请将“There is nothing new about this kind of relations. Their historically dominant form was wars, hence the clear results of political decisions. Every war creates fields of opportunity for private criminal appropriation. While wars were mostly temporary, colonial policy provided longer-term opportunities of this kind. Although colonial states legalised many of the practices of violent appropriation, additional forms of appropriation were widespread, which were also considered, at least formally, illegal in the context of colonial rule. This entanglement between political strategy and private crime, typical of wars, also existed in the so-called ‘Cold War’.
One of the lasting consequences of the ‘Cold War’ is the creation of a secondary market for weapons.799 In the initial period of competition between the two major political-economic power blocs, both the USA and the Soviet Union handed over weapons free of charge to their respective allies in the Third World. Later they wanted to be paid for, at least in part, but then mostly not with money but with goods or with licenses for the exploitation of domestic raw materials. The large stockpile of weapons was expanded when mutual disarmament was finally agreed between the political blocs. For the weapons that became superfluous as a result were not destroyed but thrown onto the world market - as were later the weapons of the German Democratic Republic, which were no longer to be held ready after reunification. But because weapons remain usable for a long time, there is a huge stockpile of weapons in the world. They are traded both legally8°° and illegally.801 
Political strategies created a secondary market for weapons that largely evaded international regulation. In this respect, these strategies are also partly responsible for the fact that armed robbery in post-colonial states was able to develop into a widespread form of private appropriation both during and after an armed struggle for political power. However, such practice is only possible if the warring parties involved obtain the means necessary for the purchase of weapons by participating in the illegal trade in drugs, women, gold or other goods (Rufin 1996, p. 56; Lock, sopos 7/2003; Naylor 2002/2004, p. 103). And the more weapons are in circulation in a country at war and are used by their owners for the predatory supply of necessary and less necessary food, the greater the risks any attempt will entail to obtain supplies through farming or manual work. It is hardly surprising that, after the collapse of state power in Somalia, not only has the involvement of Somalis in pirate raids increased, but Mogadishu has also become a centre of the secondary arms trade.802
Just as with the talk of the ‘Cold War’, the expressions ‘war on drugs’ and ‘war on smugglers of humans’ are intended to refer to threats that are so existential that they justify extreme measures. As for the ‘war on drugs’, it has been explained above that it is also used politically to gain approval for the fight against armed opponents, as well, of course, as to assert a supposedly policy of caring for the domestic population. The same applies to the ‘war against traffickers’. And this underlies a systematic rejection of objections based on experience and statistics. For example, it has been stressed for years that more than half of all migrants and refugees flee within their own state or to neighbouring states, and also that although the number of refugees has grown in absolute numbers, their percentage of the world population, which has grown in the meantime, has not at the same time grown significantly.803
Given the enormous amounts of money that states around the world spend on sealing off their borders, one might be tempted to attribute the expansion of the sealing off policy to the interests of those who earn money from this policy. There are many of them, and their profits are considerable: producers of the material for border fences made of blade wire,804 surveillance cameras, drones, sensors and stun guns, rubber dinghies, safety vests and water bottles, and finally body bags and coffins. Private operators of prisons in those states of the United States that border on Mexico can hope to reap more profits. They benefit from the large number of detainees who are found without valid papers.805 In Europe, the border control agency Frontex has a particularly rapidly growing budget. Its military armament with new drones and land robots is paid for from the EU security research programme. By 2012, more than 100 million euros are said to have been spent for these purposes.806 In 2015 Frontex had a budget of 114 million euros. It also commissions aviation companies to monitor land and sea. Several European arms companies benefit from orders. Additional earnings are to be made through deportations.807 It goes without saying that such supplies and services are based on a demand in which the interested parties participate by means of direct and indirect policy advice. The connection between the expansion and continuation of a war and the interests of arms producers applies in wars between states and also applies in the war declared against smugglers. And yet the reference to such connections did not and does not suffice to explain the political decision to go to war, even if it is a war that cannot be regarded as such by the standards of international law.
As forborder security, producers of sealing materials make money off a political lie. Because no matter how inhuman and violent many traffickers around the world behave, it is not their violent crimes that governments have declared war on. The ‘war against smugglers’ is the advanced argument for the armament of border regimes against people who are trying to cross borders, however irregularly. People generally approve of this actual objective of security policy. Paolo Cuttitta stresses:
In the North as well as in the South of the world, in the industrialized as well as in the developing countries, sealing off territories and spatial processes of delocalization, the expansion and externalization of border controls go hand in hand with cultural processes of exclusion. Likewise, legal, juridical disenfranchisement is accompanied by a further de facto disenfranchisement, ultimately with a general devaluation of the ‘foreign’ and the construction of new (or the updating of old) images of human beings that subordinate them and are images of enmity.
2010, p. 25
Beyond any doubt, such culturalist processes of exclusion are used to legitimise legal and political processes of exclusion. In Europe, they almost always affect Roma and Sinti. Especially in France, they are in constant danger of being picked up and sent back to their countries of origin. In South Africa, there were racist attacks on migrant workers from neighbouring countries in 2008; in Myanmar, the Rohingya are denied the right to citizenship even though their ancestors had long lived in the country.
The fact that President Bush sent 6,000 National Guardsmen to the border with Mexico in 2006 to prevent undocumented migration808 was generally understood as a concession to the party base.809 That is true as a generality but does not go far enough. For politicians acted and continue to act on the basis of conclusions drawn from seemingly irrefutable arguments of scientific analysis. Hardly any social science theory was easier to understand and consequently more widespread than the explanation of international migration from push and pull. This is a special case of neoclassical economic theory. Its proponents assume that individuals migrate when better opportunities arise elsewhere. In the transformation of theory into politics, however, one aspect goes missing. While neoclassical theorists understand migration as a special case of the adjustment of factor costs, in this case the international adjustment of wages, practitioners did not see migration as an expression of the price mechanism in achieving an equilibrium that would be favourable for everyone; instead, as a scientific argument for a constantly pressing danger. According to Douglas S. Massey and Jorge Durand and Nolan J. Malone, the argumentation has led to the destruction of the integrated labour market between California and Mexico,810 which had functioned for many decades, through US policy (2002, chapter 2). That policy resulted in an increase of the scale of immigration. For as long as the border was permeable, migrants often came for short periods of time because they wanted to acquire the funds for a very specific purpose. Since the border was upgraded, such behaviour has become more difficult. Those who have crossed the border try to stay. However, the effort to allow irregular border crossings only at the risk of one’s life does not only threaten potential migrants. It also affects the interests of companies that profit from the political and thus material discrimination of irregular immigrants on the labour market. In Arizona, for example, following the enactment of the particularly drastic anti-immigration law in 2010, farmers were no longer able to bring in their harvests and saw themselves forced to cultivate less land.811 As a conclusion from their empirical study on the use of the labour force of irregular immigrants in the United States, Sung et al observe:
Foreign migrant workers are desperately needed but not welcome. The apparent de-bordering of the US economy under the impulse of trade liberalization and financial globalization has been accompanied by a par-allel process of re-bordering its labor market.
2013, p. 263 t”翻译为中文