Bruno Giussani: Commissioner, thank you for coming to TED.
布魯諾.吉烏撒尼: 委員,感謝您來到 TED 。
António Guterres: Pleasure.
安東尼奧.古特雷斯:榮幸之至。
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: 讓我們從數據開始。 2015年期間,將近有 100 萬難民和移民 從不同國家湧入歐洲, 當然,也有來自敘利亞及伊拉克, 也有來自於阿富汗、 孟加拉、厄立特里亞等其他國家的。 人民對此亦有兩種不同的反應: 有歡迎的國家也有拒絕的國家。 但我想從短期和長期的角度 來探討這個問題。 第一條問題十分簡單: 為何難民潮近六個月急速增加?
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:我認為,基本上,會有這麼大的升幅 主要是由敘利亞的難民所引發的。 來自非洲或亞洲移入歐洲的移民數 一直以來都在增長, 但成長得很慢,但突然間, 今年年初的幾個月,移民數量突然增加。 為什麼?我認為有三個原因, 兩個是長期因素及一個是觸發點。 長期因素與敘利亞人有關, 他們越來越看不到希望。 我意思是,他們雖然看著自己的國家, 但看不到回家的希望, 因為政治上沒有解決方法, 像看不見隧道的盡頭一樣。 第二,敘利亞難民 在鄰近國家的生存條件持續惡化。 我們剛和世界銀行做了研究, 87%住在約旦的敘利亞人 和97%住坐在黎巴嫩的敘利亞人 均生活於全國的貧困線之下。 只有一半的兒童能上學, 這表示人民生活十分艱辛 不僅僅是因為是難民們離鄉背井, 還有一直遭受著的磨難, 他們同時還生活在非常 非常困苦的條件中。
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.
再來就是這個觸發點 突然之間國際援助減少了 由於資源匱乏,世界糧食計劃署被迫 減少30%對敘利亞難民的食物供給。 難民不被允許工作, 所以他們完全依賴國際支援 他們更覺得:「世界正在遺棄我們」 我認為這就是觸發點。 突然之間,風湧而至, 人們開始大批遷移。 說真的, 如果我也面臨相同的狀況, 並且有足夠的勇氣, 我也會那樣做的。
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:不過我認為令人意外的 並不僅僅是事發突然, 而是事情本不該發生得如此突然。 敘利亞的戰爭已經五年了。 上百萬的難民居住在敘利亞 周邊的難民營、村莊及城鎮 您自己也曾提醒過 會有這種狀況, 還有,像是您有提到利比亞政府垮台的結果 但是歐洲看起來似乎毫無準備。
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::毫無準備是因為意見分歧, 當你意見分歧又不想面對現實時 你就會選擇遲一點再決定, 因為你沒有能力接納那麼多難民。 證據是,即使當移民潮發生後, 歐洲各國仍然意見分歧, 也未能提出適當的機制來管理局面 你剛剛提到有 100 萬難民, 看起來很多, 但歐盟總人口數是 5.5 億, 即每2000個歐洲人對應1個難民。 在黎巴嫩,每三個黎巴嫩人 就要應對一個難民。 而黎巴嫩?很艱辛,當然,但是他們做到了。 所以問題是:這些是本應可以控制 --暫時先不提最重要而且 一直被強調的根本原因 現在也先不要管問題的成因, 就只看現象本身-- 歐洲是否能團結一致 在入境處創造充足的接納能力? 但要做到如此, 各國的入境處需要被大量的支援, 然後對入境難民進行安檢, 並配合其他機制 及根據每個國家的能力 來分配這些湧入歐洲的難民, 我的意思是,如果你去看一下 委員會批准的重新安置計劃, 總是太少、太遲 或者由市議會批准的 也是太少、太遲
BG: It's already breaking down.
BG:現在已經失敗了
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:我的國家原本應該接收四千人 四千人對葡萄牙來說不算什麼。 所以說,如果處理得當, 難民都可以得到妥善安置。 但現在是入境處壓力很大 之後難民毫無秩序地穿過巴爾幹, 來到德國、瑞典及奧地利, 只有這三個國家接收難民。 其它歐洲國家只是冷眼旁觀。
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: 讓我再問三個問題, 扮演一下魔鬼的支持者, 我會嘗試問問題,讓他們頭昏腦脹, 但我認為這個問題在 歐洲很多人的心理面 是個相當現實的問題。 首先,當然是難民的數字 你說5.5億比100萬不算多,但現實上 歐洲可容納多少人?
