Amongst all the troubling deficits we struggle with today -- we think of financial and economic primarily -- the ones that concern me most is the deficit of political dialogue -- our ability to address modern conflicts as they are, to go to the source of what they're all about and to understand the key players and to deal with them. We who are diplomats, we are trained to deal with conflicts between states and issues between states. And I can tell you, our agenda is full. There is trade, there is disarmament, there is cross-border relations.
Gaur egun aurrean ditugun gabezia kezkagarri guztietatik, nagusiki finantza eta ekonomian pentsatzen dugu, ni gehien kezkatzen nauena elkarrizketa politiko falta da ordea. Gatazka modernoak direna bezala jorratzeko gaitasuna, gatazkaren errora iristea eta aktore nagusiak ulertzea eta haiekin tratatzea. Gu, diplomatikook, estatuen arteko gatazka eta arazoak jorratzeko prestatuta gaude. Eta ziurtatzen dizuet, gure agenda beteta dago. Badago merkataritza, badago desarmea, badaude mugaz gaindiko harremanak.
But the picture is changing, and we are seeing that there are new key players coming onto the scene. We loosely call them "groups." They may represent social, religious, political, economic, military realities. And we struggle with how to deal with them. The rules of engagement: how to talk, when to talk, and how to deal with them.
Baina argazkia aldatzen ari da eta aktore nagusi berriak agertzen ari direla ikusten dugu. Orokorki, “taldeak” deitzen diegu. Ordezkatu ditzakete errealitate sozialak, erlijiosoak, politikoak, ekonomikoak, militarrak. Eta hauekin nola tratatu eztabaidatzen dugu. Konpromezuaren arauak hauek dira: nola hitz egin, noiz hitz egin eta nola aritu beraiekin.
Let me show you a slide here which illustrates the character of conflicts since 1946 until today. You see the green is a traditional interstate conflict, the ones we used to read about. The red is modern conflict, conflicts within states. These are quite different, and they are outside the grasp of modern diplomacy. And the core of these key actors are groups who represent different interests inside countries. And the way they deal with their conflicts rapidly spreads to other countries. So in a way, it is everybody's business.
Utzidazue irudi bat erakusten irudikatzen duena 1946tik hona izan diren gatazken izaera. Begira, berdea estatuen arteko gatazka tradizionala da, hauei buruz irakurtzen genuen. Gorria gatazka modernoa da, estatuen barneko gatazkak. Hauek nahiko ezberdinak dira, eta diplomazia modernoaren irismenteik kanpo geratzen dira. Eta aktore nagusi horien nukleoa taldeak dira interes ezberdinen ordezkari direnak estatuen barnean. Eta beren gatazkei aurre egiteko modua azkar zabaltzen da beste herrialde batzuetara. Beraz, nolabai, guztion kontua da.
Another acknowledgment we've seen during these years, recent years, is that very few of these domestic interstate, intrastate conflicts can be solved militarily. They may have to be dealt with with military means, but they cannot be solved by military means. They need political solutions. And we, therefore, have a problem, because they escape traditional diplomacy. And we have among states a reluctance in dealing with them. Plus, during the last decade, we've been in the mode where dealing with groups was conceptually and politically dangerous. After 9/11, either you were with us or against us. It was black or white. And groups are very often immediately label terrorists. And who would talk to terrorists? The West, as I would see it, comes out of that decade weakened, because we didn't understand the group. So we've spent more time on focusing on why we should not talk to others than finding out how we talk to others.
Beste gauza bat azken urte hauetan ikusi duguna da, gatazka domestiko hauetatik oso gutxi konpondu daitezkeela era militarrean. Agian militarki jorratuz ekin behar zaie, baina ezin dira militarki konpondu. Konponbide politikoak behar dituzte. Eta guk, horregatik, arazo bat dugu, diplomazia tradizionaletik kanpo daudelako. Eta guk estatuok, ez dugu gogorik izaten hauei ekiteko. Gainera, azken hamarkadan, moda jarraitu dugu zeina taldeekin hitz egitea politikoki eta kontzeptualki arriskutsua zen. Irailaren 11 eta gero, gurekin edo gure aurka egon zintezkeen. Txuria edo beltza zen. Eta taldeak askotan terroristatzat hartzen ziren berehala. Eta nork hitz egingo luke terroristekin? Mendebaldea, nire ustez, ahulduta irten da azken hamarkadatik, ez baikenuen taldea ulertu. Denbora gehiago pasa dugu besteekin zergatik ez genuen hitz egin behar nabarmentzen, besteekin nola hitz egin bilatzen baino.
