There's a poem written by a very famous English poet at the end of the 19th century. It was said to echo in Churchill's brain in the 1930s. And the poem goes: "On the idle hill of summer, lazy with the flow of streams, hark I hear a distant drummer, drumming like a sound in dreams, far and near and low and louder on the roads of earth go by, dear to friend and food to powder, soldiers marching, soon to die." Those who are interested in poetry, the poem is "A Shropshire Lad" written by A.E. Housman.
Oso poeta ingeles ospetsu baten poema batean XIX. mendearen amaieran idatzita, Churchill-i eragin egin ziona 1930eko hamarkadan. Eta poemak horrela dio: "Udaren muino barean, erreken ubideen nagian, urrunean danborra entzuten dut, ametsetako zurrumurrua bezala adarra jotzen. Urrun eta gertu, ezti eta ozen, lurreko bideetatik doaz, lagunentzako maitaleak eta hautsetarako elikagai, soldaduak badoaz, laster hil egitera." Poesia interesatzen zaienei, poema "Shropshire-ren gizona" deitzen da, A.E. Housman-ek idatzia.
But what Housman understood, and you hear it in the symphonies of Nielsen too, was that the long, hot, silvan summers of stability of the 19th century were coming to a close, and that we were about to move into one of those terrifying periods of history when power changes. And these are always periods, ladies and gentlemen, accompanied by turbulence, and all too often by blood.
Hots, Housman-ek ulertu zuena, eta Nielsen-en sinfonietan ere entzun daitekeena, uda luzeak, beroak eta basatiak XIX. mendearenak, egonkortasunez beteta amaitzear zeudela, eta gizakiok denboraldi historiko ikaragarri batera abiatu ginela, botereak aldatzen duenean gertatzen diren horietako bat. Eta denboraldi horiek, jaun-andreak, nahasteekin batera doaz, eta maiz, odolekin ere bai.
And my message for you is that I believe we are condemned, if you like, to live at just one of those moments in history when the gimbals upon which the established order of power is beginning to change and the new look of the world, the new powers that exist in the world, are beginning to take form. And these are -- and we see it very clearly today -- nearly always highly turbulent times, highly difficult times, and all too often very bloody times. By the way, it happens about once every century.
Eta nire mezua da behartuta gaudela, nahi baduzue, denboraldi historiko horien batean bizitzera, boterearen ezarritako ordenaren nahaste-borrastea aldatzen hasiko denean eta munduaren itxura berria, non munduan dauden botere berriak hasiko dira osatzen. Eta oso argi ikusten dugu gaur egun; nahaste handiko denboraldiak dira gaurkoak eta askotan, baita odoltsuak ere. Hala ere, hori mendean behin gertatzen da.
You might argue that the last time it happened -- and that's what Housman felt coming and what Churchill felt too -- was that when power passed from the old nations, the old powers of Europe, across the Atlantic to the new emerging power of the United States of America -- the beginning of the American century. And of course, into the vacuum where the too-old European powers used to be were played the two bloody catastrophes of the last century -- the one in the first part and the one in the second part: the two great World Wars. Mao Zedong used to refer to them as the European civil wars, and it's probably a more accurate way of describing them.
Baiezta litezke hori zen gertatu zena eta Housman-ek eta Churchill-ek susmatu zuten ideia zen nazio zaharren boterea, Europako nazio zaharrena, agertzen ari diren potentzia berrira, Atlantikoz bestalde, eraman zen Estatu Batuetakoa, mende estatubatuarren hasiera. Eta jakina, botere europar zaharrek utzitako hutsunean bi hondamen odoltsuak garatu ziren azkeneko mendekoak, hain zuzen ere. Lehenengoa mendearen lehenengo zatian, eta beste bat bigarren zatian: bi mundu gerra handiak. Mao Zedong-ek horrela deskribatzen dira: Europako gerra zibilak, eta segur aski deskribapen onena da.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, we live at one of those times. But for us, I want to talk about three factors today. And the first of these, the first two of these, is about a shift in power. And the second is about some new dimension which I want to refer to, which has never quite happened in the way it's happening now. But let's talk about the shifts of power that are occurring to the world. And what is happening today is, in one sense, frightening because it's never happened before. We have seen lateral shifts of power -- the power of Greece passed to Rome and the power shifts that occurred during the European civilizations -- but we are seeing something slightly different. For power is not just moving laterally from nation to nation. It's also moving vertically.
