Chris Anderson: Thank you so much, Prime Minister, that was both fascinating and quite inspiring. So, you're calling for a global ethic. Would you describe that as global citizenship? Is that an idea that you believe in, and how would you define that?
Chris Anderson: Va multumesc foarte mult, domnule Prim Ministru, a fost fascinant si inspirational Deci lansati o chemare pentru o etica globala. Ati descrie-o ca fiind o cetatenie globala? Este aceasta o idee in care credeti, si cum ati defini-o?
Gordon Brown: It is about global citizenship and recognizing our responsibilities to others. There is so much to do over the next few years that is obvious to so many of us to build a better world. And there is so much shared sense of what we need to do, that it is vital that we all come together. But we don't necessarily have the means to do so.
Gordon Brown: Cred ca este vorba despre cetatenie globala. Ideea e sa recunoastem responsabilitatile noastre fata de ceilalti. Sunt atat de multe de facut in urmatorii ani care sunt clare pentru foarte multi dintre noi. pentru a construi o lume mai buna. Si este atat de evident in constiinta tuturor ceea ce trebuie facut, incat este vital sa lucram cu totii, impreuna. Dar nu avem neaparat si mijloacele de a face aceasta.
So there are challenges to be met. I believe the concept of global citizenship will simply grow out of people talking to each other across continents. But of course the task is to create the institutions that make that global society work. But I don't think we should underestimate the extent to which massive changes in technology make possible the linking up of people across the world.
Exista deci provocari carora trebuie sa le raspundem. Cred ca conceptul cetateniei globale va aparea pur si simplu din comunicarea dintre oameni de pe diferite continente. Insa, bineinteles, misiunea este de a construi institutiile care sa faca acea societate globala sa functioneze. Dar cred ca nu ar trebui sa subestimam masura in care schimbarile masive in domeniul tehnologiei permit conectarea oamenilor pe intreg mapamondul.
CA: But people get excited about this idea of global citizenship, but then they get confused a bit again when they start thinking about patriotism, and how to combine these two. I mean, you're elected as Prime Minister with a brief to bat for Britain. How do you reconcile the two things?
CA: Dar oamenii se entuziasmeaza cand aud de ideea cetateniei globale insa redevin putin confuzi cand incep sa se gandeasca la patriotism si modul in care ar trebui sa le combine pe cele doua. Ma refer la faptul ca sunteti ales ca Prim-ministru cu misiunea de a lupta pentru interesele Marii Britanii. Cum reconciliati cele doua pozitii?
GB: Well, of course national identity remains important. But it's not at the expense of people accepting their global responsibilities. And I think one of the problems of recession is that people become more protectionist, they look in on themselves, they try to protect their own nation, perhaps at the expense of other nations. When you actually look at the motor of the world economy, it cannot move forward unless there is trade between the different countries. And any nation that would become protectionist over the next few years would deprive itself of the chance of getting the benefits of growth in the world economy.
Pai, bineinteles, identitatea nationala ramane importanta. Insa nu compromite acceptarea responsabilitatilor globale de catre oameni. Si cred ca una din problemele aduse de o recesiune este ca oamenii devin mai protectionisti, sunt foarte atenti la ei insisi, incearca sa isi protejeze propria natiune, posibil chiar in dauna celorlalte. Atunci cand privesti motorul economiei mondiale, vezi ca acesta nu poate progresa decat daca exista comert intre diferitele tari. Iar orice natiune care ar deveni protectionista in urmatorii cativa ani s-ar priva pe sine de sansa de a beneficia de pe urma cresterii inregistrate de economia mondiala.
So, you've got to have a healthy sense of patriotism; that's absolutely important. But you've got to realize that this world has changed fundamentally, and the problems we have cannot be solved by one nation and one nation alone.
Prin urmare, trebuie sa ai un simt sanatos al patriotismului, asta este cat se poate de important. Dar trebuie sa realizezi ca lumea noastra s-a schimbat fundamental, si ca problemele pe care le avem nu pot fi rezolvate
CA: Well, indeed. But what do you do when the two come into conflict and you're forced to make a decision that either is in Britain's interest, or the interest of Britons, or citizens elsewhere in the world?
de o singura natiune, doar prin ea insasi. CA: Da, intr-adevar. Dar ce faci cand cele doua intra in conflict si esti fortat sa iei o decizie care este fie in interesul Marii Britanii, sau in interesul britanicilor, sau al cetatenilor aflati pretutindeni in lume?
