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.
当今我们与之斗争的所有不足中 大家认为经济和金融缺陷是最紧要的 但最使我担忧的 是政治对话的不足 - 包括我们处理实际上的 现代冲突的能力, 追溯到这些冲突问题本源的能力, 以及理解关键人物, 并与他们沟通的能力。 作为外交家 我们专门处理国家之间的冲突和争议。 我可以告诉大家,我们的日程非常紧张 包括贸易,武装解除, 还有跨界关系。
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.
但是情况在发生变化, 我们看到新的关键人物们 正在参与进来。 我们广泛地称他们为“团体”, 他们可能代表着社会、宗教、 政治、经济、军事实体。 我们在苦苦奋斗着学习怎样和他们打交道。 交涉时特别要注意: 怎样交谈,何时交谈 和怎样应对他们。
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.
让我在这里展示一张幻灯片 它阐述了从1946年至今 所发生的冲突的类型。 你们看到的绿色部分 是传统的国与国之间的冲突 我们以前读到的那种。 红色部分是现代冲突, 属于国家内部的冲突。 它和传统的冲突有很大的不同 而且并非现代外交手段 所能掌控。 其参与者中的核心 是团体 这些团体代表着国内的 不同利益。 而且他们处理冲突的不同方式,会迅速影响到其他国家。 所以在某种程度上,这与每个人都息息相关。
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.
这些年来,我们所学到的另一个教训就是, 近年来, 很少有 国家内部的冲突 能够通过军事解决。 军事手段有时是必须的, 但却治标不治本。 它们需要政治方案的介入。 所以这里我们有个难题, 那就是这些团体脱离了传统外交的范畴。 而且各个国家 普遍不愿意和他们打交道。 再加上,在过去的十年中, 我们一直处于紧张状态 在和一些概念上和政治上 的恐怖团体打交道。 9·11后, 非友即敌。 黑白分明。 一些团体常常 被武断地贴上恐怖分子的标签。 而谁愿意和恐怖分子谈? 如我所知,西方国家 在近十年大大衰弱, 有很大的原因是因为我们不了解这些团体。 我们花了大量时间 研究我们为什么不和他们对话 而不是怎样和他们对话。
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.
当然,我也不天真。 在对话中你不能一直和人谈。 有时你应该起身离开。 并有时军事干预是必要的。 我认为对利比亚军事干预是必要的 而且对阿富汗的军事干预也是必要的。 我的国家通过军事联盟 保障了安全,这显而易见。 但是我们在理解解决现代冲突方面 仍有很多不足。
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.
让我们看看阿富汗。 那次军事干预的十年后, 这个国家依旧动荡不安。 说实话,那里的情况非常严峻, 需要再一次的军事干预, 但是军事并不能解决问题。 2005年,当我以外交部长的身份去过阿富汗, 我见到了ISAF(国际安全援助部队) 的总指挥。 他告诉我,"军事手段可以克敌制胜,部长。“ “我们只不过需要坚持一下。" 现在,在更换了四位总指挥后, 我们听到了不同意见: ”单靠军事无法胜利。 我们需要军事干预, 但也需求助于政治活动。 我们只有通过政治方案才能彻底解决问题。 而且解铃还须系铃人; 阿富汗人必须自己解决。“ 但是他们需要一个不同于2011,2002年 的政治进程。 他们需要一个包容的进程 一个能使这个复杂社会的基层群众 解决他们的问题的进程。
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.
每个人都好像同意这个观点。 三、四、五年前,这个观点还非常有争议。 现在每个人都同意了。 但是现在,当我们准备对话时, 我们发现自己所知甚少。 因为我们太久不对话了。 我们之前没有意识到它的重要性。 国际红十字会(ICRC) 与每个人都对话, 它这样做是因为它是中立机构。 这也是为什么 红十字会可能是 国际冲突中 最消息灵通的角色 因为他们敢于去对话。
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.
我的观点是中立并非对话的必要条件。 并且,当你坐下来对话时 你不必同意对方的观点。 你随时可以走开。 但如果你不谈 你将无法与对方交流。 而你准备与之交流的对方 却恰恰有着你最不认同的观点。 以色利前总理拉宾在参与奥斯陆协议时,曾说过, “你无法与朋友共创和平, 只能与敌人握手言和。“ 这很艰难,但却非常必要。
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.
让我们再进一步看。 这是里尔广场。 这里正在进行一场革命。 阿拉伯之春进入秋季 并走向寒冬。 这将持续很长很长一段时间。 又有谁能预知结果。 这不是重点。 重点是我们可能在见证, 阿拉伯世界在有史以来 第一次爆发由下而上的革命; 人民的革命。 社会团体纷纷走上街头。 然而西方国家却发现 我们对这些知之甚少。 因为我们从不与这些国家的人民们对话。 大多数西方政府服从 权威领导的指示, 把这些不同的团体当做恐怖分子, 和他们保持距离。 所以现在当他们走上街头时 我们除了向民主革命致敬外爱莫能助, 因为我们所知甚少。
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.
现在,讨论变成了, “我们真的应该与穆斯林兄弟会对话吗? 与哈马斯对话? 如果对话,我们可能使其合法化。“ 我认为这是错误观点 如果你以正确的方式对话,你将明白 对话并不等同于赞成。 穆斯林兄弟会可能是多数派 如果我们不和他们谈判 就是不尊重多数人的权利, 那我们有义务,但又有什么脸面去告诉穆斯林兄弟会, 他们必须尊重少数人的权利? 我们又怎能只许州官放火,不许百姓点灯, 一边宣扬民主, 一边 不愿和有代表性的团体打交道? 我们又怎能做好对话者? 现在我的外交官们被指示 必须与这些团体对话。 但是对话可以采取不同的形式。 我们把对话区分为外交层面的 和政治层面的 对话既可以伴随着援助,也可以无援助 对话可以达成协议,也可以不达成协议
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.
