I'm going to speak to you about the global refugee crisis and my aim is to show you that this crisis is manageable, not unsolvable, but also show you that this is as much about us and who we are as it is a trial of the refugees on the front line.
今天談的是全球難民危機的問題。 我想讓各位知道, 這危機是可解決的, 而非無計可施。 也讓各位知道這關乎我們, 以及我們是誰。 這是對於前線難民的試驗。
For me, this is not just a professional obligation, because I run an NGO supporting refugees and displaced people around the world. It's personal.
對我來說,這不只是種職業義務, 只因我在非營利機構支援, 並安置在世界各處的難民。 這與個人切身相關。
I love this picture. That really handsome guy on the right, that's not me. That's my dad, Ralph, in London, in 1940 with his father Samuel. They were Jewish refugees from Belgium. They fled the day the Nazis invaded. And I love this picture, too. It's a group of refugee children arriving in England in 1946 from Poland. And in the middle is my mother, Marion. She was sent to start a new life in a new country on her own at the age of 12. I know this: if Britain had not admitted refugees in the 1940s, I certainly would not be here today.
我很愛這張照片。 右邊那個很帥的男生, 不是我。 那是我父親雷夫, 1940 年在倫敦拍的。 旁邊是他父親撒姆爾。 他們是比利時的猶太難民, 在納粹入侵當天逃走。 我也很愛這張照片。 這是一群難民孩子, 1946 年從波蘭遷到英國。 中間那位是我母親瑪麗安, 為了有新人生,她被送走, 到了一個新國家, 而且是獨自一人, 在 12 歲時。 我知道 要是英國在 1940 年代 拒絕難民, 我今天就不會站在這裡了。
Yet 70 years on, the wheel has come full circle. The sound is of walls being built, vengeful political rhetoric, humanitarian values and principles on fire in the very countries that 70 years ago said never again to statelessness and hopelessness for the victims of war. Last year, every minute, 24 more people were displaced from their homes by conflict, violence and persecution: another chemical weapon attack in Syria, the Taliban on the rampage in Afghanistan, girls driven from their school in northeast Nigeria by Boko Haram. These are not people moving to another country to get a better life. They're fleeing for their lives.
但 70 年後,時代巨輪轉了回來, 那些築起高牆的聲音、 充滿報復性的政治語言, 受到挑戰的人道價值觀以及原則, 出現在 70 年前 對戰爭受害者宣告 不會再無家可歸的國家。 去年的每一分鐘, 至少有 24 人 因著衝突、暴力與迫害 被迫離開家鄉: 敘利亞發生另一起化武攻擊、 塔利班在阿富汗橫行、 奈及利亞東北部的激進組織 「博科聖地」將女孩逐出學校。 這些人移到另一個城市 不是為了過更好的生活, 而是為了活命。
It's a real tragedy that the world's most famous refugee can't come to speak to you here today. Many of you will know this picture. It shows the lifeless body of five-year-old Alan Kurdi, a Syrian refugee who died in the Mediterranean in 2015. He died alongside 3,700 others trying to get to Europe. The next year, 2016, 5,000 people died. It's too late for them, but it's not too late for millions of others.
這是真正的悲劇。 世上最有名的難民 今天無法在這和你們對話。 你們大多看過這張照片。 這是具無生命的身體, 是五歲的艾倫.庫爾迪, 一名 2015 年死於 地中海的敘利亞難民, 身邊還有 3700 名難民 試圖逃到歐洲。 隔年,2016 年, 5000 人死亡。 對他們來說一切都太遲了, 但對其他數以百萬的難民還不遲。
It's not too late for people like Frederick. I met him in the Nyarugusu refugee camp in Tanzania. He's from Burundi. He wanted to know where could he complete his studies. He'd done 11 years of schooling. He wanted a 12th year. He said to me, "I pray that my days do not end here in this refugee camp."