GB: Well I think we can persuade people that what is necessary for Britain's long-term interests, what is necessary for America's long-term interests, is proper engagement with the rest of the world, and taking the action that is necessary.
GB: Pai, cred ca putem convinge oamenii ca ceea ce este necesar pentru interesele pe termen lung ale Marii Britanii, ceea ce este necesar pentru interesele pe termen lung ale Americii, este un angajament alaturi de restul lumii, si luarea masurilor care se impun.
There is a great story, again, told about Richard Nixon. 1958, Ghana becomes independent, so it is just over 50 years ago. Richard Nixon goes to represent the United States government at the celebrations for independence in Ghana. And it's one of his first outings as Vice President to an African country. He doesn't quite know what to do, so he starts going around the crowd and starts talking to people and he says to people in this rather unique way, "How does it feel to be free?" And he's going around, "How does it feel to be free?" "How does it feel to be free?" And then someone says, "How should I know? I come from Alabama."
Exista o frumoasa poveste, din nou, despre Richard Nixon. 1958, Ghana devine independenta, deci sunt doar putin peste 50 de ani de atunci, Richard Nixon merge acolo pentru a reprezenta Statele Unite la sarbatorirea independentei in Ghana. Si e una din primele sale vizite in calitate de vicepresedinte intr-o tara africana. Nu stie foarte clar ce trebuie sa faca, asa ca incepe sa mearga prin multime si intra in vorba cu oamenii din multime si le spune oamenilor in modul sau inconfundabil, "Cum va simtiti sa fiti liberi?" Si, plimbandu-se de colo-colo, "Cum va simtiti sa fiti liberi?" "Cum e sa fiti liberi?" Si apoi cineva ii raspunde, "De unde sa stiu? Sunt din Alabama" (Rasete)
(Laughter)
And that was the 1950s. Now, what is remarkable is that civil rights in America were achieved in the 1960s. But what is equally remarkable is socioeconomic rights in Africa have not moved forward very fast even since the age of colonialism. And yet, America and Africa have got a common interest. And we have got to realize that if we don't link up with those people who are sensible voices and democratic voices in Africa, to work together for common causes, then the danger of Al Qaeda and related groups making progress in Africa is very big.
Si asta era in anii '50. Acum, ceea ce este remarcabil este ca drepturile civile au fost dobandite in America in anii '60. Dar ceea ce este la fel de remarcabil este ca in ceea ce priveste drepturile socio-economice in Africa nu s-au facut progrese prea rapide inca din epoca colonialismului. Si totusi, America si Africa au un interes comun. Si trebuie sa ne dam seama ca daca nu colaboram cu acele voci ale ratiunii si ale democratiei din Africa, pentru a lupta pentru cauze comune, atunci pericolul ca Al Qaeda si alte astfel de grupari sa faca progrese in Africa este foarte mare.
So, I would say that what seems sometimes to be altruism, in relation to Africa, or in relation to developing countries, is more than that. It is enlightened self-interest for us to work with other countries. And I would say that national interest and, if you like, what is the global interest to tackle poverty and climate change do, in the long run, come together. And whatever the short-run price for taking action on climate change or on security, or taking action to provide opportunities for people for education, these are prices that are worth paying so that you build a stronger global society where people feel able to feel comfortable with each other and are able to communicate with each other in such a way that you can actually build stronger links between different countries.
Deci, as spune ca ceea ce pare uneori ca fiind altruism, in relatie cu Africa, sau in relatie cu tarile in curs de dezvoltare, este mai mult decat atat, este propriul interes scos la lumina ce ne determina sa lucram cu aceste tari, Si as spune ca interesul national si, daca doriti, interesul global de a pune capat saraciei extreme si schimbarii climatice pe termen lung, fuzioneaza. Si oricare ar fi costul pe termen scurt pentru a lua masuri in ce priveste schimbarea climatica sau de a lua masuri in ce priveste securitatea, sau pentru a crea oportunitati pentru oameni in domeniul educatiei, acestea sunt preturi care merita platite pentru a construi o societate globala mai puternica in care oamenii sa se simta confortabil unii in preajma celorlalti si sa poata comunica unii cu altii intr-un asemenea mod incat sa se construiasca de fapt legaturi mai puternice intre diversele tari.
