Bruno Giussani: Commissioner, thank you for coming to TED.
Bruno Guissani: Povjereniče, hvala na dolasku.
António Guterres: Pleasure.
Antonio Guterres: Zadovoljstvo mi je.
BG: Let's start with a figure. During 2015, almost one million refugees and migrants arrived in Europe from many different countries, of course, from Syria and Iraq, but also from Afghanistan and Bangladesh and Eritrea and elsewhere. And there have been reactions of two different kinds: welcoming parties and border fences. But I want to look at it a little bit from the short-term and the long-term perspective. And the first question is very simple: Why has the movement of refugees spiked so fast in the last six months?
BG: Započnimo jednom brojkom. Tijekom 2015. gotovo milijun izbjeglica i migranata pristiglo je u Europu iz mnogo različitih zemalja, naravno, iz Sirije i Iraka, ali također iz Afganistana i Bangladeša i Eritreje i drugih zemalja. Dvije su različite vrste reakcija: priredbe dobrodošlice i ograde na granicama. Ali ja bih se želio na to malo osvrnuti iz kratkoročne i dugoročne perspektive. Prvo pitanje je vrlo jednostavno: Zašto je došlo do naglog povećanja broja izbjeglica u zadnjih šest mjeseci?
AG: Well, I think, basically, what triggered this huge increase was the Syrian refugee group. There has been an increased movement into Europe from Africa, from Asia, but slowly growing, and all of a sudden we had this massive increase in the first months of this year. Why? I think there are three reasons, two long-term ones and the trigger. The long-term ones, in relation to Syrians, is that hope is less and less clear for people. I mean, they look at their own country and they don't see much hope to go back home, because there is no political solution, so there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Second, the living conditions of the Syrians in the neighboring countries have been deteriorating. We just had research with the World Bank, and 87 percent of the Syrians in Jordan and 93 percent of the Syrians in Lebanon live below the national poverty lines. Only half of the children go to school, which means that people are living very badly. Not only are they refugees, out of home, not only have they suffered what they have suffered, but they are living in very, very dramatic conditions.
AG: Pa, ja mislim, u osnovi ono što je izazvalo to ogromno povećanje bila je grupa sirijskih izbjeglica. Postojalo je pojačano kretanje prema Europi iz Afrike, iz Azije, no ono je polagano raslo, i odjednom smo imali to masovno povećanje u prvim mjesecima ove godine. Zašto? Mislim da postoje tri razloga, dva dugoročna i okidač. Oni dugoročni, u odnosu na Sirijce, su da je za ljude nada sve manje i manje vidljiva. Mislim, oni gledaju vlastitu zemlju i ne vide puno nade da se vrate kući, zato jer nema političkog rješenja, pa nema ni svjetla na kraju tunela. Drugo, uvjeti života Sirijaca u susjednim zemljama su se pogoršali. Upravo smo imali istraživanje sa Svjetskom bankom i 87 posto Sirijaca u Jordanu i 93 posto Sirijaca u Libanonu živi ispod nacionalnog praga siromaštva. Samo polovica djece ide u školu, što znači da ljudi žive vrlo loše. Ne samo da su izbjeglice, izvan svog doma, ne samo da su pretrpjeli ono što su pretrpjeli, već žive u vrlo, vrlo dramatičnim uvjetima.
And then the trigger was when all of a sudden, international aid decreased. The World Food Programme was forced, for lack of resources, to cut by 30 percent food support to the Syrian refugees. They're not allowed to work, so they are totally dependent on international support, and they felt, "The world is abandoning us." And that, in my opinion, was the trigger. All of a sudden, there was a rush, and people started to move in large numbers and, to be absolutely honest, if I had been in the same situation and I would have been brave enough to do it, I think I would have done the same.
A okidač je bio kada se odjednom međunarodna pomoć smanjila. Svjetski program za hranu bio je prisiljen, zbog nedostatka sredstava, za 30 posto srezati pomoć u hrani za sirijske izbjeglice. Njima nije dozvoljeno da rade pa su potpuno ovisni o međunarodnoj pomoći i osjećali su, "Svijet nas napušta." I to je, po mom mišljenju, bio okidač. Odjednom je nastala jurnjava i ljudi su se počeli kretati u velikom broju i, da budem potpuno pošten, da sam ja bio u istoj situaciji i da sam imao dovoljno hrabrosti da to učinim, mislim da bih učinio isto.
