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.
在所有今日世人仍然必需去努力實現的種種令人憂心的缺點之中--- 我們認為金融和經濟是最根本主要的-- 但是我最關心的是 是政治上對話的不足-- 我們有能力應付現今的衝突 實際上就是, 找到事情發生的原因 了解關鍵人物 再和他們打交道。 這就是我們:這些外交官, 我們受過訓練以應付國家之間的衝突及問題 我可以告訴你們,我們的工作滿檔。 工作內容有貿易,有裁減軍備, 有跨界關係。
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.
但是情勢一直在變, 我們看見有新的關鍵人物 一直跟著出現 我們概括稱之為“集團” 他們可能是社會、宗教的代表 政治、經濟、軍事實相 我們為了如何應付他們而奮鬥 交戰規則 怎麼交談,什麼時候交談 以及如何和他們打交道
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.
容我在此放個幻燈片 可以說明衝突的性質 從1946年起一直到今天 就是你看見的綠色部份 是傳統的國家之間的衝突 也是我們習慣看到的 紅色部份是現今的衝突 國家內部的衝突 兩者是完全不同的 連現今的外交 都無法掌握 這些關鍵參與者的核心 就是集團 他們代表著國家內部 不同的利益 他們處理衝突的方式迅速蔓延到其他國家 所以,在某種程度上而言,這是攸關眾人之事
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.
另一件我們這幾年所見印證的事 近幾年 就是極少數的 國內的州際之間、州內的衝突 可以用軍事來解決 他們處理時可能會涉及軍事 但是不能用軍事手段來解決 他們需要用到政治解決方案 而且我們,有個問題 因為他們脫離了傳統外交 所以許多國家 都不願和他們打交道 再加上,過去的10年間 我們一直處於這種模式 就是和集團打交道 在觀念上及政治上都極其危險 911之後 非敵即友 非黑即白 小集團時而有之 很快地就被貼上恐怖份子的標籤 誰要和恐怖份子談話? 西方,就像我看到的 擺脫了虛弱的十年 因為我們對集團不了解 所以我們花了更多的時間 在為什麼我們不應該和別人談話上 比找出我們如何和別人交談還多
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.
現在我不是白癡 你不能一直在和別人交談 有時候你該站起來走出去 所以有時候軍事干預是必要的 我碰巧認為利比亞是必要的 在阿富汗的軍事干預也是必要的 我的國家重視安全感 透過軍事聯盟,這很明顯 但是我們還是有一個很大的落差 在處理和了解現今的衝突上
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.
讓我們再來談談阿富汗 在軍事介入的10年之後 那個國家已很不安全了 這種情況,老實說,非常嚴重 所以現在再說一次,軍事是必要的 但是軍事不是用來解決問題的 當我於2005年以外交部長的身份第一次到阿富汗時 我與駐阿富汗國際安全援助部隊的指揮官碰面 是個國際部隊 他告訴我:這是一支勝算在握的軍隊,部長 我們只需堅持不懈。” 現在換了四位國際救援部隊指揮官之後 我們又聽到了不同的訊息 這不是穩操勝算的軍隊 我們需要軍事存在 但是我們必需移向政治 我們只能透過政治來解決 而且不是我們來解決 必需阿富汗自己來解決 但到那時候他們需要的是個不一樣的政治過程 而不是他們在2001年及2002年所得到的 他們需要的是一種包容性的進程 在那裏,這個相當複雜社會的實際結構 可以處理他們的問題
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.
每個人似乎都同意 3,4,5年前談起來還頗有爭議 現在大家都同意了 但是現在,我們準備談談的是 我們發現我們所知的不多 因為我們不跟人交談 我們不了解到底是怎麼回事 國際紅十字會 和每個人交談 是因為立場中立所以這樣做 這是其中一個原因為什麼 那個機構可能 是消息了解現今衝突 消息最靈通的關鍵人物-- 因為他們與人交談
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.
我的重點是你不是一定要立場中立才與人交談 你也不必贊成對方的觀點 當你和對方一起坐下來時。 你可以一直進行談話 但是如果你不與人交談 你就不能加入對方 而你想加入的對方 是你極度唱反調的一方 拉賓總理說當他參與奧斯陸和平進程時, “你不是和你朋友和平相處, 而是和敵人同床共枕 很難,但是必要
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.
容我再進一步說 這是塔里爾廣場 有場革命將發生 阿拉伯之春的熱火 持續到秋天冬天 會持續很長很長的一段時間 有誰知道它最終將被稱為什麼 這不是重點 重點是我們可能看到 阿拉伯世界歷史上的第一次 一場自下而上的革命 人民的革命 社會集團走上街頭 我們發現在西方 我們對於發生的事所知甚少 因為我們從不和這些國家的人民交談 大部份政府遵守 獨裁主義領導人的命令規定 就是遠離這些各種不同的集團 因為他們曾是恐怖份子 所以現在他們出現在街頭 我們讚揚民主革命 我們發現我們所知竟如此之少
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.
就是現在,討論下去 我們是不是應該和穆斯林弟兄會交談? 我們是不是應該和哈瑪斯交談? 如果我們和他們交談,就是承認他們合法 我覺得這是不對的 如果用正確的方式交談,你非常明白 這樣的交談是不被同意的 而且我們要怎樣才能告訴穆斯林弟兄會? 就像我們應該告訴他們一樣 他們必需尊重少數人的權利 如果我們不接受多數人的權利? 因為他們可能變成多數人 我們怎能避免雙重標準? 如果我們同時宣揚民主 然而 又不想和具有代表性的集團打交道 我們如何永遠做個談話對象? 所以現在教我的外交官被教導 要和所有這樣的集團交談 但是談話有各種不同的方式 我們從外交層面的談話 以及政治層面的談話做個區分 現在談話分成有援助也有沒有援助的 也分成有內容的也有沒有內容的
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.