CA: I still just want to draw out on this issue. So, you're on vacation at a nice beach, and word comes through that there's been a massive earthquake and that there is a tsunami advancing on the beach. One end of the beach, there is a house containing a family of five Nigerians. And at the other end of the beach there is a single Brit. You have time to --
CA: Suntem in Oxford, care este patria experimentelor de gandire filosofica Si iata unul care merge la modul urmator- Inca vreau sa insist pe aceasta chestiune. Deci, esti in vacanta pe o plaja insorita si se afla vestea ca a avut loc un cuntremur puternic si ca un tsunami avanseaza spre plaja. La un capat al plajei este o casa
(Laughter)
in care se afla o familie de 5 nigerieni.
you have time to alert one house. What do you do?
La celalalt capat al plajei este un singur britanic.
(Laughter)
Ai timp suficient sa --
GB: Modern communications.
(Rasete)
(Applause)
Ai timp suficient sa avertizezi o singura casa. Ce faci?
Alert both.
(Rasete)
(Applause)
GB: Telecomunicatiile moderne.
I do agree that my responsibility is first of all to make sure that people in our country are safe. And I wouldn't like anything that is said today to suggest that I am diminishing the importance of the responsibility that each leader has for their own country.
(Aplauze) Anunta-le pe amandoua. (Aplauze) Sunt de acord ca responsabilitatea mea este ca, mai intai de toate, sa asigur siguranta cetatenilor tarii mele.
But I'm trying to suggest that there is a huge opportunity open to us that was never open to us before. But the power to communicate across borders allows us to organize the world in a different way. And I think, look at the tsunami, it's a classic example. Where was the early warning systems? Where was the world acting together to deal with the problems that they knew arose from the potential for earthquakes, as well as the potential for climate change? And when the world starts to work together, with better early-warning systems, you can deal with some of these problems in a better way. I just think we're not seeing, at the moment, the huge opportunities open to us by the ability of people to cooperate in a world where either there was isolationism before or there was limited alliances based on convenience which never actually took you to deal with some of the central problems.
Si nu as vrea ca ceva din ceea ce spun astazi sa sugereze ca imi desconsider responsabilitatea pe care fiecare lider o are pentru tara sa. Dar incerc sa sugerez ca exista o imensa oportunitate care ne este deschisa si pe care nu am mai avut-o pana acum. Dar puterea de a comunica peste granite ne permite sa organizam lumea intr-un mod diferit. Si apoi, gandindu-ma la tsunami, e un exemplu clasic. Ce s-a intamplat cu sistemele de avertizare in avans? Stiti, unde era lumea actionand laolalta pentru a face fata problemelor despre care stiau ca vor aparea incepand de la potentialul de a se produce un cutremur, la fel de bine ca in cazul potentialului de aparitie a schimbarilor climatice? Atunci cand lumea va incepe sa conlucreze, folosind sisteme de avertizare in avans mai performante, atunci poti sa rezolvi aceste situatii intr-un mod cu mult mai eficient. Cred ca nu ne dam seama, momentan, de imensele oportunitati deschise noua de abilitatea oamenilor de a coopera
CA: But I think this is the frustration that perhaps a lot of people have, like people in the audience here, where we love the kind of language that you're talking about. It is inspiring. A lot of us believe that that has to be the world's future. And yet, when the situation changes, you suddenly hear politicians talking as if, you know, for example, the life of one American soldier is worth countless numbers of Iraqi civilians. When the pedal hits the metal, the idealism can get moved away. I'm just wondering whether you can see that changing over time, whether you see in Britain that there are changing attitudes, and that people are actually more supportive of the kind of global ethic that you talk about.
intr-o lume in care inainte era fie izolationism fie existau aliante limitate bazate pe interese care nu au dus de fapt niciodata la rezolvarea principalelor probleme. CA: Dar cred ca este vroba de frustrarea pe care poate o au multi oameni, precum cei din audienta aceasta, placandu-ne foarte tare lucrurile pe care le spuneti. E inspirational. Multi dintre noi credem ca acesta trebuie sa fie viitorul planetei. Si totusi, atunci cand situatia se schimba dintr-odata auzi politicienii vorbind ca si cum stiti, de exemplu, viata unui soldat american e echivalentul vietii a nenumarati civili irakieni. Atunci cand situatia devine neiertatoare, acest idealism poate fi dat deoparte. Ma intreb cum anume -- credeti ca s-ar putea schimba asta in timp, daca vedeti Marea Britanie
GB: I think every religion, every faith, and I'm not just talking here to people of faith or religion -- it has this global ethic at the center of its credo. And whether it's Jewish or whether it's Muslim or whether it's Hindu, or whether it's Sikh, the same global ethic is at the heart of each of these religions. So, I think you're dealing with something that people instinctively see as part of their moral sense. So you're building on something that is not pure self-interest. You're building on people's ideas and values -- that perhaps they're candles that burn very dimly on certain occasions. But it is a set of values that cannot, in my view, be extinguished.