Orduan, jaun-andreak denboraldi horien batean bizi izaten gara. Baina gure kasuan, 3 faktore azaldu nahi ditut. Eta horietako lehenengoa, lehenengo biek, boterearen lekualdatzea adierazten dute, eta besteak, nik adierazi nahi dudan dimentsio berria, ez delako inoiz gertatzen gaurko moduan. Baina hitz dezagun munduan gertatzen ari den boterearen lekualdatzeari buruz. Eta gaur egun gertatzen dena da nolabait esanda, ikaragarria, lehen ez zelako inoiz gertatuko. Boterearen alboko lekualdatzeak ikusi ditugu, Greziak Erromari eraman zion boterea, eta gertatutakoak Europako zibilizazioetan zehar; baina gaur egun ikusten duguna pixka bat desberdina da. Hots, boterea ez da albo-mugimendurik egiten, hau da, nazio batetik bestera baizik eta, berak modu bertikalean ere egiten du.
What's happening today is that the power that was encased, held to accountability, held to the rule of law, within the institution of the nation state has now migrated in very large measure onto the global stage. The globalization of power -- we talk about the globalization of markets, but actually it's the globalization of real power. And where, at the nation state level that power is held to accountability subject to the rule of law, on the international stage it is not. The international stage and the global stage where power now resides: the power of the Internet, the power of the satellite broadcasters, the power of the money changers -- this vast money-go-round that circulates now 32 times the amount of money necessary for the trade it's supposed to be there to finance -- the money changers, if you like, the financial speculators that have brought us all to our knees quite recently, the power of the multinational corporations now developing budgets often bigger than medium-sized countries. These live in a global space which is largely unregulated, not subject to the rule of law, and in which people may act free of constraint.
Gaur egun, gordetako botereak, erantzukizunak eta zuzenbidezko estatuak zuzentzen dute boterea, Estatu-nazioaren instituzioaren barruan migratu egin du, neurri handi batean, mundu mailako eszenatokira. Boterearen globalizazioa, merkatuen globalizazioari buruz hitz egiten ari gara, baina, egia esan, egiazko boterearen globalizazioa da. Eta Estatu-nazioaren eremuan botereak erantzukizuna dauka zuzenbidezko estatuari lotuta, baina ez da horrela mundu mailako eremuan. Mundu mailako eremuan eta eszenatokian, gaur boterea bizi izaten da: Internet boterea, satelite bidezko irrati-enpresen boterea, diru-trukatzaileen boterea, mugitzen ari den diru kantitate handi hori merkataritzarako behar dena baino 32 aldiz handiagoa da eta han dago diru-trukatzaileei finantzatzeko, nahi baduzue, finantza-espekulatzaileei, arestian belauniko jarri digutenei, enpresa multinazionalen boterea, enpresa horiek aurrekontuak garatzen dituzte eta maiz tamaina erdiko herrienak baino handiagoak dira. Enpresa horiek mundu mailako eremuan bizi dira, eta eremu hori, hein handi batean, ez dago araututa ezta zuzenbidezko estatuari lotuta ere, non pertsonek aske aritu dezaketen.
Now that suits the powerful up to a moment. It's always suitable for those who have the most power to operate in spaces without constraint, but the lesson of history is that, sooner or later, unregulated space -- space not subject to the rule of law -- becomes populated, not just by the things you wanted -- international trade, the Internet, etc. -- but also by the things you don't want -- international criminality, international terrorism. The revelation of 9/11 is that even if you are the most powerful nation on earth, nevertheless, those who inhabit that space can attack you even in your most iconic of cities one bright September morning. It's said that something like 60 percent of the four million dollars that was taken to fund 9/11 actually passed through the institutions of the Twin Towers which 9/11 destroyed. You see, our enemies also use this space -- the space of mass travel, the Internet, satellite broadcasters -- to be able to get around their poison, which is about destroying our systems and our ways.