BG: But I think what surprised many people is it's not only sudden, but it wasn't supposed to be sudden. The war in Syria has been happening for five years. Millions of refugees are in camps and villages and towns around Syria. You have yourself warned about the situation and about the consequences of a breakdown of Libya, for example, and yet Europe looked totally unprepared.
BG: Mislim da je mnoge iznenadilo ne samo što je to bilo naglo nego što nije trebalo biti naglo. Rat u Siriji traje pet godina. Milijuni izbjeglica su u kampovima i selima i gradovima oko Sirije. Vi ste sami upozorili na situaciju i na posljedice sloma Libije, na primjer, a ipak je Europa izgledala posve nespremna.
AG: Well, unprepared because divided, and when you are divided, you don't want to recognize the reality. You prefer to postpone decisions, because you do not have the capacity to make them. And the proof is that even when the spike occurred, Europe remained divided and was unable to put in place a mechanism to manage the situation. You talk about one million people. It looks enormous, but the population of the European Union is 550 million people, which means we are talking about one per every [550] Europeans. Now, in Lebanon, we have one refugee per three Lebanese. And Lebanon? Struggling, of course, but it's managing. So, the question is: is this something that could have been managed if -- not mentioning the most important thing, which would have been addressing the root causes, but forgetting about root causes for now, looking at the phenomenon as it is -- if Europe were able to come together in solidarity to create an adequate reception capacity of entry points? But for that, the countries at entry points need to be massively supported, and then screening the people with security checks and all the other mechanisms, distributing those that are coming into all European countries, according to the possibilities of each country. I mean, if you look at the relocation program that was approved by the Commission, always too little too late, or by the Council, too little too late --
AG: Pa, nespremna jer je bila podijeljena, a kada ste podijeljeni, ne želite priznati realnost. Radije odlažete odluke jer nemate sposobnost da ih donesete. A dokaz je da čak kada se vrhunac dogodio, Europa je ostala podijeljena i nesposobna da uspostavi mehanizam za upravljanje situacijom. Vi govorite o milijun ljudi. To izgleda enormno, ali stanovništvo Europske unije broji 550 milijuna ljudi, što znači da govorimo o jednom na svakih 2.000 Europljana. U Libanonu imamo jednog izbjeglicu na tri Libanonca A Libanon? Muči se, naravno, ali uspijeva. Dakle, pitanje je: je li ovo nešto čime se moglo upravljati da -- ne spominjući najvažniiju stvar, koja bi bila rješavanje temeljnih uzroka, no zaboravimo zasada temeljne uzroke, gledajući na pojavu samu po sebi -- da je Europa bila sposobna solidarno se udružiti u stvaranju adekvatnog kapaciteta za prihvat na ulaznim točkama? No, za to, ulazne zemlje trebaju ogromnu podršku, i onda provjera ljudi sigurnosnim kontrolama i svi drugi mehanizmi, distribucija onih koji dolaze u sve europske zemlje, u skladu s mogućnostima svake zemlje. Mislim, ako pogledate program relokacije koji je odobrila Komisija, uvijek premalo i prekasno, ili Vijeće, premalo i prekasno --
BG: It's already breaking down.
BG: To se već raspada.
AG: My country is supposed to receive four thousand. Four thousand in Portugal means nothing. So this is perfectly manageable if it is managed, but in the present circumstances, the pressure is at the point of entry, and then, as people move in this chaotic way through the Balkans, then they come to Germany, Sweden, basically, and Austria. They are the three countries that are, in the end, receiving the refugees. The rest of Europe is looking without doing much.
AG: Moja zemlja bi trebala primiti četiri tisuće. Četiri tisuće u Portugalu ne znači ništa. To je savršeno izvedivo ako se provodi, no u sadašnjoj situaciji pritisak je na ulazu, i onda, krećući se na ovaj kaotičan način kroz Balkan, onda dolaze u Njemačku, Švedsku, prvenstveno, i Austriju. To su tri zemlje koje, na kraju, primaju izbjeglice. Ostatak Europe promatra ne čineći mnogo.
BG: Let me try to bring up three questions, playing a bit devil's advocate. I'll try to ask them, make them blunt. But I think the questions are very present in the minds of many people in Europe right now, The first, of course, is about numbers. You say 550 million versus one million is not much, but realistically, how many people can Europe take?