Now I'm not naive. You cannot talk to everybody all the time. And there are times you should walk. And sometimes military intervention is necessary. I happen to believe that Libya was necessary and that military intervention in Afghanistan was also necessary. And my country relies on its security through military alliance, that's clear. But still we have a large deficit in dealing with and understanding modern conflict.
Hala ere, ez naiz naive edo inozoa. Ezin duzu beti guztiekin hitz egin. Eta kasu batzuetan ospa egin behar zenuke. Eta batzuetan esku-hartze militarra beharrezkoa da. Adibidez Libian beharrezkoa izan zela uste dut, eta Afganistanen ere interbentzio miliatarra beharrezkoa zela. Nere herrialdeak segurtasunean sinisten du aliantza militarraren bidezkoa, hori argi dago. Baina oraindik gabezia handia dugu gatazka modernoen trataeran eta hauek ulertzeko moduan.
Let us turn to Afghanistan. 10 years after that military intervention, that country is far from secure. The situation, to be honest, is very serious. Now again, the military is necessary, but the military is no problem-solver. When I first came to Afghanistan in 2005 as a foreign minister, I met the commander of ISAF, the international troops. And he told me that, "This can be won militarily, minister. We just have to persevere." Now four COM ISAF's later, we hear a different message: "This cannot be won militarily. We need military presence, but we need to move to politics. We can only solve this through a political solution. And it is not us who will solve it; Afghans have to solve it." But then they need a different political process than the one they were given in 2001, 2002. They need an inclusive process where the real fabric of this very complicated society can deal with their issues.
Ikus dezagun Afganistango kasua. Esku-hartze militar hartatik hamar urte pasa direnean, herrialdea seguru izatetik oso urrun dago. Egoera, zuzenak izateko, oso serioa da. Beste behin, armada beharrezkoa da, baina armada ez da arazo-konpontzailea. Kanpo ministro gisan 2005ean lehen aldiz Afganistanera joan nintzenean ISAF-eko komandantearekin egon ninzten nazioarteko tropak koordinatzen dituen taldea. Eta esan zidan: “Hau militarki irabazi daiteke, ministro jauna. Jarraitu besterik ez dugu egin behar”. Orain, ISAFeko lau komandante bertatik igaro ostean, mezu ezberdin bat entzuten dugu: “Hau ezin da militarki irabazi. Presentzia militarra behar dugu, baina politikara pasa behar dugu. Konponbidea politikaren bidez bakarrik lor dezakegu. Eta ez gara gu izango hau konponduko dugunak; afganiarrek konpondu behar dute". Baina orduan beste prozesu politiko bat behar dute 2001 eta 2002an jorratutako beste prozesu ezberdin bat. Prozesu inklusibo bat behar dute, non gizarte konplikatu honen benetako egiturak haien arazoei aurre egingo dien.
Everybody seems to agree with that. It was very controversial to say three, four, five years ago. Now everybody agrees. But now, as we prepare to talk, we understand how little we know. Because we didn't talk. We didn't grasp what was going on. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the ICRC, is talking to everyone, and it is doing so because it is neutral. And that's one reason why that organization probably is the best informed key player to understand modern conflict -- because they talk.
Denek honekin ados dirudite. Duela hiru, lau, bost urte hau esatea oso eztabaidagarria zen. Orain denak ados daude. Baina orain, hitz egiteko prestatu garenean, konturatu gara ze gutxi dakigun. Bere garaian ez baikenuen hitz egin. Ez genuen jakin gertatzen zena ulertzen. Gurutze Gorriaren Nazioarteko Batzordeak, ICRCak, denekin hitz egiten du, eta hau egiten du neutrala delako. Arrazoi honengatik, besteak beste, erakunde hau da, seguraski, ongien informatuta dagoen aktorea da, gatazka modernoa ulertzeko. Hitz egiten dutelako.