Egoera horrek komeni dio boteretsuari orain arte. Oso egokia da boteretsuentzat murrizte gabeko eremuetan aritzea, baina historiaren ikasgaia da, lehenago edo beranduago, ez araututako eremua, zuzenbidezko estatuari lotuta ez dagoen eremua, nahiago ditugun gauzez bete ez ezik: nazioarteko merkataritza, Internet eta abar; baita nahiago ez ditugunekin ere: nazioarteko delinkuentzia, nazioarteko terrorismoa, Irailaren 11ren frogapena da Lurraren nazio boteretsuena izan arren, halere, eremu horretan bizi direnek eraso diezaiokete AEBei, baita hiriaren ikono handienak ere, irailaren goiz distiratsu batean. Irailaren 11 finantzatzeko 4 milioi dolarren %60 inguru Dorre Bikien instituzio beraiek finantzatu zuten kantitate hori erasoa aurrera eramateko. Honela, gure etsaiek eremu hori erabiltzen dute, denak baterako bidaien eremua, Internetena, satelite bidezko irrati enpresena, euren pozoia areagotzeko, hots, gure sistemak eta ohiturak suntsitzeko.
Sooner or later, sooner or later, the rule of history is that where power goes governance must follow. And if it is therefore the case, as I believe it is, that one of the phenomenon of our time is the globalization of power, then it follows that one of the challenges of our time is to bring governance to the global space. And I believe that the decades ahead of us now will be to a greater or lesser extent turbulent the more or less we are able to achieve that aim: to bring governance to the global space.
Lehenago edo beranduago, lehenago edo beranduago, historiaren arauak dio hara non boterea doan, gobernua bere atzetik. Eta horrela bada, eta ontzat ematen dut, gure garaiaren fenomeno inportantenetariko bat boterearen globalizazioa da, orduan gure garaiko erronka handienetariko bat ondoriozta dezakegu, hau da, mundu mailako eremura gobernaketa eramatea. Eta uste dut datorren hamarkadak neurri batean, zurrunbilotsuak izango direla, gutxi gorabehera helburua lortuko dugu, hau da, mundu mailako eremura gobernaketa eramatea.
Now notice, I'm not talking about government. I'm not talking about setting up some global democratic institution. My own view, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, is that this is unlikely to be done by spawning more U.N. institutions. If we didn't have the U.N., we'd have to invent it. The world needs an international forum. It needs a means by which you can legitimize international action. But when it comes to governance of the global space, my guess is this won't happen through the creation of more U.N. institutions. It will actually happen by the powerful coming together and making treaty-based systems, treaty-based agreements, to govern that global space.
Baina kontuan hartu behar duzue gobernuari buruz hitz egiten ez dudala. Ez dut esan nahi mundu mailako instituzio demokratikoa ezartzea. Nire ikuspuntua, jaun-andreak, hau nekez sinestekoa da gertatzeko NBen instituzioen ugalketaren bidez. NBa ez bagenu, asmatu beharko genuke. Munduak nazioarteko foroa behar du. Nazioarteko ekintzak egiaztatzeko baliabide bat beharrezkoa da. Baina mundu mailako eremuaren gobernaketari buruz hitz egiten dugunean, nire ustez hau ez da gertatuko NBen instituzioen ugalketaren bidez. Baizik eta boterearen batasunaren zehar eta hitzarmenez oinarritutako sistemen zehar, akordioetan, mundu mailako eremua zuzentzeko.
And if you look, you can see them happening, already beginning to emerge. The World Trade Organization: treaty-based organization, entirely treaty-based, and yet, powerful enough to hold even the most powerful, the United States, to account if necessary. Kyoto: the beginnings of struggling to create a treaty-based organization. The G20: we know now that we have to put together an institution which is capable of bringing governance to that financial space for financial speculation. And that's what the G20 is, a treaty-based institution.
Eta arretaz bazaudete, gertatzen ari denaren ideia eskuratuko duzue. Munduko Merkataritza Antolakundea: hitzarmenez oinarritutako antolakundea, zeharo hitzarmenez oinarritutakoa, eta hala ere, boteretsuena (EEBB) geldiarazteko gai izatea, argibideak eskatzen, beharrezkoa bada. Kyoto: borrokaren hasiera da sortzeko hitzarmenez oinarritutako antolakundea. G-20a: jakin badakigu instituzio berri bat martxan jarri behar dugula gobernaketa eskaintzeko finantza-eremu horri finantza-espekulazioarentzat. Eta hori da G-20a, hitzarmenez oinarritutako antolakundea.