BG: Dopustite mi da pokušam postaviti tri pitanja, igrajući se pomalo đavoljeg odvjetnika. Pokušat ću ih postaviti otvoreno. Iako mislim da su pitanja jako prisutna u mislima mnogih u Europi ovoga časa. Prvo se, naravno, odnosi na brojke. Vi kažete da 550 milijuna prema milijun nije mnogo, no, realno, koliko ljudi može Europa podnijeti?
AG: Well, that is a question that has no answer, because refugees have the right to be protected. And there is such a thing as international law, so there is no way you can say, "I take 10,000 and that's finished." I remind you of one thing: in Turkey, at the beginning of the crisis, I remember one minister saying, "Turkey will be able to receive up to 100,000 people." Turkey has now two million three-hundred thousand or something of the sort, if you count all refugees.
AG: Pa, to je pitanje na koje nema odgovora, jer izbjeglice imaju pravo da budu zaštićene. A postoji i nešto kao međunarodni zakon, pa ni na koji način ne možete reći, "Uzet ću 10.000 i to je kraj." Podsjećam vas na jednu stvar: u Turskoj na početku ove krize sjećam se jednog ministra koji je rekao, "Turska će biti sposobna primiti do 100.000 ljudi." Turska ih danas ima dva milijuna i tristo tisuća, ili tu negdje, ako računate sve izbjeglice.
So I don't think it's fair to say how many we can take. What it is fair to say is: how we can we organize ourselves to assume our international responsibilities? And Europe has not been able to do so, because basically, Europe is divided because there is no solidarity in the European project. And it's not only about refugees; there are many other areas. And let's be honest, this is the moment in which we need more Europe instead of less Europe. But as the public less and less believes in European institutions, it is also each time more difficult to convince the public that we need more Europe to solve these problems.
Zato mislim da nije u redu reći koliko ih možemo primiti. Ono šte je u redu reći jest: kako se možemo organizirati da bismo preuzeli svoje međunarodne odgovornosti? A Europa nije bila sposobna to učiniti jer, u osnovi, Europa je podijeljena jer nema solidarnosti u Europskom projektu. I nije to samo u vezi izbjeglica; postoje i mnoga druga područja. I budimo iskreni, ovo je trenutak u kojem trebamo više Europe umjesto manje Europe. No, kako javnost sve manje vjeruje u europske institucije, tako je svaki puta sve teže uvjeriti javnost da trebamo više Europe za rješavanje ovih problema.
BG: We seem to be at the point where the numbers turn into political shifts, particularly domestically. We saw it again this weekend in France, but we have seen it over and over in many countries: in Poland and in Denmark and in Switzerland and elsewhere, where the mood changes radically because of the numbers, although they are not very significant in absolute numbers. The Prime Minister of --
BG: Izgleda da smo u točki gdje se brojevi pretvaraju u političke preokrete, pogotovo unutarnje. Vidjeli smo to ponovo ovaj vikend u Francuskoj, no viđali smo to mnogo puta u mnogo drugih zemalja: U Poljskoj i u Danskoj i u Švicarskoj i drugdje, gdje se raspoloženje radikalno mijenja zbog brojeva, iako oni nisu značajni u apsolutnim brojevima. Premijer --
AG: But, if I may, on these: I mean, what does a European see at home in a village where there are no migrants? What a European sees is, on television, every single day, a few months ago, opening the news every single day, a crowd coming, uncontrolled, moving from border to border, and the images on television were of hundreds or thousands of people moving. And the idea is that nobody is taking care of it -- this is happening without any kind of management. And so their idea was, "They are coming to my village." So there was this completely false idea that Europe was being invaded and our way of life is going to change, and everything will -- And the problem is that if this had been properly managed, if people had been properly received, welcomed, sheltered at point of entry, screened at point of entry, and the moved by plane to different European countries, this would not have scared people. But, unfortunately, we have a lot of people scared, just because Europe was not able to do the job properly.
