Almost 20 years have passed since 9/11. It is time to take stock of where we stand and stop and think. It is time to ask ourselves, have the assumptions and policies we developed in the wake of those tragic events truly made us more secure? Have they made our societies, both in Europe and in the United States, more resilient?
Skoraj 20 let je minilo od 11. septembra. Čas je, da ugotovimo, kje smo, se ustavimo in razmislimo. Čas je, da se vprašamo, če so nas domneve in strategije, ki smo jih razvili po teh tragičnih dogodkih, res naredile bolj varne. So naredile našo družbo, tako v Evropi kot v ZDA, bolj odporno?
I've worked all my life in the field of security and defense, and I am convinced that now, more than ever, we need to radically reframe the way we think and act about security, and especially about international security. By international security, I actually mean what we do, how we prepare our countries to better respond and prevent external threats, and how we protect our citizens. The key to both is to focus on protecting civilians, both in our own countries and in those where we are present in the name of security.
Vse življenje delam na področju varnosti in obrambe in prepričana sem, da moramo zdaj bolj kot kdaj prej radikalno spremeniti svoj način mišljenja in ukrepanja v zvezi z varnostjo, še posebej mednarodno varnostjo. Z izrazom mednarodna varnost dejansko mislim, kar počnemo, kako se pripravljamo na boljši odziv in preprečevanje zunanjih groženj ter kako ščitimo svoje državljane. Ključ do obojega je osredotočanje na zaščito civilistov tako v naših državah kot tudi v tistih, kjer smo prisotni v imenu zaščite.
Now, this idea goes against the fixed narrative that we developed over the past 20 years over what security is and how to get it, but that narrative is flawed, and worse, it is counterproductive. Over the past 20 years, both in the United States and in Europe, we've come to accept that we must talk about security in zero sum terms, as if the only way to gain more security is by compromising on values and rights: security versus human rights, safety versus freedom and development. This is a false opposition. It just doesn't work like that. We need to recognize that security and human rights are not opposite values, they are intrinsically related. After all, the most basic human right is the right to live and to be free from violence, and a state's most basic responsibility is to guarantee that right for its citizens. Conversely, if we think about communities all over the world affected by war and conflict, it is insecurity and violence that stops them from achieving their full freedom and development. Now, they need basic security just as much as we do and they need it so they can live a normal life and so that they can enjoy their human rights.
Ta ideja je v nasprotju s fiksno zgodbo, ki smo jo razvili v zadnjih 20 letih, o tem, kaj je varnost in kako jo doseči. Ta zgodba je napačna in, še slabše, kontraproduktivna je. V zadnjih 20 letih smo se tako v Evropi kot v ZDA navadili, da se moramo o svoji varnosti pogovarjati z ničelno vsoto, kot da je edina pot do varnosti kompromis med vrednotami in pravicami: varnost proti človekovim pravicam, varnost proti svobodi in razvoju. To je napačen odpor. Tako preprosto ne gre. Prepoznati moramo, da si varnost in človekove pravice ne nasprotujejo, ampak da so neločljivo povezane. Konec koncev je najosnovnejša človekova pravica pravica živeti in to v nenasilju. Najosnovnejša odgovornost države je, da zagotovi to pravico za svoje državljane. In obratno, če pomislimo na skupnosti po vsem svetu, prizadete od vojne in sporov, sta prav negotovost in nasilje tisto, kar jim preprečuje, da bi dosegle popolno svobodo in razvoj. Osnovno varnost potrebujejo prav tako kot mi in potrebujejo jo zato, da bodo lahko normalno živeli in uživali svoje človekove pravice.
This is why we need to shift. We need to acknowledge that sustainable security builds on a foundation of human rights, builds on promoting and respecting human rights.
Zato se moramo premakniti. Priznati si moramo, da obstojna varnost gradi na temeljih človekovih pravic, gradi na promociji in spoštovanju človekovih pravic.
Also, over the past two decades, we have accepted that the best way to guarantee our own security is by defeating our enemies, and to do that, we need to rely almost exclusively on the military. Again, this clashes with my work, with my research, with what I see in the field. What I see is that building sustainable security has a lot less to do with crushing enemies, has a lot less to do with winning on the battlefield, and has a lot more to do with protecting victims and building stability. And to do that, well, the military alone is simply insufficient.
V zadnjih dveh desetletjih smo tudi sprejeli, da je najboljši način, kako si zagotoviti lastno varnost, premagati svoje sovražnike. In da bi to storili, se moramo zanesti skoraj izključno na vojsko. To je spet v nasprotju z mojim delom, z mojim raziskovanjem tega, kar vidim na terenu. Kar vidim, je, da je grajenje obstojne varnosti manj povezano z uničenjem sovražnika, manj povezano z zmago na bojišču in veliko bolj z zaščito žrtev ter grajenjem stabilnosti. Da bi to storili, je sama vojska preprosto nezadostna.
This is why I believe we need to shelve the never-ending War on Terror, and we need to replace it with a security agenda that is driven by the principle of protecting civilians, no matter where they are from, what passport they hold, or where they live: Vancouver, New York, Kabul, Mosul, Aleppo or Douma. Sustainable security tells us that we're more likely to have long-term security at home for ourselves if we focus our engagements abroad on protecting civilians and on ensuring their lives are lived in dignity and free from violence.