My point is that you don't have to be neutral to talk. And you don't have to agree when you sit down with the other side. And you can always walk. But if you don't talk, you can't engage the other side. And the other side which you're going to engage is the one with whom you profoundly disagree. Prime Minister Rabin said when he engaged the Oslo process, "You don't make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies." It's hard, but it is necessary.
Nire jarrera da ez duzula neutrala izan behar hitz egiteko. Eta ez duzu ados egon behar beste aldekoarekin esertzen zarenean. Eta beti da posible moztea. Baina, hitz egin ezean, ezin da beste aldearekin elkar ulertu. Eta elkar ulertu behar duzun alde horrekin izango duzu, hain zuzen ere ,desadostasunik sakonena. Rabin Lehen Ministroak, Osloko Akordioak sinatu zituenean, esan zuen: “Ez dugu bakea lagunekin egiten, etsaiekin egiten da bakea”. Zaila da, baina beharrezkoa.
Let me go one step further. This is Tahrir Square. There's a revolution going on. The Arab Spring is heading into fall and is moving into winter. It will last for a long, long time. And who knows what it will be called in the end. That's not the point. The point is that we are probably seeing, for the first time in the history of the Arab world, a revolution bottom-up -- people's revolution. Social groups are taking to the streets. And we find out in the West that we know very little about what's happening. Because we never talk to the people in these countries. Most governments followed the dictate of the authoritarian leaders to stay away from these different groups, because they were terrorists. So now that they are emerging in the street and we salute the democratic revolution, we find out how little we know.
Utzidazue urrutiago joaten. Hau Tahrir plaza da. Iraultza martxan da. Arabiar Udaberria udazkenerantz bideratu da eta negurantz doa. Denbora asko, asko iraungo du. Eta nork daki amaierari nola deituko zaion. Ez da hori garrantzitsuena. Inportanteena da, ziurrenik ikusten ari garela Arabiar munduaren historian lehen aldiz, behetik gora egindako iraultza bat, herriaren iraultza. Gizarte-taldeak kaleak hartzen ari dira. Eta Mendebaldean ohartzen gara oso gutxi dakigula gertatzen ari denaz. Ez baitugu inoiz herrialde hauetako herritarrekin hitz egiten. Gobernu gehienek jarraitu egin zituzte lider autoritarioen aginduak talde hauetatik urrun mantentzeko agindua jasoz, terroristak zirelako. Orain, kalera irteten ari direnean eta iraultza demokratikoa txalotzen dugunean, konturatzen gara oso gutxi dakigula beraiei buruz.
Right now, the discussion goes, "Should we talk to the Muslim Brotherhood? Should we talk to Hamas? If we talk to them, we may legitimize them." I think that is wrong. If you talk in the right way, you make it very clear that talking is not agreeing. And how can we tell the Muslim Brotherhood, as we should, that they must respect minority rights, if we don't accept majority rights? Because they may turn out to be a majority. How can we escape [having] a double-standard, if we at the same time preach democracy and at the same time don't want to deal with the groups that are representative? How will we ever be interlocutors? Now my diplomats are instructed to talk to all these groups. But talking can be done in different ways. We make a distinction between talking from a diplomatic level and talking at the political level. Now talking can be accompanied with aid or not with aid. Talking can be accompanied with inclusion or not inclusion.
Momentu honetan, eztabaidak jarraitzen du: “Hitz egin behar al genuke Anaia Musulmanekin? Hitz egin behar al genuke Hamasekin? Hitz egiten badugu, baliteke guk haiek legitimatzea”. Uste dut okerra dela. Behar den moduan hitz egiten bada, argi uzten da hitz egitea ez dela ados egotea. Eta, nola esan Anaia Musulmanei, esan behar diegun bezala, gutxiengoen eskubideak errespetatu behar dituztela, guk ez baditugu gehiengoen eskubideak errespetatzen? Gehiengoa izatera pasa baitaitezke. Nola libra gaitezke bi aurpegiko jarrera horretarik, demokrazia predikatzen dugun bitartean eta aldi berean ordezkariak diren taldeekin tratatu nahi ez badugu? Nola izango gara noizbait interlokutore? Nire diplomatikoak hezita daude talde hauekin hitz egiteko hezten dira. Baina hainbat modutan hitz egin daiteke. Bereiztu egiten ditugu maila diplomatikoan hitz egitea eta hitz egitea maila politikoan. Hitz egiteak laguntza behar izan dezake edo ez. Hitz egiteak inklusioa ekar dezke edo ez.