AG: Ali, ako mogu, u vezi toga: Mislim, što Europa vidi kod kuće u selu gdje nema migranata? Ono što Europa vidi je, na televiziji svaki dan, prije nekoliko mjeseci, u udarnim vijestima svaki dan, gomila dolazi, nekontrolirano, krećući se od granice do granice, a slike na televiziji prikazuju stotine ili tisuće ljudi u pokretu. I pomisao je da nitko o tome ne vodi računa -- to se događa bez ikakvog nadzora. I tako je njihova predodžba bila, "Oni dolaze u moje selo." Dakle, postojala je ta potpuno pogrešna predodžba da je Europa napadnuta i naš način života će se promijeniti, i sve će -- A problem je, da se ovime pravilno upravljalo, da su ljudi bili primjereno primljeni, dočekani dobrodošlicom, zbrinuti na ulazu, provjereni na ulazu, i onda prebačeni avionom u različite europske zemlje, to ne bi uplašilo ljude. No, nažalost, mi smo uplašili mnoge ljude, samo zato jer Europa nije bila u stanju pravilno obaviti posao.
BG: But there are villages in Germany with 300 inhabitants and 1,000 refugees. So, what's your position? How do you imagine these people reacting?
BG: Ali ima sela u Njemačkoj s 300 stanovnika i 1.000 izbjeglica. Što vi o tome mislite? Kako zamišljate reakciju tih ljudi?
AG: If there would be a proper management of the situation and the proper distribution of people all over Europe, you would always have the percentage that I mentioned: one per each 2,000. It is because things are not properly managed that in the end we have situations that are totally impossible to live with, and of course if you have a village -- in Lebanon, there are many villages that have more Syrians than Lebanese; Lebanon has been living with that. I'm not asking for the same to happen in Europe, for all European villages to have more refugees than inhabitants. What I am asking is for Europe to do the job properly, and to be able to organize itself to receive people as other countries in the world were forced to do in the past.
AG: Kada bi se pravilno upravljalo situacijom i primjereno distribuiralo ljude diljem Europe, uvijek biste imali postotak koji sam spomenuo jedan na svakih 2.000. Upravo zbog toga što stvari nisu pravilno vođene na kraju imamo situacije s kojima je sasvim nemoguće živjeti, i naravno da ako imate selo -- u Libanonu ima mnogo sela u kojima je više Sirijaca nego Libanonaca; Libanon s tim živi. Ja ne tražim da se isto dogodi u Europi, da sva europska sela imaju više izbjeglica nego stanovnika. Ono što tražim je da Europa ispravno obavi posao, i da je sposobna organizirati se za prijem ljudi kao što su to bile prisiljene činiti druge zemlje u prošlosti.
BG: So, if you look at the global situation not only at Europe --
BG: Dakle, ako pogledate globalnu situaciju ne samo u Europi --
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
BG: Yes!
BG: Da!
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
BG: If you look at the global situation, so, not only at Europe, I know you can make a long list of countries that are not really stepping up, but I'm more interested in the other part -- is there somebody who's doing the right thing?
BG: Ako pogledate globalnu situaciju, ne samo u Europi, znam da bi mogli navesti dugačku listu zemalja koje zaista ne preuzimaju odgovornost, no više me zanima drugi dio -- postoji li netko tko radi pravu stvar?
AG: Well, 86 percent of the refugees in the world are in the developing world. And if you look at countries like Ethiopia -- Ethiopia has received more than 600,000 refugees. All the borders in Ethiopia are open. And they have, as a policy, they call the "people to people" policy that every refugee should be received. And they have South Sudanese, they have Sudanese, they have Somalis. They have all the neighbors. They have Eritreans. And, in general, African countries are extremely welcoming of refugees coming, and I would say that in the Middle East and in Asia, we have seen a tendency for borders to be open.
AG: Pa, 86 posto izbjeglica u svijetu nalazi se u zemljama u razvoju. I ako pogledate zemlje poput Etiopije -- Etiopija je primila više od 600.000 izbjeglica. Sve granice Etiopije su otvorene. I oni imaju, kao strategiju, koju zovu strategija "ljudi za ljude", da svaki izbjeglica mora biti primljen. I imaju izbjeglice iz Južnog Sudana, iz Sudana, iz Somalije. Imaju sve susjede. Imaju Eritrejce. I, općenito, afričke zemlje su izuzetno susretljive prema izbjeglicama, i rekao bih da smo na Srednjem istoku i u Aziji vidjeli tendenciju otvaranja granica.