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:這個問題沒有答案 因為難民有權被受保護。 國際法中也有這樣的規定, 所以你不能說: 「我只收一萬人,不要再來了」 我提醒你一件事: 土耳其在危機開始前,記得有位部長說, “ 土耳其最多只能接納10萬人。” 但現在,大約共有230萬難民 居住在土耳其。
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.
所以我覺得,我認為我們不應該討論 歐洲能接納多少難民, 而是應該討論的是: 我們要如何組織自己 來履行我們的國際責任。 歐洲還不能做到這一點, 因為基本上,歐洲是分裂的, 並沒有團結起來共同解決歐洲問題。 而且不僅是在難民問題上, 在其他領域也是。 我們說實話,現在這個時刻, 我們需要更多歐洲國家參與,而非更少。 但因為大家越來越不相信歐盟機構, 所以當要說服人們,我們需要更多歐盟國家來解決問題的時候 就越來越困難。
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:我們似乎在一個情況下 就是難民數量會引響政策轉移, 特別是國家內政。 比如這個周末, 我們又再次看到法國頒布的政策, 我們也有看到其他國家也有這種狀況: 比如波蘭、丹麥、瑞士,等等, 因為難民的數量而突然轉變, 雖然他們在絕對數字上 改變並不明顯, (某國的)首相……
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:請容許我插句話, 我談一下這些事: 我的意思是,在歐洲一個 沒有移民的小村莊里, 人們在家裡能明白甚麼? 在幾個月前的每一天, 打開電視新聞播的, 就是大量人群湧入,不受控制, 從這個邊境到那個邊境, 電視畫面裡就是 成千上百的人湧入歐洲。 那狀況就好像沒人在乎這件事一樣-- 事情發生了,沒人要管理。 所以,他們會有一種想法就是, "他們要來我的村莊了。" 所以就有了一種完全錯誤的想法: 歐洲要被侵略了, 而我們的生活將會改變,所有事情都會-- 問題在於,如果一切都能被妥善管理, 如果難民被適當地接收、歡迎 在入境處接受安檢、安置, 然後坐飛機送往其他歐洲國家, 這樣就不會讓人們害怕了。 但,很不幸,我們有很多人都很害怕, 就是因為歐洲沒適當地處理問題。
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:但,德國有一些300人居住的村莊, 卻有1000個難民。 您對此是怎麼看的? 您覺得當地居民會作何反應?
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:這種狀況如果有適當的管理措施, 把難民適當地送往歐洲各國, 你就會有一個我剛剛提到的比例: 1:2000。 那是因為沒有適當的管理, 造成我們最後 完全不可能一起生活的情況, 當然,如果你有這樣的村莊-- 在黎巴嫩,有許多這樣的村莊, 敘利亞人比黎巴嫩人還要多。 黎巴嫩也適應了這種情形。 我並不是要求歐洲都比照辦理, 讓所有歐洲的村莊 都接收比當地居民更多的難民。 我是希望歐洲把工作做好, 能夠有規劃地接收難民, 就像過去世界上其他國家 被強迫做的那樣。
BG: So, if you look at the global situation not only at Europe --
BG::如果我們看一下全球局勢, 而不僅僅是歐洲……
(Applause)
(掌聲)
BG: Yes!
BG:
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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:如果我們看一下全球局勢, 而不僅是歐洲, 我知道你可以列出一長條 沒有真正站出來的國家清單, 但我比較有興趣的是另一方, 有沒有哪些國家是做正確的事呢?
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:有的,全世界有86%的難民 居住在發展中國家。 如果你注意看一些國家, 像是衣索比亞-- 他們已經接收了超過60萬名的難民。 所有衣索比亞的邊境都是開放的 而他們有一項名為 “ 人民互助 ”的政策 說明每一位難民都應該被接納。 還有南蘇丹、 蘇丹、索馬里亞。 他們接收來自所有鄰近國家的難民, 包括厄立特里亞。 總體來說, 非洲國家非常歡迎難民的到來, 而我也會這麼說,在中東和亞洲, 我們也看到了敞開國門的趨勢。
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.