There's a big array of the ways of dealing with this. So if we refuse to talk to these new groups that are going to be dominating the news in years to come, we will further radicalization, I believe. We will make the road from violent activities into politics harder to travel. And if we cannot demonstrate to these groups that if you move towards democracy, if you move towards taking part in civilized and normal standards among states, there are some rewards on the other side. The paradox here is that the last decade probably was a lost decade for making progress on this.
Modu asko daude gaia jorratzeko.. Beraz, baztertu egiten badugu talde berri hauekin hitz egitea albistegietan gailendu egingo direnak datozen urteetan, erradikalizazioa sustatuko dugu, hori da nik uste dudana. Beraien indarkeria ekintzetatik politikara egin behar duten bidea zailagoa egingo dugu. Eta ezin badiegu talde hauei erakutsi demokraziarantz aurrera egiten baduzu, parte hartzerantz mugitzen bazara estatuen arteko era zibilizatu eta normalean beste aldean badaudela sariak. Hemen paradoxa da pasa den hamarkada, seguraski, hamarkada galdua izan dela alor honetan aurre egiteko.
And the paradox is that the decade before the last decade was so promising -- and for one reason primarily. And the reason is what happened in South Africa: Nelson Mandela. When Mandela came out of prison after 27 years of captivity, if he had told his people, "It's time to take up the arms, it's time to fight," he would have been followed. And I think the international community would have said, "Fair enough. It's their right to fight." Now as you know, Mandela didn't do that. In his memoirs, "Long Road to Freedom," he wrote that he survived during those years of captivity because he always decided to look upon his oppressor as also being a human being, also being a human being. So he engaged a political process of dialogue, not as a strategy of the weak, but as a strategy of the strong. And he engaged talking profoundly by settling some of the most tricky issues through a truth and reconciliation process where people came and talked. Now South African friends will know that was very painful.
Eta paradoxa da aurreko hamarkadaren aurrekoak etorkizun handikoa zirudiela, eta arrazoi nagusi batengatik gehienbat. Eta arrazoia da Hegoafrikan gertatu zena: Nelson Mandela. Mandela kartzelatik irten zenean 27 urteko kartzelaldia eta gero, bere herriari esan izan balio: “Armak hartzeko garaia da, borroka egiteko garaia”, jarraitua izango zen. Eta uste dut nazioarteko komunitateak esan zukeela: “Ongi da. Borroka egiteko eskubidea dute”. Jakingo duzuen bezala, Mandelak ez zuen hori egin. "Bide Luzea Askatasunerantz" izeneko bere memorietan, idatzi zuen biziraun zuela atxilotua egon zen urte horietan betidanik erabaki zuelako bere zapaltzailea hartzea beste gizaki bat bezala, beste gizaki bat bezala hartzea. Horregatik, elkarrizketa politikoko prozesu bat abiatu zuen ez ahularen estrategia gisa, baizik eta boteretsuaren estrategia bezala. Eta oso sakon mintzatu zen arazo delikatuenak jorratuz egia eta berradiskidetasun prozesu baten bitartez non jendea joaten zen eta hitz egin. Hegoafrikako lagunek jakingo dute oso mingarria izan zela hau.
So what can we learn from all of this? Dialogue is not easy -- not between individuals, not between groups, not between governments -- but it is very necessary. If we're going to deal with political conflict-solving of conflicts, if we're going to understand these new groups which are coming from bottom-up, supported by technology, which is available to all, we diplomats cannot be sitting back in the banquets believing that we are doing interstate relations. We have to connect with these profound changes.
Beraz, zer ikas dezakegu guzti honetatik? Elkarrizketa ez da erraza, ez pertsonen artean, ez taldeen artean, ez gobernuen artean, baina oso beharrezkoa da. Gatazken konponbide politikoari ekiten badiogu, talde berri hauek ulertuko badigutu behetik gora sortzen ari direnak, guztion eskura dagoen teknologiaren laguntzaz guk, diplomatikook, ezin dugu eserita alferkerian ibili, sinetsiz estatuen arteko harremanak jorratzen ari garela. Konektatu egin behar dugu aldaketa sakon hauekin.