Now we see some problems with the Syrian situation, as the Syrian situation evolved into also a major security crisis, but the truth is that for a large period, all borders in the Middle East were open. The truth is that for Afghans, the borders of Pakistan and Iran were open for, at the time, six million Afghans that came. So I would say that even today, the trend in the developing world has been for borders to be open. The trend in the developed world is for these questions to become more and more complex, especially when there is, in the public opinion, a mixture of discussions between refugee protections on one side and security questions -- in my opinion, misinterpreted -- on the other side.
Sada nailazimo na neke probleme sa sirijskom situacijom, kako se sirijska situacija razvila u vodeću sigurnosnu krizu, no istina je da su kroz dugi period sve granice na Srednjem istoku bile otvorene. Istina je da su za Afganistance granice Pakistana i Irana bile otvorene za, u datom trenutku, šest milijuna Afganistanaca koji su došli. Rekao bih da čak i danas u zemljama u razvoju postoji trend otvorenih granica. Trend u razvijenom svijetu je da ta pitanja postaju sve složenija, posebno kada postoje, po mišljenju javnosti, različite rasprave o pitanjima zaštite izbjeglica, s jedne strane, i pitanjima sigurnosti -- po mom mišljenju pogrešno prikazanim -- na drugoj strani.
BG: We'll come back to that too, but you mentioned the cutting of funding and the vouchers from the World Food Programme. That reflects the general underfunding of the organizations working on these issues. Now that the world seems to have woken up, are you getting more funding and more support, or it's still the same?
BG: Vratit ćemo se na to, no vi ste spomenuli rezanje financiranja i vaučera Svjetskog programa za hranu. To odražava opće nedovoljno financiranje organizacija koje rade na tim problemima. Sada kada se svijet izgleda probudio, dobivate li više sredstava i više podrške, ili je to još uvijek isto?
AG: We are getting more support. I would say that we are coming close to the levels of last year. We were much worse during the summer. But that is clearly insufficient to address the needs of the people and address the needs of the countries that are supporting the people. And here we have a basic review of the criteria, the objectives, the priorities of development cooperation that is required.
AG: Dobivamo veću podršku. Rekao bih da sustižemo razine od prošle godine. Bilo nam je mnogo gore tijekom ljeta. No to je još uvijek očito nedovoljno za zadovoljenje potreba ljudi i potreba zemalja koje pomažu tim ljudima. A ovdje imamo osnovni pregled kriterija, ciljeva, prioriteta za razvoj suradnje.
For instance, Lebanon and Jordan are middle-income countries. Because they are middle-income countries, they cannot receive soft loans or grants from the World Bank. Now, today this doesn't make any sense, because they are providing a global public good. They have millions of refugees there, and to be honest, they are pillars of stability in the region, with all the difficulties they face, and the first line of defense of our collective security. So it doesn't make sense that these countries are not a first priority in development cooperation policies. And they are not. And not only do the refugees live in very dramatic circumstances inside those countries, but the local communities themselves are suffering, because salaries went down, because there are more unemployed, because prices and rents went up. And, of course, if you look at today's situation of the indicators in these countries, it is clear that, especially their poor groups of the population, are living worse and worse because of the crisis they are facing.
Na primjer, Libanon i Jordan su zemlje sa srednje visokim prihodom. Zbog toga što su zemlje srednjeg prihoda ne mogu dobiti povoljne kredite ili potpore od Svjetske banke. To danas nema nikakvog smisla jer oni se brinu za globalno javno dobro. Oni tamo imaju milijune izbjeglica, i budimo pošteni, oni su stupovi stabilnosti u regiji, sa svim teškoćama s kojima se suočavaju, i prva linija obrane naše kolektivne sigurnosti. Zato nema smisla da te zemlje nemaju prvenstvo u razvoju politika suradnje. A nemaju. I ne samo da izbjeglice žive u vrlo dramatičnim uvjetima unutar tih zemalja nego i same lokalne zajednice trpe zato jer dohodak pada zato jer je više nezaposlenih, zato jer su cijene i stanarine porasle. I naravno, ako pogledate današnju situaciju pokazatelja u tim zemljama jasno je da, posebno siromašni dijelovi njihove populacije, žive sve gore i gore zbog krize s kojom su suočeni.
BG: Who should be providing this support? Country by country, international organizations, the European Union? Who should be coming up with this support?
BG: Tko bi trebao osigurati tu podršku? Zemlja po zemlja, međunarodne organizacije, Europska unija? Tko bi trebao pružiti tu podršku?