Now there's a problem there, and we'll come back to it in a minute, which is that if you bring the most powerful together to make the rules in treaty-based institutions, to fill that governance space, then what happens to the weak who are left out? And that's a big problem, and we'll return to it in just a second.
Baina arazo bat dago han, eta minutu batean berriro hartuko dut, hau da, boteretsuenak biltzen badira hitzarmenez oinarritutako instituzioen arauak sortzeko eremu hori gobernaketaz betetzeko, zer gertatzen da kanpoan geratzen diren ahulekin? Eta hori arazo galanta da, eta segundu batean berriro hartuko dut.
So there's my first message, that if you are to pass through these turbulent times more or less turbulently, then our success in doing that will in large measure depend on our capacity to bring sensible governance to the global space. And watch that beginning to happen. My second point is, and I know I don't have to talk to an audience like this about such a thing, but power is not just shifting vertically, it's also shifting horizontally.
Orduan hau da nire lehenengo mezua, denboraldi zurrunbilotsu hau zeharkatu nahi badugu, gutxi gorabehera zurrunbilotsuak, orduan, gure arrakasta egongo da, hein handi batean, gure ahalmenarena gobernaketa nabarmena eramateko mundu mailako eremura. Eta konprobatzea zer gertatuko den. Nire bigarren puntua badakit ez diot horretaz hitz egin behar hau bezalako entzuleriari, baina botereak ez du soilik aldatzen modu bertikalean, baita modu horizontalean ere.
You might argue that the story, the history of civilizations, has been civilizations gathered around seas -- with the first ones around the Mediterranean, the more recent ones in the ascendents of Western power around the Atlantic. Well it seems to me that we're now seeing a fundamental shift of power, broadly speaking, away from nations gathered around the Atlantic [seaboard] to the nations gathered around the Pacific rim. Now that begins with economic power, but that's the way it always begins. You already begin to see the development of foreign policies, the augmentation of military budgets occurring in the other growing powers in the world. I think actually this is not so much a shift from the West to the East; something different is happening.
Zuek argudioak eman zenitzakete historiari buruz, zibilizazioen historiari buruz, gehienek itsasoen inguruan bildutako zibilizazioak izan dira, lehenengoak Meditarraneo itsasoaren inguruan, gertatu berrienak, Mendebaldearen goranzko boterean, Atlantikoaren inguruan. Eta nire ustez, orokorrean, boterearen funtsezko aldaketa ikusten ari gara, Atlantikoaren eta kostaldearen inguruan bildutako nazio hartatik, Ozeano Barearen arroaren inguruan bildutakoetara. Eta prozesu hori botere ekonomikoarekin hasten da, baina horrela hasten da beti. Atzerri-politikaren garapena ikusten hasi egiten dugu, armada-aurrekontuen gorakada munduaren goraldian botereen artean. Eta benetan sinesten dut hori Mendebaldetik Ekialdera aldaketa ez dela: zerbait desberdin suertatzen ari da.
My guess is, for what it's worth, is that the United States will remain the most powerful nation on earth for the next 10 years, 15, but the context in which she holds her power has now radically altered; it has radically changed. We are coming out of 50 years, most unusual years, of history in which we have had a totally mono-polar world, in which every compass needle for or against has to be referenced by its position to Washington -- a world bestrode by a single colossus. But that's not a usual case in history. In fact, what's now emerging is the much more normal case of history. You're beginning to see the emergence of a multi-polar world.
Nire iritzian EEBBek jarraituko dute izaten Lurraren nazio boteretsuena hurrengo 10 edo 15 urteotan, baina bere boterearen testuingurua zeharo aldatu egin da. Azkenengo 50 urtetatik irten ari gara, historiaren ezohizko denboraldia, non polobakarreko mundua zegoen, non iparorratzaren orratz bakoitza, alde edo kontra, Washington-en loturarekiko aipatzen zen, koloso bakarreko batek mundu menderatua. Baina hori ez da arrunta Historian. Izan ere, gaur egun sortzen ari dena normalena da Historiaren osoan zehar. Mundu multipolarraren agertzea ikusten ari gara.