有一大批 處理這些問題的方式 所以如果我們拒絕 與這些今後幾年將主導新聞 的新集團談話 我們將更激進化 我相信 我們將使這條路從暴力活動進入政治活動 更難以行進 如果我們無法向這些集團證明 如果你向民主妥協 如果你走向參與 國家之間的文明及正常標準 對方會有回報的 這裏有個自相矛盾的議論 就是最後的這十年完全沒有進展 是個失去的十年
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.
而自相矛盾的議論就是十年前到二十年前中間這段時間相當有前景 主要的原因之一 原因就是在南非發生的事 尼爾遜 曼德拉 當曼德拉在27年的牢獄之災之後 從牢裏被放出來的時候 如果他告訴國民 “拿起武器的時候到了, 作戰的時候到了,” 就會有人聽他的話 而且我想國際社會 會說,“很好。 他們有權開戰 現在如你所知,曼德拉並未如此做 在他的回憶錄“漫漫自由路”中 他寫道他活在 牢獄之中的這些年 因為他總是決定將壓迫他的人 也看做是個人 也視為一個人 所以他參與了一個政治對話進程 不是弱者的戰略 而是強者的戰略 而且他從事深入交談 透過解決一些最棘手的問題 憑藉著真相及和解的進程 人們來到這裏而且交談著 現在南非的朋友會知道 那很痛苦
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.
所以我們從這一切中學到了什麼? 對話並不簡單 不管於人與人之間,集團與集團之間,政府與政府之間 它都是非常必要的 如果我們要解決政治上的衝突 如果我們要了解這些新團體 這些事都是從下至上、從細節到總體、從個別到全貌而來的 有科技資助,每個人都會知道 我們做外交官的總不能在宴會時坐在後方 然後就相信我們正在做國際關係 我們必需拉攏 這些深刻改變的關係
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.
而對話的真意為何? 當我和他人交談時 我真誠的希望對方 能抓到我的觀點 我就會讓他們留下深刻的印象 我的意見和我的價值觀 但是我不能做這樣的事 除非我示意我會公開地表示 我一直都會注意你的暗示 我們需要更多如何做到這一點的訓練 以及更多的練習 在如何將解決問題推展開來 我們從自己體驗中知道 它有時候很容易 就只是走出去 有時候卻需要開戰 我不會說在所有情況下那都是件錯事 因為有時候你必需這樣做 但那策略不會花你太多時間 換個方式也是 作戰和有原則對話的策略 而且我相信我們必需鞏固這個方法 在現今的外交上 不只是國與國之間 也是國家內部間
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.
我們看見一些新的跡象 我們永遠無法完成 反對殺傷性地雷的協定 以及禁止大規模軍火彈藥的協定 除非我們完成了不同的外交 透過與民間社會銜接 忽然間 非政府組織不是只站在街頭,為他們的口號哭泣, 而且還將它們帶入協商中 部份因為他們是這些武器犧牲者的代表 而且還帶來了他們的知識 在外交和從下而上的力量之間 互相影響 這可能是改變的 第一個因素 未來,我相信 我們應該從這些不同的實例中找出範例 但不包括外交 因為外交脫離了人民及民間社會
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.
我們也必需 超越傳統外交 來到我們這個時代的生存問題 趨勢的改變 我們如何透過談判來解決趨勢的改變? 除非我們能使民間社會及人民 不是問題的一部份,而是解決方案的一部份。 這就是要求一個外交的包括性的進程 與今日實行的大不相同 因為我們正朝著困難趨勢談判的新一輪邁進 但是當我們接近某件事情的時候 它就應該更加 順著廣泛的調動 了解這一點很重要,我相信 因為科技也因為全球化 從下而上的社會
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?
我們身為外交家 需要了解共同社會的 社會資本 是什麼使得人們互相信任彼此 不只是國與國之間 也是國家內部 什麼是外交的合法性? 什麼是我們身為外交官所制定的解決方案的合法性? 如果合法性不能也透過社會上更廣泛的力量 來反省及了解 我們現在又如何能概括的稱之為團體?
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.
好事是我們並非無能為力 而是我們從來沒有 許多溝通的方法 連結的方法,求助的方法 包括各種方法 外交工具箱 實際上有很多我們可以使用的各種不同的工具 來強化我們彼此間的溝通 但問題是未來的十年裏 很怕用到它 現在,我希望,在來年 我們能夠透過一些具體的範例來證明 恐懼消退 我們可以 從聯盟中 和不同國家中的 公民社會拿出勇氣 去支持他們解決 阿富汗人之間 巴勒斯坦人口之內 在巴勒斯坦和以色列人民之間的問題
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.
而隨著我們試著了解這廣泛的調動時 只要跨越阿拉伯世界 我們就不是毫無力量 我們必需改進必要的技能 我們需要勇氣來使用他們 在我的國家裏 我看到伊斯蘭集團的協調會 及基督教集團 是怎麼一起來的,不是政府提倡的 而是出於自願的一起來 來建立接觸及對話 在事情低調、不緊繃的時機下 當張力增加 他們已經交談過了 那是一種處理不同問題的力量
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.
我們現今西方社會 比以前更複雜 在這個遷移的時代 我們如何解決且建立一個更大的“我們” 來處理我們的問題 如果不改善我們的溝通技巧? 所以有許多原因 而且為了這些原因 是我們為何一定要交談的時機到了 ,也是理由
Thank you for your attention.
謝謝來參加
(Applause)
鼓掌