AG: We need to join all efforts. It's clear that bilateral cooperation is essential. It's clear that multilateral cooperation is essential. It's clear that international financial institutions should have flexibility in order to be able to invest more massively in support to these countries. We need to combine all the instruments and to understand that today, in protracted situations, at a certain moment, that it doesn't make sense anymore to make a distinction between humanitarian aid and development aid or development processes. Because you are talking about children in school, you are talking about health, you are talking about infrastructure that is overcrowded. You are talking about things that require a long-term perspective, a development perspective and not only an emergency humanitarian aid perspective.
AG: Mi moramo udružiti sva nastojanja. Jasno je da je bilateralna suradnja ključna. Jasno je daje multilateralna suradnja ključna. Jasno je da bi međunarodne financijske institucije morale biti fleksibilne kako bi mogle obimnije financirati i pomoći tim zemljama. Mi bismo trebali kombinirati sve instrumente i razumijeti da danas, u dugotrajnim situacijama, u određenom trenutku, više nema smisla raditi razliku između humanitarne pomoći i pomoći za razvoj ili razvojne procese. Zbog toga što govorite o djeci u školi, govorite o zdravlju, govorite o infrastrukturi koja je preopterećena. Vi govorite o stvarima koje zahtijevaju dugoročnu perspektivu, razvojnu perspektivu, a ne samo perspektivu hitne humanitarne pomoći.
BG: I would like your comment on something that was in newspapers this morning. It is a statement made by the current front-runner for the Republican nomination for US President, Donald Trump. Yesterday, he said this.
BG: Želio bih komentirati nešto što je jutros bilo u novinama. To je izjava trenutno vodećeg kandidata za nominaciju Republikanske stranke za predsjednika SAD-a, Donalda Trumpa. Jučer je rekao ovo.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
No, listen to this. It's interesting. I quote: "I am calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US, until our country's representatives can figure out what's going on." How do you react to that?
Ne, slušajte ovo. Zanimljivo je. Citiram: "Ja tražim totalnu i potpunu zabranu ulaza u SAD za sve Muslimane, sve dok predstavnici naše zemlje ne ustanove što se događa." Što kažete na to?
AG: Well, it's not only Donald Trump. We have seen several people around the world with political responsibility saying, for instance, that Muslims refugees should not be received. And the reason why they say this is because they think that by doing or saying this, they are protecting the security of their countries. Now, I've been in government. I am very keen on the need for governments to protect the security of their countries and their people. But if you say, like that, in the US or in any European country, "We are going to close our doors to Muslim refugees," what you are saying is the best possible help for the propaganda of terrorist organizations. Because what you are saying --
AG: Pa, nije to samo Donald Trump. Vidjeli smo nekoliko ljudi diljem svijeta s političkom odgovornošću koji kažu, na primjer, da izbjeglice Muslimane ne bi trebalo primati. A razlog zbog kojeg to kažu je što misle da čineći ili govoreći to štite sigurnost svojih zemalja. Ja sam bio u vladi. Podupirem potrebu vlada da štite sigurnost svojih zemalja i svojih naroda. No, ako na ovaj način kažete u SAD-u ili bilo kojoj europskoj zemlji, "Zatvorit ćemo svoja vrata za izbjeglice Muslimane," to što govorite najbolja je moguća pomoć propagandi terorističkih organizacija. Jer ono što vi govorite --
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
What you are saying will be heard by all the Muslims in your own country, and it will pave the way for the recruitment and the mechanisms that, through technology, Daesh and al-Nusra, al-Qaeda, and all those other groups are today penetrating in our societies. And it's just telling them, "You are right, we are against you." So obviously, this is creating in societies that are all multiethnic, multi-religious, multicultural, this is creating a situation in which, really, it is much easier for the propaganda of these terrorist organizations to be effective in recruiting people for terror acts within the countries where these kinds of sentences are expressed.
Ono što govorite čuti će svi Muslimani u vašoj vlastitoj zemlji i to će utrti put za regrutiranje i mehanizme kojima, putem tehnologije, Daesh i al-Nusra, al-Qaeda i sve te druge grupe danas prodiru u naša društva. A to im upravo govori, "U pravu ste, mi smo protiv vas." Dakle očito je da to u društvima koja su sva multietnička multi-religijska, multikulturalna, stvara situaciju u kojoj je zapravo puno lakše za propagandu tih terorističkih organizacija da bude učinkovita u regrutiranju ljudi za teroristička djela unutar zemalja u kojima se izjavljuju ovakve rečenice.