Zato verjamem, da moramo prekiniti nikoli dokončano vojno proti terorizmu in jo zamenjati z varnostnim programom, ki ga vodi princip zaščite civilistov, ne glede na to, od kod so, kateri poti list imajo ali kje živijo: v Vancouvru, New Yorku, Kabuli, Mosulu, Aleppu ali Doumi. Obstojna varnost nam pove, da bomo verjetno deležni dolgoročne varnosti doma zase, če osredotočimo svoje posege v tujini na zaščito civilistov in na skrb, da bodo njihova življenja dostojanstvena in brez nasilja.
For example, we all know that defeating ISIS is a security achievement. Absolutely. But rebuilding destroyed homes, restoring order, ensuring a representative political system, these are just as, if not more important, and not just for the security of civilians in Iraq and in Syria, but for our own security and for global stability.
Vsi na primer vemo, da je poraz ISIS varnostni dosežek. Absolutno. A obnavljanje uničenih domov, vzpostavljanje reda, zagotavljanje vzorčnega političnega sistema, vse to je prav tako, če ne bolj pomembno in ne le za varnost civilistov v Iraku in Siriji, ampak za našo lastno varnost in globalno stabilnost.
More fundamentally, ISIS's danger should not just be counted in the number of weapons it holds but also in the number of children it has kept out of school or indoctrinated. This is from a security perspective. From a security perspective, the long-term generational impact of having millions of children in Syria growing up knowing only war and out of school, this is a far more dangerous threat to stability than all of ISIS's weapons combined, and we should spend just as much time and just as much energy to counter this as what we spend when countering ISIS militarily.
Še pomembneje, nevarnost ISIS se ne bi smela šteti le po številu orožja, ki ga imajo, ampak po številu otrok, ki zaradi nje niso hodili v šolo ali so bili indoktrinirani. To je s stališča varnosti. S stališča varnosti dolgoročni generacijski vpliv na milijone otrok v Siriji, ki odraščajo izven šole in poznajo le vojno - to je mnogo bolj nevarna grožnja stabilnosti kot vse orožje ISIS skupaj in morali bi porabiti prav toliko časa in energije, da bi se borili proti temu, kot ju zapravimo za vojaški boj proti ISIS.
Over the past two decades, our security policy has been short-term. It has focused on the here and now. It has systematically downplayed the link between what we do today in the name of security and the long-term impact of those choices. In the years after 9/11, some of the choices, some of the policies we've implemented have probably made us less, not more secure in the long term. Sustainable, civilian-centered security needs to look at what happens in the long term. Again, for example, relying on drones to target enemies in faraway countries may be a tool. It may be a tool to make sure or to lessen the threat of an imminent attack on the United States. But what about the long-term impact? If civilians are killed, if communities are targeted, this will feed a vicious circle of war, conflict, trauma and radicalization, and that vicious circle is at the center of so many of the security challenges we face today. This will not make us safer in the long term.
V zadnjih dveh desetletjih je bila naša varnostna politika kratkoročna. Osredotočala se je na tukaj in zdaj. Sistematično je zmanjševala pomen povezave med tem, kar danes počnemo v imenu varnosti, in dolgoročnimi posledicami teh odločitev. V letih po 11. septembru so nas nekatere odločitve, nekatere politike, ki smo jih uvedli, verjetno naredile dolgoročno manj, ne pa bolj varne. Obstojna varnost, osredotočena na civiliste, mora videti, kaj se dogaja dolgoročno. Primer: zanašanje na drone, da zadenejo sovražnike v daljnih deželah, je lahko orodje. Lahko je orodje, ki zagotovi ali zmanjša grožnjo neizogibnega napada na ZDA. Kaj pa dolgoročna posledica? Če bodo civilisti ubiti, če bodo skupnosti napadene, bo to ohranjalo začarani krog vojne, konflikta, travme in radikalizacije in ta začarani krog je v središču premnogih varnostnih izzivov, s katerimi se danes soočamo. To nas dolgoročno ne bo zaščitilo.
We need civilian security, we need sustainable civilian-centered security, and we need it now. We need to encourage thinking and research around this concept, and to implement it.
Potrebujemo varnost za civiliste, potrebujemo obstojno varnost, ki se osredotoča na civiliste, in potrebujemo jo takoj zdaj. Vzpodbuditi moramo razmišljanje in raziskave tega koncepta in ga uporabiti.
We live in a dangerous world. We have many threats to peace and conflict. Much like in the days after 9/11, we simply cannot afford not to think about international security. But we have to learn the lessons of the past 20 years. To get it right, to get security right, we need to focus on the long term. We need to focus on protecting civilians. And we need to respect and acknowledge the fact that sustainable security builds on a foundation of human rights. Otherwise, in the name of security, we risk leaving the world a far more dangerous and unstable place than what we already found it in.
Živimo v nevarnem svetu. Imamo mnogo groženj miru in konflikte. Podobno kot v dneh po 11. septembru si ne moremo privoščiti, da ne bi razmišljali o mednarodni varnosti. Upoštevati moramo izkušnje zadnjih 20 let. Da bomo prav ravnali, da bomo imeli pravo varnost, se moramo osredotočati na dolgi rok. Osredotočiti se moramo na zaščito civilistov in spoštovati ter priznati dejstvo, da obstojna varnost gradi na temeljih človekovih pravic. Drugače v imenu varnosti tvegamo, da bomo svet pustili bolj nevaren in nestabilen, kot smo ga dobili.
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(aplavz)