對像費得列克 這樣的人來說還不算晚。 我在坦尚尼亞的 尼亞魯古蘇難民營認識他。 他從蒲隆地來, 想知道自己可以在哪裡完成學業。 他已經讀了十一年的書, 也想繼續讀下去。 他告訴我:「我向神呼求, 我不想死在這裡, 死在這個難民營。」
And it's not too late for Halud. Her parents were Palestinian refugees living in the Yarmouk refugee camp outside Damascus. She was born to refugee parents, and now she's a refugee herself in Lebanon. She's working for the International Rescue Committee to help other refugees, but she has no certainty at all about her future, where it is or what it holds.
對哈魯德來說也不算遲。 她的父母是巴勒斯坦難民, 住在大馬士革外的雅爾矛克難民營。 她是難民的孩子, 如今也成為黎巴嫩的難民。 她在國際救援委員會 幫忙其他難民, 但對於自己的未來, 她沒有任何把握, 像是未來在哪裡,或未來有什麼。
This talk is about Frederick, about Halud and about millions like them: why they're displaced, how they survive, what help they need and what our responsibilities are. I truly believe this, that the biggest question in the 21st century concerns our duty to strangers. The future "you" is about your duties to strangers. You know better than anyone, the world is more connected than ever before, yet the great danger is that we're consumed by our divisions. And there is no better test of that than how we treat refugees.
這場演講是關於費得列克, 關於哈魯德, 以及無數名和他們一樣的難民: 關於他們為何遷移、 如何生存、需要什麼幫助, 以及我們的責任。 我真心認為, 21 世紀最大的問題 在於我們對陌生人的責任。 未來的「你們」,是關乎 你們對於陌生人的責任。 各位比其他人更清楚, 這個世界的連結比從前緊密得多, 但更大的危機在於 我們都被分歧這事消耗掉了。 從我們對待難民的態度 最能看出問題所在。
Here are the facts: 65 million people displaced from their homes by violence and persecution last year. If it was a country, that would be the 21st largest country in the world. Most of those people, about 40 million, stay within their own home country, but 25 million are refugees. That means they cross a border into a neighboring state. Most of them are living in poor countries, relatively poor or lower-middle-income countries, like Lebanon, where Halud is living. In Lebanon, one in four people is a refugee, a quarter of the whole population.
事實是,去年有六千五百萬人 因為暴力及迫害被迫離開家, 假如這些人組成一個國家, 將會是 21 世紀世界最大的國家。 這群人中,約四千萬人待在祖國, 但其中二千五百萬名是難民。 這表示他們跨越國界到鄰國。 他們大多住在貧困國家, 相對貧困或中低收入國家, 例如黎巴嫩, 哈魯德的居住地。 在黎巴嫩, 每四人就有一人是難民, 是全數人口的四分之一。
And refugees stay for a long time. The average length of displacement is 10 years. I went to what was the world's largest refugee camp, in eastern Kenya. It's called Dadaab. It was built in 1991-92 as a "temporary camp" for Somalis fleeing the civil war. I met Silo. And naïvely I said to Silo, "Do you think you'll ever go home to Somalia?" And she said, "What do you mean, go home? I was born here." And then when I asked the camp management how many of the 330,000 people in that camp were born there, they gave me the answer: 100,000. That's what long-term displacement means.
而且難民會待很長的時間。 他們流離失所的平均時間 是 10 年。 我去過肯亞東部世界最大的難民營, 它叫達達布, 在 1991 到 1992 間成立, 作為索馬利亞人 逃離內戰的「短暫營區」。 我遇見西蘿, 並且很天真地問她: 「妳覺得自己可能回到 索馬利亞的家嗎?」 她說:「你說回家是什麼意思? 我就是在這裡出生的。」 然後我問營區的管理員, 33 萬人中有多少人 是在那裡出生的。 他們的答案是 10 萬。 這是長期流離失所真正的意思。
Now, the causes of this are deep: weak states that can't support their own people, an international political system weaker than at any time since 1945 and differences over theology, governance, engagement with the outside world in significant parts of the Muslim world. Now, those are long-term, generational challenges. That's why I say that this refugee crisis is a trend and not a blip. And it's complex, and when you have big, large, long-term, complex problems, people think nothing can be done.