And what is dialogue really about? When I enter into dialogue, I really hope that the other side would pick up my points of view, that I would impress upon them my opinions and my values. I cannot do that unless I send the signals that I will be open to listen to the other side's signals. We need a lot more training on how to do that and a lot more practice on how that can take problem-solving forward. We know from our personal experiences that it's easy sometimes just to walk, and sometimes you may need to fight. And I wouldn't say that is the wrong thing in all circumstances. Sometimes you have to. But that strategy seldom takes you very far. The alternative is a strategy of engagement and principled dialogue. And I believe we need to strengthen this approach in modern diplomacy, not only between states, but also within states.
Eta zertan datza benetan elkarrizketak? Elkarrizketa batean sartzen naizenean, benetan espero dut beste aldeak nire ikuspuntua ulertuko duela, besteari helaraziko dizkiodala nire iritzi eta balioak. Ezin dut horrelakorik egin ez baditut seinale batzuk bidaltzen esanaz irekita egongo naizela beste aldekoaren seinaleak entzuteko. Askoz ere trebakuntza gehiago behar dugu hau nola egitean eta askoz ere praktika gehiago honek arazoen ebazpenean nola lagun dezaken. Gure esperientzia propioengatik badakigu batzuetan erraza dela mahaitik altxatzea eta batzuetan borroka egin behar duzu. Eta ez nuke esango egoera guztietan aukera okerra denik. Batzuetan egin behar duzu. Baina estrategia horrek nekez eramango zaitu urrutira. Alternatiba estrategia bat da elkarrizketan oinarritutakoa. Eta nere ustez ikuspuntu hau sendotu behar dugu diplomazia modernoan, ez soilik estatuen artean, baizik eta estatuen barruan ere.
We are seeing some new signs. We could never have done the convention against anti-personnel landmines and the convention that is banning cluster munitions unless we had done diplomacy differently, by engaging with civil society. All of a sudden, NGOs were not only standing in the streets, crying their slogans, but they were taking [them] into the negotiations, partly because they represented the victims of these weapons. And they brought their knowledge. And there was an interaction between diplomacy and the power coming bottom-up. This is perhaps a first element of a change. In the future, I believe, we should draw examples from these different illustrations, not to have diplomacy which is disconnected from people and civil society.
Seinale berri batzuk ikusten ari gara. Ezin izango genukeen inoiz egin mina antipertsonalen aurkako batzarra eta 'cluster' munizioa debekatzen duen batzarra diplomazia modu ezberdinean garatu izan ez bagenu, gizarte zibilarekin engaiatu ez bagina. Eta bat-batean, GKEak ez ziren soilik kaleetan ari beren lemak oihukatzen, baizik eta negoziazioetan sartzen hasi ziren, neurri batean arma hauen biktimen ordezkari zirelako. Eta beraien ezagutza ekarri zuten. Eta interakzio bat egon zen diplomazia eta behetik sortutako boterearen artean. Hori da, beharbada, lehen elementua aldaketa batean. Etorkizunean, sinisten dut, gertaera ezberdin hauek adibide bezala hartu behar genituzke ez dezagun izan diplomazia bat herriarekin eta gizarte zibilarekin loturarik ez duena.
And we have to go also beyond traditional diplomacy to the survival issue of our times, climate change. How are we going to solve climate change through negotiations, unless we are able to make civil society and people, not part of the problem, but part of the solution? It is going to demand an inclusive process of diplomacy very different from the one we are practicing today as we are heading to new rounds of difficult climate negotiations, but when we move toward something which has to be much more along a broad mobilization. It's crucial to understand, I believe, because of technology and because of globalization, societies from bottom-up.
Eta gainera, joan behar dugu diplomazia tradizionaletik haratago egungo biziraupen arazoetaraino, aldaketa klimatikoraino. Nola konponduko dugu aldaketa klimatikoa negoziaketen bitartez, gizarte zibila eta herria soluzioaren parte egiteko gai ez garen bitartean eta ez arazoaren parte bat, baizik eta soluzioarena? Eskatuko du diplomezia prozesu inklusibo bat egun praktikatzen ari garenaren oso ezberdina klimari buruzko negoziazio zailetarantz gerturatzen ari baikara, baina norabait mugitzen ari garenean mobilizazio zabala baino askoz gehiago izan behar luke. Uste dut erabakigarria dela ulertzea, teknologiarengatik eta globalizazioarengatik, behetik gora eratzen diren gizarteak.