schimandu-si atitudinea si daca oameni chiar sunt mai toleranti fata de aceasta etica globala de care vorbiti. GB: Cred ca fiecare religie, fiecare credinta, si aici nu ma refer doar la oameni credinciosi sau religiosi -- are aceasta etica globala in centrul ei, in centrul crezului ei. Si indiferent ca e evreu sau ca e musulman sau hindus sau Sikh, aceeasi etica globala sta in centrul fiecareia dintre aceste religii. Deci cred ca avem de-a face cu ceva ce oamenii vad instinctiv ca facand parte din acel simt moral. Construiesti deci pe ceva ce nu e doar interes propriu, construiesti pe ideile si valorile oamenilor care poate sunt lumanari care
Then the question is, how do you make that change happen? How do you persuade people that it is in their interest to build strong -- After the Second World War, we built institutions, the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the Marshall Plan. There was a period in which people talked about an act of creation, because these institutions were so new. But they are now out of date. They don't deal with the problems. You can't deal with the environmental problem through existing institutions. You can't deal with the security problem in the way that you need to. You can't deal with the economic and financial problem. So we have got to rebuild our global institutions, build them in a way that is suitable to the challenges of this time.
vor arde cu flacara aproape stinsa in unele momente. Dar este un set de valori care, in opinia mea, nu poate fi 'stins'. Intrebarea este, asadar, cum faci ca aceasta schimbare sa se petreaca? Cum convingi oamenii ca este in interesul lor sa construiasca puternic... Dupa al doilea razboi mondial am construit institutii, precum ONU FMI, Banca Mondiala, Organizatia Mondiala a Comertului, Planul Marshall. A existat o perioada in care oamenii vorbeau de un act al creatiei pentru ca aceste instutitutii erau atat de recent aparute. Acum insa ele si-au depasit viabilitatea. Nu mai pot rezolva problemele. Dupa cum ziceam, nu putem ameliora problema mediului inconjurator prin institutiile existente. Nu putem rezolva problema securitatii asa cum am avea nevoie.
And I believe that if you look at the biggest challenge we face, it is to persuade people to have the confidence that we can build a truly global society with the institutions that are founded on these rules. So, I come back to my initial point. Sometimes you think things are impossible. Nobody would have said 50 years ago that apartheid would have gone in 1990, or that the Berlin wall would have fallen at the turn of the '80s and '90s, or that polio could be eradicated, or perhaps 60 years ago, nobody would have said a man could gone to the Moon. All these things have happened. By tackling the impossible, you make the impossible possible.
Nu putem rezolva problema economica si cea financiara. Trebuie deci sa reconstruim instutitiile noastre globale, sa le reconstruim intr-un mod care se potriveste dilemelor si greutatilor cu care ne confruntam astazi. Si cred ca, daca analizam cea mai mare greutate cu care ne confruntam, este cea de a ii convinge pe oameni sa aiba incredere ca putem construi o societate globala cu institutii care sa fie fondate pe astfel de reguli. Revin, deci, la ideea mea initiala. Uneori lucrurile par imposibile. Nimeni nu ar fi zis acum 50 de ani ca apartheid-ul va disparea in 1990, ca zidul Berlinului va cadea la trecerea intre anii '80 si anii '90, sau ca poliomelita va fi eradicata, sau poate ca acum 60 de ani
CA: And we have had a speaker who said that very thing, and swallowed a sword right after that, which was quite dramatic.
nimeni nu ar fi spus ca un om va ajunge pe Luna. Toate aceste lucruri s-au intamplat. Abordand imposibilul, faci ca imposibilul sa devina posibil.
(Laughter)
CA: SI am avut un vorbitor care a spus exact asta,
GB: Followed my sword and swallow.