注意,這個現象的成因很深層: 較弱勢的國家無法支持人民、 國際政治系統 也處於 1945 年以來最糟的狀況, 加上穆斯林世界主要地區的 神學觀、統治方式 及相處模式和外界有極大不同。 這些都是長期且普遍的挑戰。 所以我認為難民危機是種趨勢, 而非暫時性變動。 而當人們遇到龐大、長期 且複雜的問題時, 就會認為無計可施了。
When Pope Francis went to Lampedusa, off the coast of Italy, in 2014, he accused all of us and the global population of what he called "the globalization of indifference." It's a haunting phrase. It means that our hearts have turned to stone. Now, I don't know, you tell me. Are you allowed to argue with the Pope, even at a TED conference? But I think it's not right. I think people do want to make a difference, but they just don't know whether there are any solutions to this crisis. And what I want to tell you today is that though the problems are real, the solutions are real, too.
教宗方濟各到蘭佩杜薩島時, 2014 年在義大利海岸邊 控訴我們和全球人民 犯了他所謂「冷漠全球化」的罪。 這是個讓人難以忘記的詞。 意思是我們的心已經變為石頭了。 我也不知道,請告訴我, 你們能和教宗爭論嗎, 甚至是在 TED 會議中? 但我覺得他錯了。 我認為人們想要改變, 只是不知道有什麼辦法可以解決。 而我今天要告訴各位的, 就是問題很真實, 但解決方法也很實際。
Solution one: these refugees need to get into work in the countries where they're living, and the countries where they're living need massive economic support. In Uganda in 2014, they did a study: 80 percent of refugees in the capital city Kampala needed no humanitarian aid because they were working. They were supported into work.
方法一: 這些難民必須在居住地找到工作, 而這些國家需要龐大的經濟支援。 2014 年烏干達有份研究顯示: 首都康培拉的難民有八成 因為有工作而不需要人道協助。 他們受到支持而能工作。
Solution number two: education for kids is a lifeline, not a luxury, when you're displaced for so long. Kids can bounce back when they're given the proper social, emotional support alongside literacy and numeracy. I've seen it for myself. But half of the world's refugee children of primary school age get no education at all, and three-quarters of secondary school age get no education at all. That's crazy.
解決方案二: 孩童教育是條救命線, 而非一種奢侈, 尤其是被迫離鄉這麼久。 有適當的社會、情感支援, 孩童就能重新振作, 同時具有識字力及計算能力。 我曾親眼見識過。 但世上有一半 已經該上小學的難民孩童 完全沒受任何教育; 而該上中學的孩子 有四分之三也沒受任何教育。 這太誇張了。
Solution number three: most refugees are in urban areas, in cities, not in camps. What would you or I want if we were a refugee in a city? We would want money to pay rent or buy clothes. That is the future of the humanitarian system, or a significant part of it: give people cash so that you boost the power of refugees and you'll help the local economy.
解決方案三: 多數難民都住在都會或城市, 而非難民營。 若我們是城市的難民, 你我會想要什麼? 我們會需要錢來付租金或買衣服。 這正是未來人道系統該做的, 或至少是其中很重要的一部分: 給人們現金,提升難民的能力, 同時也會促進當地經濟。
And there's a fourth solution, too, that's controversial but needs to be talked about. The most vulnerable refugees need to be given a new start and a new life in a new country, including in the West. The numbers are relatively small, hundreds of thousands, not millions, but the symbolism is huge. Now is not the time to be banning refugees, as the Trump administration proposes. It's a time to be embracing people who are victims of terror. And remember --
還有第四個方法。 有點爭議,但仍需要提出來討論。 最脆弱的難民需要在新的國家 有個新的開始,新的人生。 包括在西方世界。 這些難民數量相對較少, 大概數十萬人, 但有龐大的象徵意義。 現在不是禁止難民的時候, 就像川普政府提議的那樣。 是時候去擁抱那些 身受恐懼所苦的人了。 請記得……
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Remember, anyone who asks you, "Are they properly vetted?" that's a really sensible and good question to ask. The truth is, refugees arriving for resettlement are more vetted than any other population arriving in our countries. So while it's reasonable to ask the question, it's not reasonable to say that refugee is another word for terrorist.
