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?
911已过去将近20年。 是时候盘点一下我们的立场, 停下来思考。 是时候问问自己, 在这个悲剧发生后, 我们制定的假设和政策 真的让我们更安全了吗? 它们让我们的社会,不论在欧洲还是美国, 更有应对力了吗?
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.
我一直都在安全和防卫领域工作, 现在我非常确信,比任何时候都确信, 我们需要从根本上重塑我们 对安全的思考和行为方式。 尤其在国际安全方面。 说到国际安全,我其实是指我们做了什么, 我们如何让我们的国家做好准备去 更好应对和阻止外部威胁, 以及我们如何保护我们的公民。 两者的关键 是聚焦在保护平民, 既在我们自己的国土 也在那些我们以安全的名义存在的地方。
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.
现在这个观点与我们 在过去20年发展起来的关于安全是什么 和如何获得安全的固定视角相悖, 但这种说法是有缺陷的, 更糟糕的是,它适得其反。 在过去20年, 在美国和欧洲, 我们已经接受了我们必须以 零和的方式讨论安全问题, 似乎获得更多安全的唯一途径 就是在价值观和权利上妥协: 安全对人权, 安全对自由和发展。 这种对立是错误的。 事情不是这样的。 我们需要认识到 安全和人权不是相反的价值, 它们是内在联系的。 毕竟,最基本的人权 是生存权和远离暴力, 以及一个国家最基本的责任 是保证它公民的这种权利。 相反地,如果我们考虑世界各地 被战争和冲突影响的群体, 不安全和暴力 阻止了他们的自由和发展。 现在,他们需要的基本安全跟我们一样, 他们需要安全,这样他们才能过上正常的生活, 这样他们才能享受他们的人权。
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.
所以我们需要改变。 我需要承认可持续安全 建立在人权的基础上, 建立在促进和尊重人权上。
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.
同样,在过去20年里, 我们已经接受了维护 我们安全的最好方式 是打败我们的敌人, 为了实现这点,我们需要 几乎完全依赖军队。 再一次,这点跟我的工作,我的研究, 我在这个领域看到的相冲突。 我看到的是建立可持续安全 与毁灭敌人关系不大, 与赢得战场胜利关系不大, 而与保护受害者 和建立稳定有很大关系。 要做到这点,仅依靠军队 是完全不够的。
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.
这是为什么我认为我们需要 把无休止的战争搁置起来, 我们需要用基于保护平民原则 的安全议程来替代它, 不管他们来自哪里,持有什么护照, 或者他们住在哪里: 温哥华、纽约、 喀布尔、摩苏尔、阿勒颇或杜玛。 可持续安全告诉我们,我们更有可能 在国内拥有长期的安全保障, 如果我们把我们的重点放在保护平民 并确保他们过上尊严和 远离暴力的生活上。
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.
比如,我们都知道击败ISIS 是一项安全成就。 绝对是。 但重建受损家园, 恢复秩序, 确保具有代表性的政治制度, 这些都是,如果没有更重要的话, 不仅为了伊拉克和叙利亚的平民安全, 也是为了我们自己的安全和全球稳定。
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.
更重要的是, ISIS的危险不能只用他们 持有的武器数量来衡量, 也要用被其赶出学校或被他们思想灌输 的儿童数量来衡量。 这是从安全的角度来看的。 从安全的角度, 成长在只知道战争和辍学长期际代影响 的数百万叙利亚儿童, 远比ISIS所有的武器 对稳定的威胁要更加危险, 我们需要在这上面花费跟打击ISIS军事力量 同样多的时间和同样多的精力。
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.
在过去20年间,我们的安全政策非常短期。 它专注在这里和现在。 它系统地淡化了我们今天以安全的名义 所做的事情 与这些选择的长期影响之间的联系。 在911之后的这些年头, 有一些选择, 我们施行的一些政策 可能让我们的安全变得更少, 而非长期来看更多。 可持续,以平民为中心的安全 需要关注长期的影响。 再一次,说个例子, 依靠无人机瞄准遥远国家 的敌人可能是一种工具。 这个工具可以确保或减轻 即将对美国发动袭击的威胁。 但它的长期影响呢? 如果平民被杀害, 如果群体被当作目标, 这将助长战争、 冲突、创伤和激进化的恶性循环, 这个恶性循环是我们今天 面临很多安全挑战 的中心。 这不会让我们长期变得更安全。
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.
我们需要平民安全, 我们需要可持续的以平民为中心的安全, 我们现在就需要。 我们需要鼓励围绕这个概念的思考和研究, 并且需要实现它。
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.
我们生活在危险的世界。 我们有很多和平的威胁和冲突。 就像911之后的日子里, 我们根本承受不起不去思考国际安全问题。 但我们需要学习过去20年的教训。 去纠正它,以正确方式获得安全, 我们需要聚焦于长期。 我们需要聚焦在保护平民。 我们需要尊重和承认 可持续安全建立在人权的基础上这个事实。 否则,在安全的名义下, 我们在冒着把世界推向 一个比我们已经发现的 更危险和更不稳定地方的风险。
Thank you.
谢谢。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)