CA: But, surely a true global ethic is for someone to say, "I believe that the life of every human on the planet is worth the same, equal consideration, regardless of nationality and religion." And you have politicians who have -- you're elected. In a way, you can't say that. Even if, as a human being, you believe that, you can't say that. You're elected for Britain's interests.
si a inghitit o sabie imediat dupa. Ceea ce a fost foarte dramatic. (rasete) GB: Voi inghiti si eu o sabie. CA: Cu siguranta, insa, o adevarata etica globala ar insemna ca cineva sa spuna, "Cred ca viata fiecarei fiinte umane de pe planeta valoreaza la fel de mult, merita luata la fel de mult in considerare, indiferent de nationalitate sau religie." Si exista politicieni care au -- Sunteti alesi. Intr-un fel, nu puteti spune asa ceva.
GB: We have a responsibility to protect. I mean look, 1918, the Treaty of Versailles, and all the treaties before that, the Treaty of Westphalia and everything else, were about protecting the sovereign right of countries to do what they want. Since then, the world has moved forward, partly as a result of what happened with the Holocaust, and people's concern about the rights of individuals within territories where they need protection, partly because of what we saw in Rwanda, partly because of what we saw in Bosnia. The idea of the responsibility to protect all individuals who are in situations where they are at humanitarian risk is now being established as a principle which governs the world.
Chiar daca, in calitate de fiinta umana, crezi asta, nu o poti declara, esti ales pentru a apara interesele Marii Britanii. GB: Avem responsabilitatea de a proteja. Ma refer, ganditi-va la 1918, Tratatul de la Versailles, si toate tratatele de dinaintea lui, Pacea westfalica si toate celelalte, erau legate de protejarea suveranitatii tarilor individuale ca ele sa poata faca ceea ce vor. De atunci, lumea a evoluat, partial ca rezultat al ceea ce a produs Holocaustul, si preocuparea oamenilor pentru drepturile indivizilor in teritoriile in care ei au nevoie de protectie, partial datorita a ceea ce am vazut in Rwanda, partial datorita a ceea ce am vazut in Bosnia. Ideea responsabilitatii de a proteja
So, while I can't automatically say that Britain will rush to the aid of any citizen of any country, in danger, I can say that Britain is in a position where we're working with other countries so that this idea that you have a responsibility to protect people who are victims of either genocide or humanitarian attack, is something that is accepted by the whole world.
toti indivizii aflati in situatii in care exista un risc de natura umanitara se stabileste, la ora actuala, ca principiu care guveneaza lumea. Deci, desi nu pot spune in mod automat ca Marea Britanie va ajuta imediat oricare cetatean al oricarei tari, atunci cand se afla in pericol, pot spune ca Marea Britanie este intr-o pozitie in care conlucram cu alte state astfel incat ideea aceasta cum ca ai o responsabilitate
Now, in the end, that can only be achieved if your international institutions work well enough to be able to do so. And that comes back to what the future role of the United Nations, and what it can do, actually is. But, the responsibility to protect is a new idea that is, in a sense, taken over from the idea of self-determination as the principle governing the international community.
de a proteja oamenii care sunt victime fie ale genocidului fie ale unui atac la adresa drepturilor fundamentale ale omului, este ceva ce este acceptat de intreaga lume. Aceasta nu se poate petrece decat daca institutiile internationale functioneaza suficient de bine pentru a putea face asta. Revenim astfel la viitorul rol al ONU si la ceea ce poate, de fapt, sa faca. Dar responsabilitatea de a proteja
CA: Can you picture, in our lifetimes, a politician ever going out on a platform of the kind of full-form global ethic, global citizenship?
este o idee noua, oarecum preluata de la ideea auto-determinarii ca principiu care guverneaza comunitatea internationala.
And basically saying, "I believe that all people across the planet have equal consideration, and if in power we will act in that way. And we believe that the people of this country are also now global citizens and will support that ethic."