BG: Have the recent attacks in Paris and the reactions to them made your job more difficult?
BG: Jesu li nedavni napadi u Parizu i reakcije na njih otežale vaš posao?
AG: Undoubtedly.
AG: Nesumnjivo.
BG: In what sense?
BG: U kojem smislu?
AG: In the sense that, I mean, for many people the first reaction in relation to these kinds of terrorist attacks is: close all borders -- not understanding that the terrorist problem in Europe is largely homegrown. We have thousands and thousands of European fighters in Syria and in Iraq, so this is not something that you solve by just not allowing Syrians to come in. And I must say, I am convinced that the passport that appeared, I believe, was put by the person who has blown --
AG: U smislu da, hoću reći, za mnoge ljude prva reakcija u vezi ovakvih terorističkih napada je: zatvorite sve granice -- ne shvaćajući da je problem terorizma u Europi uglavnom "domaći". Mi imamo tisuće i tisuće europskih boraca u Siriji i Iraku, dakle to nije nešto što ćete riješiti samo zabranom ulaza Sirijcima. I moram reći, uvjeren sam da je putovnicu koja se pojavila, vjerujem, podmetnula osoba koja je dignula u zrak --
BG: -- himself up, yeah.
BG: -- sebe samog, da.
AG: [I believe] it was on purpose, because part of the strategies of Daesh is against refugees, because they see refugees as people that should be with the caliphate and are fleeing to the crusaders. And I think that is part of Daesh's strategy to make Europe react, closing its doors to Muslim refugees and having an hostility towards Muslims inside Europe, exactly to facilitate Daesh's work.
AG: [Vjerujem] da je to bilo namjerno jer dio strategije Daesha je protiv izbjeglica, zato jer oni izbjeglice vide kao ljude koji bi trebali biti uz kalifat, a traže utočište kod križara. I mislim da je dio strategije Daesha da Europu prisili da reagira zatvarajući svoja vrata izbjeglicama Muslimanima i gajeći neprijateljstvo prema Muslimanima unutar Europe, upravo kako bi se olakšao rad Daesha.
And my deep belief is that it was not the refugee movement that triggered terrorism. I think, as I said, essentially terrorism in Europe is today a homegrown movement in relation to the global situation that we are facing, and what we need is exactly to prove these groups wrong, by welcoming and integrating effectively those that are coming from that part of the world.
I moje duboko uvjerenje je da pokret izbjeglica nije bio taj koji je izazvao terorizam. Ja mislim, kao što sam rekao, u osnovi, terorizam u Europi je danas "domaći" pokret u vezi globalne situacije s kojom se suočavamo, a ono što trebamo upravo je dokazati da te grupe nisu u pravu prihvaćajući i učinkovito integrirajući one koji dolaze iz tog dijela svijeta.
And another thing that I believe is that to a large extent, what we are today paying for in Europe is the failures of integration models that didn't work in the '60s, in the '70s, in the '80s, in relation to big migration flows that took place at that time and generated what is today in many of the people, for instance, of the second generation of communities, a situation of feeling marginalized, having no jobs, having improper education, living in some of the neighborhoods that are not adequately provided by public infrastructure. And this kind of uneasiness, sometimes even anger, that exists in this second generation is largely due to the failure of integration policies, to the failure of what should have been a much stronger investment in creating the conditions for people to live together and respect each other. For me it is clear.
I još jedna stvar koju vjerujem jest da u velikoj mjeri ono za što danas plaćamo u Europi jesu neuspjesi integracijskih modela koji nisu funkcionirali u 60-ima, u 70-ima, u 80-ima, u odnosu na velike migracijske tokove koji su se tada događali i stvorili ono što je danas kod mnogih ljudi, na primjer, druge generacije zajednica, situacija da se osjećaju marginalizirani, nemajući posla, nemajući primjereno obrazovanje, živeći u nekim od kvartova koji nisu adekvatno opskrbljeni javnom infrastrukturom. I ta vrsta tjeskobe, ponekad čak i bijesa, koja postoji kod te druge generacije uglavnom je posljedica neuspjeha integracijske politike, neuspjeha nečega što je trebalo biti puno jača investicija u stvaranje uvjeta za ljude da žive zajedno i poštuju jedni druge. Po meni je to jasno.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
For me it is clear that all societies will be multiethnic, multicultural, multi-religious in the future. To try to avoid it is, in my opinion, impossible. And for me it's a good thing that they will be like that, but I also recognize that, for that to work properly, you need a huge investment in the social cohesion of your own societies. And Europe, to a large extent, failed in that investment in the past few decades.