处理对话 有很多种方式。 但如果我们拒绝 与即将登上舞台的新兴团体 展开对话, 我们将日趋偏激, 我认为如此。 我们将使暴力运动一发不可收拾 政治公平更难践行 我们将很难向这些团体展示 如果你们为民主而努力, 共同参与 建立文明的合理的国家制度, 你们将另有收获。 然而 过去的十年,我们在这一方面 做得十分失败
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.
可是,这失败的十年之前的十年里,世界因为一个原因 而充满了希望 这个原因发生于南非: 纳尔逊·曼德拉身上。 当曼德拉在被关押27年后 出狱时, 如果他告诉人们, “是时候拿起武器了, 是时候起来反抗了。” 那将振臂一呼,应者云集。 我想国际社会也会说 “很公平, 他们有反抗的权利。” 如你所知,曼德拉并没有那么做。 在他的回忆录《漫漫自由路》里 他写道他之所以 能够在多年监禁中存活下来 是因为他一直把他的压迫者也看作 同是人类的一份子。 同是人类的一份子。 然后他促成了政治对话 这并非软弱 而是另一种勇敢 他进行了深刻的对话 通过与参与者 真诚而和谐的对话 解决了最棘手的问题 南非朋友们应该知道 这有多么艰难
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.
那么,我们可以从中学到什么? 对话并不简单 个体之间,团体之间,政府之间的对话都很难 但却十分必要 如果我们想通过政治手段解决冲突, 如果我们想了解这些新团体 这些自下而上的团体, 拜科技所赐,这并非难事, 我们外交家不能流连于高级宴会中 自欺欺人地以为自己在处理国际关系。 我们必须接触 这些深刻的变化。
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.
对话的本质究竟是什么? 当我进行对话时, 我由衷希望对方 能够认同我的观点, 我要用自己的观点和价值观 打动他们 除非我对对方的观点表现出 倾听的态度 否则,我将无法达成目的。 我们需要大量的训练和实践 来学习怎样达成上述目标 和怎样促成问题的解决。 从个人经历出发 我们知道谈判中 有时需要起身离开, 有时需要据理力争。 我不会一概地否定这些策略。 有时你必须如此。 但这些策略帮助不大。 真正有用的策略是 使对话更加有原则有保障。 我认为在现代外交中 要加强这一方面, 无论是国家之间, 还是在国家内部。
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.
我们看到了许多新的迹象。 如果文明社会 不采取新的外交手段 我们永远都 无法看到反地雷运动 无法达成《集束弹药公约》 突然之间, 非政府组织不再仅仅站在街头,高呼口号, 而是投入到沟通交流中, 因为他们代表了这些武器的受害者。 而且他们利用了自己的知识。 在外交和底层力量之间 有一个互动。 这也许是变革发生的 第一要素。 我认为,在未来 我们将从这些例子中学到更多, 拥有不再脱离人民和社会的 崭新外交。
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.
在面对当今时代 人类生死攸关的议题 ——气候变化时, 我们也要超越传统外交。 如果我们相互推 而不承担自己应尽的义务, 又怎能通过交流解决气候问题? 在进行新的,更艰难的气候谈判时 我们需要不同于现在践行的 更加包容的外交程序 此时我们需要动员 更广泛的力量 去达成某个目标。 我认为,理解至关重要。 因为科技,因为全球化 和由下而上的社会团体的力量。
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?
作为外交家 我们需要了解社会团体 的社会资本。 究竟是什么让国与国之间, 以及国内的人们之间, 彼此信任? 如果外交家设计的解决方案 不能被更广泛的社会力量 也就是我们泛称的”组织“ 所理解和认同, 我们又怎能使外交更加合理?
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.
好在我们并非无能为力。 我们有着前所未有的 交流方式、 联系手段、沟通途径、 和包容方式。 "外交工具箱"中 放满了可用的工具 来加强我们的交流。 但问题在于,9·11后近十年来 我们对沟通充满恐惧 现在,我希望接下来的日子里 我们能通过实际行动显示 恐惧已离我们而去 而我们能够从各个国家 从文明社会 的联盟中 汲取勇气 来支持各国解决冲突 让阿富汗人内部, 巴勒斯坦人内部, 和以色列与巴勒斯坦之间,都能化干戈为玉帛。
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.
当我们试图理解阿拉伯世界 的大变迁时, 我们并非无能为力。 我们需要改善交流技巧, 更需要对话的勇气。 在我的国家, 我曾见过伊斯兰教团体 和基督教团体 走到一起,并非政府促成, 而是出于自发行为, 在稍有摩擦时, 他们就主动通过对话达成一致。 当冲突升级时, 他们已有之前的对话, 这成为了重要的协调力量。
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.
我们现代的西方社会 因为移民热潮 而变得更加复杂多元 如果不改善交流技巧我们又怎能 建立一个和谐包容的“大家庭” 去解决争议? 以上是我们进行对话的原因 也正是这些原因 使对话毋庸置疑,刻不容缓。
Thank you for your attention.
谢谢大家的关注
(Applause)
掌声