CA: Va puteti imagina, in decursul vietilor noastre, un politician lansanu-si o platforma electorala de forma unei veritabile etici globale si cetatenii globale? Si sa spuna, practic, ca "Eu cred ca toti oamenii de pe planeta au importanta egala, si daca ajung la putere
GB: Is that not what we're doing in the debate about climate change? We're saying that you cannot solve the problem of climate change in one country; you've got to involve all countries. You're saying that you must, and you have a duty to help those countries that cannot afford to deal with the problems of climate change themselves. You're saying you want a deal with all the different countries of the world where we're all bound together to cutting carbon emissions in a way that is to the benefit of the whole world. We've never had this before because Kyoto didn't work. If you could get a deal at Copenhagen, where people agreed, A, that there was a long-term target for carbon emission cuts, B, that there was short-range targets that had to be met so this wasn't just abstract; it was people actually making decisions now that would make a difference now, and if you could then find a financing mechanism that meant that the poorest countries that had been hurt by our inability to deal with climate change over many, many years and decades are given special help so that they can move to energy-efficient technologies, and they are in a position financially to be able to afford the long-term investment that is associated with cutting carbon emissions, then you are treating the world equally, by giving consideration to every part of the planet and the needs they have.
voi actiona tinand cont de aceasta. Si credem ca locuitorii acestei tari sunt de asemenea cetateni globali care vor sustine aceasta etica..." Gordon Brown: Nu asta este ceea ce facem in dezbaterea cu privirea la schimbarea climatica? Spunem ca nu se pot rezolva problemele schimbarii climatice intr-o singura tara, trebuie implicate toate tarile. Spuneti ca ar trebui si ca avem o datorie chiar de a ajuta aceste tari care nu isi permit sa rezolve problema schimbarii climatice ele insele. Spuneti ca vreti o intelegere cu toate tarile lumii in care sa fim cu totii angajati sa reducem emisiile de dioxid de carbon intr-un mod benefic pentru intreaga planeta. Niciodata nu am avut asa ceva inainte pentru ca [protocolul de la] Kyoto nu a functionat. Si daca am putea ajunge la o intelegere la Copenhaga, in care oamenii sa spuna ca, A, a fost o tinta pe termen lung in ce priveste reducerea emisiilor de carbon, B, a fost o tinta de valori care trebuie atinse pe termen scurt astfel incat sa nu fie doar ceva abstract, chiar sa fie oameni care iau decizii care sa faca o diferenta acum, si daca ai putea gasi apoi un mecanism de finantare care ar insemna ca cele mai sarace state care au fost afectate de inabilitatea noastra de a opri schimbarea climatica de-a lungul a ani si ani, decenii si decenii sunt ajutate spre a putea trece la tehnologii eficiente din punct de vedere energetic, si sunt in pozitia financiara de a-si putea permite investitia pe termen lung care e necesara pentru aceasta reducere a emisiilor de carbon,
It doesn't mean that everybody does exactly the same thing, because we've actually got to do more financially to help the poorest countries, but it does mean there is equal consideration for the needs of citizens in a single planet.
atunci tratezi lumea in mod egal, luand in considerare fiecare parte a planetei, si nevoile ei. Asta nu inseamna ca fiecare face exact acelasi lucru pentru ca de fapt noi trebuie sa facem mai mult, financiar
CA: Yes. And then of course the theory is still that those talks get rent apart by different countries fighting over their own individual interests.
pentru a ajuta cele mai sarace tari, dar inseamna intr-adevar ca li se acorda atentie egala nevoilor unor cetateni pe o singura planeta.
GB: Yes, but I think Europe has got a position, which is 27 countries have already come together. I mean, the great difficulty in Europe is if you're at a meeting and 27 people speak, it takes a very, very long time. But we did get an agreement on climate change. America has made its first disposition on this with the bill that President Obama should be congratulated for getting through Congress. Japan has made an announcement. China and India have signed up to the scientific evidence. And now we've got to move them to accept a long-term target, and then short-term targets. But more progress has been made, I think, in the last few weeks than had been made for some years.
CA: Da. iar teoria este bineinteles in continuare ca acele discutii vor fi divizita de diferitele tari care se lupta pentru propriile lor interese. GB: Da, dar cred ca Europa este intr-o pozitie in care 27 de tari deja s-au unit. Marea dificultate in Europa este ca daca esti la o intalnire si vorbesc 27 de oameni, dureaza foarte foarte mult. Dar ne-am pus de acord in ce priveste schimbarea climatica. America a dat si ea prima sa dispozitie pe aceasta tema prin legea pentru care Presedintele Obama ar trebui felicitat ca a reusit sa o treaca prin Congres. Japonia a facut recent un anunt, China si India s-au inclinat si ele, in fata dovezilor stiintifice. Si acum trebuie sa le convingem sa accepte
And I do believe that there is a strong possibility that if we work together, we can get that agreement to Copenhagen. I certainly have been putting forward proposals that would have allowed the poorest parts of the world to feel that we have taken into account their specific needs. And we would help them adapt. And we would help them make the transition to a low-carbon economy.