記得,如果有人問你: 「他們受過調查了嗎?」 這是合情理的好問題。 真相是,要定居的難民 比其他人口受到更多的審查。 所以儘管這個問題很合理, 但說難民等於恐怖分子卻很不合理。
Now, what happens --
好,那……
(Applause)
(掌聲)
What happens when refugees can't get work, they can't get their kids into school, they can't get cash, they can't get a legal route to hope? What happens is they take risky journeys. I went to Lesbos, this beautiful Greek island, two years ago. It's a home to 90,000 people. In one year, 500,000 refugees went across the island. And I want to show you what I saw when I drove across to the north of the island: a pile of life jackets of those who had made it to shore. And when I looked closer, there were small life jackets for children, yellow ones. And I took this picture. You probably can't see the writing, but I want to read it for you. "Warning: will not protect against drowning." So in the 21st century, children are being given life jackets to reach safety in Europe even though those jackets will not save their lives if they fall out of the boat that is taking them there.
當這些難民找不到工作、 無法讓孩子們就學、 沒有錢,也不能指望 合法管道求生,怎麼辦? 結果就是他們 選擇走風險較大的途徑。 兩年前我到過美麗的 希臘列斯伏斯島, 那裡有 9 萬人。 一年內,50 萬名難民 途經這座島嶼。 我想讓你們看看 當時我所看到的景象。 當時我正要開往島嶼北部, 那裡堆滿了 平安抵達岸上者的救生衣。 而當我看得更仔細時, 發現當中有給孩童的小救生衣, 黃色的。 我拍了這張照片。 你可能看不到上頭的字, 但我想讀給你聽: 「警告:無法保證不溺水。」 所以在 21 世紀, 孩童有救生衣 可以安全抵達歐洲, 即使那些救生衣無法在 他們掉到船外時 拯救他們的性命。
This is not just a crisis, it's a test. It's a test that civilizations have faced down the ages. It's a test of our humanity. It's a test of us in the Western world of who we are and what we stand for. It's a test of our character, not just our policies. And refugees are a hard case. They do come from faraway parts of the world. They have been through trauma. They're often of a different religion. Those are precisely the reasons we should be helping refugees, not a reason not to help them. And it's a reason to help them because of what it says about us. It's revealing of our values. Empathy and altruism are two of the foundations of civilization. Turn that empathy and altruism into action and we live out a basic moral credo.
這不只是危機,更是種考驗。 這是文明面臨的長期考驗, 對人性的考驗。 這要考驗在西方世界的我們, 我們是誰,還有我們為何而戰。 這在考驗我們的人格, 而不僅是政策。 而難民問題是個艱難的例子。 他們的確來自世界偏遠之地、 曾受過創傷, 通常和我們擁有不同信仰, 這正是我們應該幫助難民的原因, 而非不幫助他們的原因。 我們要幫助難民, 因為這會顯出我們是怎樣的人。 那透露出我們的價值觀。 同理及利他主義是文明的兩座基石。 把同理心和利他主義化為行動, 並活出基本道德信條。
And in the modern world, we have no excuse. We can't say we don't know what's happening in Juba, South Sudan, or Aleppo, Syria. It's there, in our smartphone in our hand. Ignorance is no excuse at all. Fail to help, and we show we have no moral compass at all.
在當代世界,我們責無旁貸。 我們不能說自己不知道 南蘇丹的朱巴 或敘利亞的阿勒坡發生什麼事。 這些新聞就在我們的手機裡, 在我們的手中。 無知不再是藉口。 冷眼旁觀顯示出 我們完全沒有道德感。
It's also revealing about whether we know our own history. The reason that refugees have rights around the world is because of extraordinary Western leadership by statesmen and women after the Second World War that became universal rights. Trash the protections of refugees, and we trash our own history. This is --
這也透露出我們是否了解自身歷史。 難民在這個世界有人權, 是因為西方卓越的領導力, 二戰後由政治家主導, 因而成為普世權利。 踐踏保護難民權利 就等於踐踏自己的歷史。 這也……
(Applause)
(掌聲)
This is also revealing about the power of democracy as a refuge from dictatorship. How many politicians have you heard say, "We believe in the power of our example, not the example of our power." What they mean is what we stand for is more important than the bombs we drop. Refugees seeking sanctuary have seen the West as a source of hope and a place of haven. Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Eritreans, Cubans, they've come to the West for safety. We throw that away at our peril.