現在,我們看到敘利亞還有一些問題, 就是敘利亞也捲入了 嚴重的安全危機。 但事實是有很長一段時間, 中東各國的邊境都是開放的。 當時巴基斯坦和伊朗的邊境 開放給600萬阿富汗人 進入這兩個國家。 所以我會說,即使在今天, 在發展中國家的趨勢 是為難民敞開國門。 但在已開發國家, 這些問題卻變得越來越複雜, 特別是當社會輿論 將庇護難民和國家安全問題 混為一談的時候, 在我看來是個錯誤的闡述。
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:我們等一下回來 會談到這個問題。 您剛剛提到世界糧食計劃署 物資縮減的情況。 這反映了這些組織 普遍都遇到資金短缺的問題。 現在全世界看起來已經醒了, 你們是否得到了更多的資助和支援, 還是並沒有變化?
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:我們得到了更多的支援。 我會說,我們正接近去年的水平。 我們在夏天期間比較糟糕。 但這些顯然無法解決難民的需求, 也無法解決 那些支持難民的國家的需求。 我們在這裡簡單重新審視一下 一些必要的、有關發展合作的 準則、目標和優先權。
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.
舉個例子,黎巴嫩和約旦 都是中等收入國家。 由於它們是中等收入國家, 所以無法從世界銀行 獲得優惠貸款或補助。 現在這看起來很沒有道理, 因為他們在為全球公共利益做貢獻。 他們接納了數百萬難民, 說實話,他們是區域中穩定的梁柱, 他們為此面對了諸多困難, 並且是我們集體安全 的第一道防線。 所以,如果這些國家 不是發展合作政策 優先考量的對象,就真的沒道理。 但他們不是, 這些國家,不僅難民生活在 非常戲劇性的情境中, 當地居民本身也十分艱辛, 因為工資下滑、 失業率上升、 物價和租金上漲。 當然,如果你看一下 這些國家現今的經濟指標, 很清楚地,特別是他們貧困團體的那一群人, 因為他們面臨的危機, 使得他們的生活越來越艱難
BG: Who should be providing this support? Country by country, international organizations, the European Union? Who should be coming up with this support?
BG:誰應該提供這個支援呢? 各國政府、國際組織、還是歐盟? 由誰來提供這些支援呢?
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:我們需要各方的共同努力。 很明顯,雙邊合作是必要的, 多邊合作也是必要的, 國際金融機構也應該有更靈活的政策, 來支持這些國家 可以投資更多更大的工程。 我們需要結合所有方法,並且了解今日, 在這個已經延宕的情況下 把人道主義援助與經濟發展援助 區分開來的做法是不合理的。 因為你談的是學校裡的孩子, 你談的是健康問題, 你談的是過度擁擠的基礎設施。 這些問題都需要 從長遠的發展角度來看待, 僅僅從緊急人道主義 援助的角度出發是不夠的。
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:我想請您對今早報紙上 這則新聞發表一下意見。 這是一段由處於領先地位的 美國共和黨總統候選人 唐納.川普發表的聲明。 昨天,他這樣說,
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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?
不,聽聽看,這段話很有趣。 我引述一下他說的: “我呼籲全面禁止穆斯林進入美國, 直到我們的議員搞清楚 到底怎麼回事。 ” 您對此如何回應?
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:唐納.川普並不是特例。 我們已經看到世界上有政治責任的一些人 也曾有過類似的言論,例如, 不應該接收穆斯林難民。 他們之所以這樣說, 是由於他們認為 這樣的說法或做法 是在保護他們的國家安全。 我在政府機構工作, 我非常熱衷於政府對 維護國家和人民安全的需求。 但如果你在美國或任何一個歐洲國家 發表這樣的言論, ” 我們拒絕接收穆斯林難民 “, 你所說的話很有可能就會 被恐怖組織拿來當宣傳。 因為你所說的--
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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.
你所說的一切,都會被 在你們國家的穆斯林聽到, 這種透過科技的方式來為 恐怖組織的招募和其他機制鋪路。 達伊沙、努斯拉陣線、 基地組織及其他此類團體 正在滲透我們的社會。 你所說的話就是在告訴他們, ”是的,我們就是反對你們。“ 所以很明顯,在一個多種族、 多宗教、多文化的社會裡, 這種言論,真的,是在為恐怖組織的宣傳, 幫他們創造更為有利的環境, 讓他們可以在發表這種言論的國家裡 更容易地招募到當地人來進行恐怖攻擊。
BG: Have the recent attacks in Paris and the reactions to them made your job more difficult?