o tinta pe termen lung, si apoi tinte pe termen scurt. Dar, s-a inregistrat un progres mai important, cred, in ultimele saptamani decat s-a facut in ani intregi. Si cred ca exista o mare posibilitate, daca vom conlucra, sa ajungem la un acord la Copenhaga. Eu unul, sigur ca am avansat diverse propuneri care ar fi permis celor mai sarace parti ale lumii sa simta ca am luat in considerare
I do think a reform of the international institutions is vital to this. When the IMF was created in the 1940s, it was created with resources that were five percent or so of the world's GDP. The IMF now has limited resources, one percent. It can't really make the difference that ought to be made in a period of crisis. So, we've got to rebuild the world institutions. And that's a big task: persuading all the different countries with the different voting shares in these institutions to do so.
nevoile lor specifice. Si le-am ajuta sa se adapteze. Si le-am ajuta sa faca trecerea spre o economie cu emisii reduse de carbon. Cred ca, in acest scop, o reforma a institutiilor internationale este vitala. Atunci cand FMI a fost creat in anii '40, a fost creat cu resurse care reprezentau cam 5 procente din PIBul mondial. FMI astazi are resurse limitate, un singur procent. Chiar nu are posibilitatea de a face diferenta in perioadele de criza. Trebuie, deci, sa reconstruim instutitiile lumii.
There is a story told about the three world leaders of the day getting a chance to get some advice from God. And the story is told that Bill Clinton went to God and he asked when there will be successful climate change and a low-carbon economy. And God shook his head and said, "Not this year, not this decade, perhaps not even in [your] lifetime." And Bill Clinton walked away in tears because he had failed to get what he wanted.
Si asta este o sarcina extrem de dificila: a convinge toate tarile cu o importanta mai mare sau mai mica a voturilor lor in aceste institutii sa o faca. Exista o poveste spusa despre 3 lideri mondiali care intr-o zi au avut sansa de a fi sfatuiti de Dumnezeu. Si se spune ca Bill Clinton a mers la Dumnezeu si l-a intrebat cand vor fi incununate de succes ideile de schimbare a climei si de emisii reduse de carbon. Iar Dumnezeu a dat din cap si a spus ca "Nu anul acesta, nu in deceniul acesta, poate nici macar in decursul vietii tale."
And then the story is that Barroso, the president of the European Commission, went to God and he asked, "When will we get a recovery of global growth?" And God said, "Not this year, not in this decade, perhaps not in your lifetime." So Barroso walked away crying and in tears.
Iar Bill Clinton a plecat plangand pentru ca nu reusise sa obtina ceea ce a vrut. Si povestea spune ca Barroso, presedintele Comisiei Europene, s-a dus la Dumnezeu si l-a intrebat "Cand vom trece inapoi la crestere economica globala?"
And then the Secretary-General of the United Nations came up to speak to God and said, "When will our international institutions work?" And God cried.
Iar Dumnezeu i-a spus: "Nu anul acesta, nu deceniul acesta, poate chiar nu in timpul vietii tale." Astfel incat Barroso a plecat plangand. Apoi secretarul general al ONU
(Laughter)
s-a dus la Dumnezeu si i-a spus
It is very important to recognize that this reform of institutions
"Cand vor functiona institutiile noatre internationale?" Iar Dumnezeu a inceput sa planga.
is the next stage after agreeing upon ourselves that there is a clear ethic upon which we can build.
(Rasete) Este foarte important sa recunoastem ca aceasta reforma a institutiilor
CA: Prime Minister, I think there are many in the audience who are truly appreciative of the efforts you made in terms of the financial mess we got ourselves into. And there are certainly many people in the audience who will be cheering you on as you seek to advance this global ethic.
este urmatoarea etapa dupa ce ne punem de acord ca exista o etica clara in baza careia putem construi CA: Domnule prim-ministru, cred ca sunt multi in audienta care chiar apreciaza eforturile pe care le-ati facut
Thank you so much for coming to TED.
in ce priveste situatia financiara tulburata in care am intrat.
GB: Well, thank you.
Si cu siguranta sunt multi membrii ai audientei
(Applause)
care va vor sustine in timp ce incercati sa avansati