這也顯示出民主的力量, 作為一種逃離獨裁的手段。 你們聽過多少政客說過: 「我們相信典範的力量, 而非力量的示範」? 意思是為何而戰比丟炸彈還重要。 尋求聖所的難民 知道西方是希望的來源和避難所。 俄國人、伊朗人、 中國人、厄利垂亞人和古巴人 都來西方尋求安全居所。 我們冒著風險丟開他們。
And there's one other thing it reveals about us: whether we have any humility for our own mistakes. I'm not one of these people who believes that all the problems in the world are caused by the West. They're not. But when we make mistakes, we should recognize it. It's not an accident that the country which has taken more refugees than any other, the United States, has taken more refugees from Vietnam than any other country. It speaks to the history. But there's more recent history, in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't make up for foreign policy errors by humanitarian action, but when you break something, you have a duty to try to help repair it, and that's our duty now.
而這透露出一件事情: 我們是否虛心看待自己犯的錯誤。 我和某些人不同, 那些人相信世上所有問題 都由西方世界造成。 不是這樣的。 但如果我們犯錯了,就應該察覺到。 某國家接收比其他國家更多的難民, 這不是巧合,例如美國 比其他國家接收更多越南難民。 它講述著歷史。 但伊拉克和阿富汗還有更近的歷史。 你無法藉由人道行動 彌補外交政策的失誤。 但如果你毀壞某樣事物, 就有責任修好它。 而這正是我們現在的責任。
Do you remember at the beginning of the talk, I said I wanted to explain that the refugee crisis was manageable, not insoluble? That's true. I want you to think in a new way, but I also want you to do things. If you're an employer, hire refugees. If you're persuaded by the arguments, take on the myths when family or friends or workmates repeat them. If you've got money, give it to charities that make a difference for refugees around the world. If you're a citizen, vote for politicians who will put into practice the solutions that I've talked about.
你記得在這場演講的開始, 我說想解釋難民危機 可以解決,而非無計可施嗎? 這是真的, 你們可以換個方式想想, 但我也希望你們做些什麼。 如果你是雇主, 雇用難民吧。 若你被這些論點說服了, 起來打破這些迷思吧, 尤其當家人朋友或同事再次提起時。 如果你有錢, 捐給幫助世界各地難民的公益團體。 如果你是個公民, 投票給會實踐以上解決方案的 政治家吧。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
The duty to strangers shows itself in small ways and big, prosaic and heroic. In 1942, my aunt and my grandmother were living in Brussels under German occupation. They received a summons from the Nazi authorities to go to Brussels Railway Station. My grandmother immediately thought something was amiss. She pleaded with her relatives not to go to Brussels Railway Station. Her relatives said to her, "If we don't go, if we don't do what we're told, then we're going to be in trouble." You can guess what happened to the relatives who went to Brussels Railway Station. They were never seen again. But my grandmother and my aunt, they went to a small village south of Brussels where they'd been on holiday in the decade before, and they presented themselves at the house of the local farmer, a Catholic farmer called Monsieur Maurice, and they asked him to take them in. And he did, and by the end of the war, 17 Jews, I was told, were living in that village.
我們對陌生人的責任 顯露在 大大小小的地方, 以平凡或非凡的方式出現。 1942 年, 我阿姨和祖母住在布魯塞爾, 當時在德國統治之下。 他們接到納粹當局的命令, 要去布魯塞爾的火車站。 祖母立刻察覺事有蹊蹺。 她求她的親戚 不要去火車站。 親戚們告訴她: 「如果我們不去,不遵照命令, 就會惹禍上身。」 你們可以猜到去車站的親戚們 後來怎麼了。 從此再也沒人見過他們。 但我的祖母和阿姨 到了一座小村莊, 在布魯塞爾的南邊, 在那之前是她們的度假場所。 她們到一個當地農夫的家裡, 一個叫莫瑞斯的天主教農夫。 她們求他收留, 他答應了。 而在戰爭結束前 有 17 名猶太人住在那村莊。
And when I was teenager, I asked my aunt, "Can you take me to meet Monsieur Maurice?" And she said, "Yeah, I can. He's still alive. Let's go and see him." And so, it must have been '83, '84, we went to see him. And I suppose, like only a teenager could, when I met him, he was this white-haired gentleman, I said to him, "Why did you do it? Why did you take that risk?" And he looked at me and he shrugged, and he said, in French, "On doit." "One must." It was innate in him. It was natural. And my point to you is it should be natural and innate in us, too. Tell yourself, this refugee crisis is manageable, not unsolvable, and each one of us has a personal responsibility to help make it so. Because this is about the rescue of us and our values as well as the rescue of refugees and their lives.