BG:最近發生在巴黎的恐怖攻擊 以及人們對此的反應 有沒有增加您工作的難度?
AG: Undoubtedly.
AG:當然了。
BG: In what sense?
BG:在哪方面?
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:這方面,我想,就是很多人 對此類的恐怖攻擊的 第一反應就是:關閉所有邊境, 他們沒有意識到歐洲恐怖主義問題 大多是在歐洲內部產生的。 在敘利亞和伊拉克, 有成千上萬的戰士來自歐洲, 所以僅靠拒絕敘利亞人入境 並不能解決問題。 而且我必須講,我確信, 現場發現的那本護照, 我相信,就是引爆炸彈那個人的--
BG: -- himself up, yeah.
BG:自殺式爆炸,沒錯。
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:對,我認為那是故意的, 因為達伊沙的部分策略是反難民的, 他們認為這些難民 本該為哈里發王權服務, 卻投奔了十字軍。 而我認為,那本護照就是達伊沙 在歐洲激起民憤的手段, 讓歐洲拒絕接收穆斯林難民, 在歐洲內部煽動對穆斯林的敵意, 這完全對達伊沙有利。
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.
我深信不疑的是, 並不是難民潮引發了恐怖主義。 正如我剛才所說, 本質上,現今歐洲的恐怖主義 是在內部滋生的, 這和我們當下所面對的 國際局勢脫不了關係。 而我們需要的就是, 藉由歡迎世界上的那部分人 並讓他們盡快融入我們, 來向這些團體證明他們錯了,
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.
另外,我還認為在很大程度上, 我們正在為歐洲之前 失敗的種族融合政策付出代價。 在上世紀60、70、80年代, 曾有過多次大規模的移民潮, 當時的政策讓許多今日的... 例如,移民的第二代, 感覺被邊緣化, 他們沒有工作, 沒有適當的教育, 生活在缺乏基礎公共設施的社區裡。 而第二代移民的這種不安, 有時甚至是憤怒, 主要是由 失敗的種族融合政策所造成的, 原因是,政府本應該投入更多力量為人們 創造一個和平相處互相尊敬的環境, 但卻沒有做到。 我深信--
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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.
我深信,未來所有的社會都會是 多種族、多文化、多宗教共存的。 想要避免這種趨勢, 在我看來,是不可能的。 我覺得這是一件好事, 但我也認知到要把這個工作做好, 我們要在自身的社會裡, 投入更多的努力在社會凝聚力上。 而歐洲,在過去的幾十年,有很大的程度, 在這種投入上並不成功。
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:還有個問題:年底您就要退職了, 而您擔任此職務已有十年之久。 如果回顧2005年, 您第一次走進辦公室的時候, 您有何種感想?
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:好吧,我們來看, 2005年,因為衝突告一段落, 我們幫助了100萬人 安全且尊嚴地重返家園, 去年,我們僅幫助了12萬4千人。 2005年,由於世界上的衝突而 被迫離家的人大約有3800萬人, 今天,有六千多萬人。 當時,我們已解決了一些衝突。 而現在,新的衝突快速增加, 而舊有衝突卻依然存在: 比如阿富汗問題,索馬里問題,剛果問題。 很明顯,當今世界更為危險。 很明顯,國際社會 在預防和及時解決衝突的能力, 很遺憾,不及10年前的狀況。 世界上沒有明確的權力關係 或全球治理機制起作用, 意思就是我們生活在一個 有罪不罰和不可預測性 往往佔上風的環境條件底下, 也意味著,越來越多的人因此遭受苦難, 特別是那些因衝突而離開家園的人。
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:美國政治中有一個傳統, 上任總統最後離開總統辦公室的時候, 會在辦公桌上留個小紙條 給幾小時候走進辦公室的繼任者。 如果讓您給您的繼任者菲利普.格蘭迪 寫一張這樣的便條, 您會寫些什麼呢?
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:我想我什麼都不會寫。 你知道,離任者嘗試著對繼任者指手畫腳, 總想告訴他們應該怎樣做, 這是個令人討厭的行為。 所以我不會這麼做。 如果要我對他說點什麼, 我會告訴他:“ 堅守本份,全力以赴。 ”
BG: Commissioner, thank you for the job you do. Thank you for coming to TED.
BG:委員,感謝您所做的工作。 感謝您來 TED 演講。
(Applause)
(掌聲)