Po meni je jasno da će sve zajednice biti multietničke, multikulturalne, multi-religijske u budućnosti. Pokušavati to izbjeći, po mom mišljenju, nemoguće je. I za mene je to dobra stvar da će biti takve, no ja također priznajem, da bi to dobro funkcioniralo potrebna vam je ogromna investicija u socijalnu koheziju vaših vlastitih zajednica. A Europa je, u velikoj mjeri, podbacila u toj investiciji u zadnjih nekoliko desetljeća.
BG: Question: You are stepping down from your job at the end of the year, after 10 years. If you look back at 2005, when you entered that office for the first time, what do you see?
BG: Pitanje: Krajem godine vi napuštate svoj posao, nakon 10 godina. Ako pogledate unatrag na 2005.-u, kada ste ušli u taj ured po prvi puta, što vidite?
AG: Well, look: In 2005, we were helping one million people go back home in safety and dignity, because conflicts had ended. Last year, we helped 124,000. In 2005, we had about 38 million people displaced by conflict in the world. Today, we have more than 60 million. At that time, we had had, recently, some conflicts that were solved. Now, we see a multiplication of new conflicts and the old conflicts never died: Afghanistan, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo. It is clear that the world today is much more dangerous than it was. It is clear that the capacity of the international community to prevent conflicts and to timely solve them, is, unfortunately, much worse than what it was 10 years ago. There are no clear power relations in the world, no global governance mechanisms that work, which means that we live in a situation where impunity and unpredictability tend to prevail, and that means that more and more people suffer, namely those that are displaced by conflicts.
AG: Pa, gledajte: U 2005.-oj mi smo pomagali milijunu ljudi da se vrate domovima u sigurnosti i dostojanstvu jer su sukobi završili. Prošle godine smo pomogli 124.000. U 2005.-oj imali smo oko 38 milijuna raseljenih zbog sukoba u svijetu. Danas ih imamo više od 60 milijuna. U to vrijeme smo bili imali, nedavno, neke sukobe koji su riješeni. Sada vidimo množenje novih sukoba, a stari sukobi nikada nisu ugašeni: Afganistan, Somalija, Demokratska Republika Kongo. Jasno je da je svijet danas mnogo opasniji no što je bio. Jasno je da je kapacitet međunarodne zajednice za sprečavanje sukoba i njihovo pravovremeno rješavanje, nažalost, mnogo slabiji no što je bio prije 10 godina. Ne postoje jasni odnosi snaga u svijetu, nema globalnih vladajućih mehanizama koji funkcioniraju, što znači da živimo u situaciji u kojoj prevladavaju nekažnjavanje i nepredvidivost, a to znači da sve više ljudi trpi, napose oni koji su raseljeni zbog sukoba.
BG: It's a tradition in American politics that when a President leaves the Oval Office for the last time, he leaves a handwritten note on the desk for his successor that walks in a couple of hours later. If you had to write such a note to your successor, Filippo Grandi, what would you write?
BG: Tradicija je u američkoj politici da kada Predsjednik napušta Ovalni ured zadnji puta, na stolu ostavlja rukom pisanu poruku za svog nasljednika koji ulazi nekoliko sati kasnije. Kada biste morali napisati takvu poruku svom nasljedniku, Fillipu Grandiju, što biste napisali?
AG: Well, I don't think I would write any message. You know, one of the terrible things when one leaves an office is to try to become the backseat driver, always telling the new one what to do. So that, I will not do. If I had to say something to him, it would be, "Be yourself, and do your best."
AG: Pa, mislim da ne bih pisao nikakvu poruku. Znate, jedna od groznih stvari kada netko napušta ured je da pokušava postati suvozač, stalno govoreći novome što da radi. Zato ja to neću raditi. Kada bih mu imao nešto za reći, to bi bilo, "Budi svoj i radi najbolje što znaš."
BG: Commissioner, thank you for the job you do. Thank you for coming to TED.
BG: Povjereniče, hvala vam za posao koji radite. Hvala što ste došli na TED.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)