我年輕時問過阿姨: 「你可以帶我去看莫瑞斯先生嗎?」 她說:「可以啊, 他還活著,我們去看他吧。」 所以大概在 1983 或 1984 年 我們去拜訪他。 我猜想,就像青少年想得到的那樣, 當我見到他時, 他是名頭髮灰白的紳士。 我問他: 「你為什麼要這麼做? 為什麼要冒這個險?」 他看著我,聳聳肩, 然後用法語回答: 「On doit.」 「我必須。」 這是他與生俱來的特質, 是再自然不過的決定。 我的意思是,這對我們 也該是自然而然的決定。 告訴你自己, 難民危機是可解決的, 而非無計可施。 我們當中的每個人 都有各自的責任要付諸實踐, 因為這關乎挽救我們自身的價值觀, 以及拯救難民的生命。
Thank you very much indeed.
真的很謝謝你們。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Bruno Giussani: David, thank you. David Miliband: Thank you.
布魯諾:大衛,謝謝你。 大衛:謝謝。
BG: Those are strong suggestions and your call for individual responsibility is very strong as well, but I'm troubled by one thought, and it's this: you mentioned, and these are your words, "extraordinary Western leadership" which led 60-something years ago to the whole discussion about human rights, to the conventions on refugees, etc. etc. That leadership happened after a big trauma and happened in a consensual political space, and now we are in a divisive political space. Actually, refugees have become one of the divisive issues. So where will leadership come from today?
布魯諾:這些都是很有力的建議, 你對個人責任的呼籲也很有力。 但有個想法讓我有點困擾, 你剛提到「西方非凡的領導」 在六十幾年前主導 關於人權的討論、 主導了難民會議等等。 這領導權發生在 一個重大的創傷之後, 發生在雙方同意成立的政治空間。 如今我們處在一個分歧的政治空間。 事實上,難民本身成為分歧的議題, 所以現今的領導權從何而來呢?
DM: Well, I think that you're right to say that the leadership forged in war has a different temper and a different tempo and a different outlook than leadership forged in peace. And so my answer would be the leadership has got to come from below, not from above. I mean, a recurring theme of the conference this week has been about the democratization of power. And we've got to preserve our own democracies, but we've got to also activate our own democracies. And when people say to me, "There's a backlash against refugees," what I say to them is, "No, there's a polarization, and at the moment, those who are fearful are making more noise than those who are proud." And so my answer to your question is that we will sponsor and encourage and give confidence to leadership when we mobilize ourselves. And I think that when you are in a position of looking for leadership, you have to look inside and mobilize in your own community to try to create conditions for a different kind of settlement.
大衛:嗯,我想你說得沒錯, 也就是在戰時形成的領導權, 擁有不同的性情及節奏、 不同觀點, 有別於和平時期形成的領導權。 所以我的回答是, 領導權必須來自下層, 而非來自上層。 就像這週不斷出現的會議主題 都是關於民主化的力量。 我們必須保存我們的民主, 但也必須活化民主。 當人們告訴我: 「有人強烈反對難民」, 我告訴他們: 「不對,其實有兩極的聲音, 而此刻 害怕的人 比引以為榮者還要聒噪。」 所以我的回答是, 我們要付出資助及鼓勵, 並在我們總動員時 對領導者有信心。 我覺得如果你想要成為領導者, 就必須看得更深, 並在自己的社群動員, 好創造出不同種安置的居住條件。
BG: Thank you, David. Thanks for coming to TED.
布魯諾:大衛,謝謝你來 TED。
(Applause)
(掌聲)