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?
九一一事件幾乎是 二十年前的事了。 此刻我們應該要評估一下 我們現在所處的狀況, 停下來做些思考。 此刻我們應該問問自己, 在那些悲劇事件之後, 我們所發展出來的假設和政策 真的有讓我們更安全嗎? 它們有讓我們的社會, 包括在歐洲和美國的社會, 更有恢復力嗎?
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.
我一生都在安全與防衛的領域工作, 我深信,我們現今比以往更需要 徹底地重新構造我們針對安全 所用的思考和行動方式, 特別是針對國際安全。 我所謂的國際安全 指的是我們的作為, 我們如何讓我們的國家 有更好的準備來應變 和預防外在威脅, 以及我們如何保護我們的公民。 這兩者的關鍵 都在於把焦點放在保護平民百姓, 包括在我們自己國內的, 及我們以安全之名 前往的國家中的平民百姓。
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.
這個想法其實並不符合 我們在過去二十年 所發展出來的不變說法, 關於安全應該是什麼 及如何得到安全的說法, 但那說法有瑕疵,更糟糕的是, 它還會產生不良的後果。 在過去二十年間, 在美國和在歐洲, 我們漸漸接受了必須要用 零和的方式來談論安全性, 彷彿能夠更安全的唯一方式 就是在價值觀和權利上做妥協: 安全性 vs. 人權, 安全 vs. 自由和發展。 這是種錯誤的對立。 實際上不是這樣運作的。 我們得要了解到 安全性和人權 並不是對立的價值觀, 它們在內在其實是相關的。 畢竟,最基本的人權 就是生存和免於暴力的權利, 而一個國家最基本的責任 就是要保障其公民的權利。 反過來說,如果我們 想想全世界受到 戰爭和衝突影響的社區, 正是不安全感和暴力 讓他們無法達到 完全的自由和發展。 他們和我們一樣需要基本的安全, 他們需要基本的安全, 才能夠過正常的生活, 才能享受他們的人權。
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.
這就是為什麼我們需要轉變。 我們必須要承認,永續的安全性 應該要立基在人權的基礎之上, 立基在推動和尊重人權之上。
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.
此外,在過去二十年間, 我們也已經接受了 保障我們安全最好的方式 就是打敗我們的敵人, 若要打敗敵人,我們 幾乎就完全要仰賴軍隊。 同樣的,這也抵觸我的工作、研究 和我在這領域的所見所聞。 我看到的是:建立永續的安全性 和摧毀敵人並沒有很大的關係, 和在戰場上獲勝沒有很大的關係, 比較有關係的是保護受害者 以及建立穩定性。 如果要做到這些,光用軍隊 是不足夠的。
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.
這就是為什麼我相信 我們需要把反恐戰爭擺到一邊去, 我們需要將它換成一種安全議程, 由保護平民百姓的原則 所驅使的議程, 且不去區分平民百姓是來自何方、 持有哪一國的護照, 或現居地是哪裡: 溫哥華、紐約、 喀布爾、摩蘇爾、 阿勒坡,或杜馬。 永續安全性告訴我們, 如果我們想要自己在家鄉 能夠擁有長期的安全, 我們就必須要把我們對國外的 干涉,著重在保護平民百姓, 著重在確保他們能有尊嚴地過生活, 免受暴力威脅。
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,我們都知道打敗伊斯蘭國 是安全上的一項成就。 當然。 但重建被摧毀的家園、 重新恢復秩序、 確保能有代議的政治體制, 這些都同等重要,甚至更重要, 且不只是為了伊拉克 和敘利亞平民百姓的安全, 也是為了我們自己的安全 以及全球的穩定性。
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, 伊斯蘭國的危險性 不應該只用它所持有的 武器數目來計算, 還要考量它讓多少孩子無法上學, 或被灌輸信仰。 這是從安全性的角度來看。 從安全性的角度, 如果讓數百萬的敘利亞孩子 在成長過程中 只知道戰爭和不上學, 就長期的世代衝擊來看, 對穩定性所產生的威脅, 會比所有伊斯蘭國的武器 加起來都還要危險, 我們花在這上面的時間和精力, 應該要跟反擊 伊斯蘭軍隊所花的 時間和精力一樣。
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.
在過去二十年間, 我們的安全政策都是短期的。 安全政策的焦點都放在此時此刻。 它很有計畫性地將我們現今 以安全之名所做的行為 與那些選擇的長期影響 之間的連結給輕描淡寫過去。 在九一一事件後的這些年, 我們所做的一些選擇, 我們導入的一些政策, 在長期來看可能並沒有讓我們 更安全,反而是更不安全。 若要做到以平民百姓 為中心的永續安全性, 就得要去看長期會發生的狀況。 再舉個例子, 靠無人機來鎖定遠方國家的 敵人可能是一種工具。 這種工具可能可以確保或減少 即將對美國進行之攻擊的威脅性。 但長期的影響呢? 如果平民百姓被殺害, 如果社區成為目標, 這會促成惡性循環, 戰爭、衝突、傷害, 以及極端化的惡性循環, 而現今我們所面臨的安全性難題當中, 中心議題常常就是那惡性循環。 長期來看,這樣做 不會讓我們更安全。
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.
我們需要平民百姓的安全性, 我們需要以平民百姓 為中心的永續安全性, 且我們現在就需要。 我們需要鼓勵關於 這個概念的思想和研究, 並付諸實行。
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.
我們住在一個危險的世界上。 我們的和平會受到很多威脅, 會有許多突衝。 就很像在九一一事件之後的日子, 我們實在無法承擔 不去思考國際安全的後果。 但我們得要從過去 二十年學到教訓。 要把它做對,要把安全性做對, 我們就得要把焦點放在長期。 我們得要把焦點放在 保護平民百姓。 我們得要尊重及承認一項事實: 永續的安全性是立基在人權上的。 否則,我們以安全為名, 卻在冒險讓這個世界 變成一個比我們 現在的狀況更危險許多 且不穩定的地方。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)