangling U.S. policy ever more thickly with international law. No war unless the Security Council approves.
也有很多外国政策思考者——他们很多都为奥巴马政府工作——相信他们能够通过把美国和国际法律更加紧密地结合来达到国际和平。只有在安理会的同意下才能发动战争。
Justice for dictators dispensed by international tribunals. Now that network has met its first hard test — and they are discovering the unworkability of their ideas. Let’s hope they learn a lesson.
对独裁者们的正义被国际特别法庭承担。现在这个网络面临着他们的第一个难题——他们正在探索他们的理念的不易操作性。希望他们能从中吸取教训。
More likely, they will just explain the lesson away as an unfortunate “exception.” They will repeat Albert Einstein’s remark, unaware that it was meant as a joke: “If the facts contradict the theory, then the facts are wrong, because the theory is true.”
极有可能的是，他们只是把这次事件当作一个难忘的“例外”。他们会重复阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦的评价，不知道那只是句玩笑话：“如果事实和理论冲突，那么事实必然是错的，因为理论是对的。”
From a moral point of view, Gadhafi deserves the same fate as Saddam Hussein. Yet foreign policy does not always admit the moral point of view — much less the legal point of view. If the Obama administration is not willing to blast Gadhafi out of power, it has left itself no choice but to buy him out.
从道德的层面来讲，卡扎菲应该和萨达姆·胡赛因有同样的下场。但外国政策并不总是承认道德层面的观点——比法律的观点少多了。如果奥巴马政府不愿把卡扎菲赶下台，它就只能出钱让他放弃自己的职位了。
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum.
报道仅代表戴维·弗拉姆的观点。