We as diplomats need to know the social capital of communities. What is it that makes people trust each other, not only between states, but also within states? What is the legitimacy of diplomacy, of the the solution we devise as diplomats if they cannot be reflected and understood by also these broader forces of societies that we now very loosely call groups?
Diplomatiko bezala, guk, komunitateen gizarte kapitala ezagutu behar dugu. Zer da petsonen arteko konfidantza eragiten duena, ez bakarrik estatuen artean, baizik eta estatuen barruan ere? Zein da diplomaziaren zilegitasuna diplomatiko bezala burutzen ditugun ebazpenena, ez badira bertan islatzen eta ulertzen gizarteak eratzen dituzten indar ezberdin hauek gaur egun era zabalean "talde" deitzen diegunak?
The good thing is that we are not powerless. We have never had as many means of communication, means of being connected, means of reaching out, means of including. The diplomatic toolbox is actually full of different tools we can use to strengthen our communication. But the problem is that we are coming out of a decade where we had a fear of touching it. Now, I hope, in the coming years, that we are able to demonstrate through some concrete examples that fear is receding and that we can take courage from that alliance with civil society in different countries to support their problem-solving, among the Afghans, inside the Palestinian population, between the peoples of Palestine and Israel.
Alde ona da ez garela indarrik gabeak. Ez ditugu inoiz izan hainbeste komunikatzeko modu, konektatuta egoteko moduak, kanpora heltzeko moduak inklusibo izateko moduak. Diplomatikoaren herraminta kutxa gure komunikazioa indartzeko erabil ditzakegun herraminta ezberdinez beteta dago. Baina arazoa da hamarkada batetik gatozela hau ikutzeko beldurra izan duguna. Orain, espero dut, datozen urteetan zenbait adibide zehatzeko demostratzeko gai garela beldurra desagertzen ari dela eta kuraia har dezakegula elkartasun horretatik gizarte zibilarekin herrialde ezberdinetan beren arazoen ebazpenetan laguntzeko, afganiarren artean, palestinar biztanleriaren barruan, Palestina eta Israelgo herritarren artean.
And as we try to understand this broad movement across the Arab world, we are not powerless. We need to improve the necessary skills, and we need the courage to use them. In my country, I have seen how the council of Islamist groups and Christian groups came together, not as a government initiative, but they came together on their own initiative to establish contact and dialogue in times where things were pretty low-key tension. And when tension increased, they already had that dialogue, and that was a strength to deal with different issues.
Eta mugimendu zabal hau ulertzen saiatzen garen bitartean arabiar munduan gertatzen ari dena ez gara indargabeak. Beharrezko gaitasunak hobetu behar ditugu eta hauek erabiltzeko ausardia behar dugu. Nire herrialdean, ikusi dut talde islamisten batzordea eta talde kristauak nola biltzen ziren, ez gobernuaren ekimen baten ondorioz, baizik eta beren iniziatibaz harremanak egin eta hitz egiteko egoera tentsio aldetik nahiko lasai zegoen garaian. Eta tentsioa areagotu zenean, elkarrizketa hori jada egina zutenez abantaila izan zen zenbait arazo konpontzeko garaian.
Our modern Western societies are more complex than before, in this time of migration. How are we going to settle and build a bigger "We" to deal with our issues if we don't improve our skills of communication? So there are many reasons, and for all of these reasons, this is time and this is why we must talk.
Gure mendebaldeko gizarte modernoak lehen baino konplexuagoak dira, migrazo garai honetan. Nola ezarri eta eraikiko dugu "Gu" handiago bat gure arazoak jorratzeko gure komunikazio gaitasuna ez badugu hobetzen? Beraz, arrazoi asko dago, eta arrazoi guzti horiengatik, hitz egiteko garaia da eta hitz egin behar genuke.
Thank you for your attention.
Eskerrik asko zuen arretagatik.
(Applause)
(Txaloak)