Up until now, the United States has been the dominant feature of our world. They will remain the most powerful nation, but they will be the most powerful nation in an increasingly multi-polar world. And you begin to see the alternative centers of power building up -- in China, of course, though my own guess is that China's ascent to greatness is not smooth. It's going to be quite grumpy as China begins to democratize her society after liberalizing her economy. But that's a subject of a different discussion. You see India, you see Brazil. You see increasingly that the world now looks actually, for us Europeans, much more like Europe in the 19th century.
Orain arte, EEBBak gure munduaren fakzio boteretsuena izan dira. Haiek jarraituko dute nazio boteretsuena izaten, baina horrela izango da gero eta mundu multipolar handiago batean. Eta beste botere-gune batzuk hasi dira eraikitzen, Txina, jakina: baina nire ustez Txinaren goraldia handitasunera ez da otzan izango. baizik eta zakarra, Txina bere gizartea demokratizatzen den heinean, bere ekonomia liberalizatu eta gero. Baina hori beste eztabaida mota bat da. Ikus ezazue India, Brasil. Mundu horrek europarrok ezagutu genuenaren antza du, XIX. mendearen Europa.
Europe in the 19th century: a great British foreign secretary, Lord Canning, used to describe it as the "European concert of powers." There was a balance, a five-sided balance. Britain always played to the balance. If Paris got together with Berlin, Britain got together with Vienna and Rome to provide a counterbalance. Now notice, in a period which is dominated by a mono-polar world, you have fixed alliances -- NATO, the Warsaw Pact. A fixed polarity of power means fixed alliances. But a multiple polarity of power means shifting and changing alliances. And that's the world we're coming into, in which we will increasingly see that our alliances are not fixed. Canning, the great British foreign secretary once said, "Britain has a common interest, but no common allies." And we will see increasingly that even we in the West will reach out, have to reach out, beyond the cozy circle of the Atlantic powers to make alliances with others if we want to get things done in the world.
XIX. mendearen Europa: Lord Canning-ek, kanpo harremanen idazkari handi britaniarra, "Botere Europarren Kontzertua" aipatu zuen. Bost alditako oreka zegoen. Britain Handia beti orekaren bila zihoan. Paris-ek Berlin-ekin biltzen bazuen, Britain Handiak Viena-rekin eta Roma-rekin biltzen zituen kontrapisua sortzeko. Orain nabari dute, polobakarreko mundu batek menderatzeko eremua batean aliantza finko daudela: OTAN, Varsoviako Ituna. Botere-polaritate finkoak esan nahi ditu aliantza finkoak. Baina botere-polaritate anitzak esan nahi ditu aldaketa eta aliantza aldakorrak. Eta mundu horretara goaz non gero eta gehiago ikusiko dugun gure aliantzak ez direla finko. Canning-ek, kanpo harremanen idazkari handi britaniarrak behin esan zuen: "Britania Handiak badu amankomuneko interesa, baina ez du amankomuneko aliaturik". Eta gero eta gehiago ikusiko dugu guk geuk, Mendebaldean ere, lortu behar izango dugula besteekin aliantzak egitea, Atlantikoko botereen elkarte atseginez bestalde batez ere, zerbait egin nahi badugu munduan.
Note, that when we went into Libya, it was not good enough for the West to do it alone; we had to bring others in. We had to bring, in this case, the Arab League in. My guess is Iraq and Afghanistan are the last times when the West has tried to do it themselves, and we haven't succeeded. My guess is that we're reaching the beginning of the end of 400 years -- I say 400 years because it's the end of the Ottoman Empire -- of the hegemony of Western power, Western institutions and Western values. You know, up until now, if the West got its act together, it could propose and dispose in every corner of the world. But that's no longer true. Take the last financial crisis after the Second World War. The West got together -- the Bretton Woods Institution, World Bank, International Monetary Fund -- the problem solved. Now we have to call in others. Now we have to create the G20. Now we have to reach beyond the cozy circle of our Western friends.
Begira ezazue Libian sartu ginenean, ez zen nahikorik Mendebaldeentzat bakarrik egitea; beste batzuk ekarri behar genituen. gertaera honetan Arabiar Estatuen Liga ekarri behar genuen. Nire ustez, Irak eta Afganistan izan dira azkenengo adibidea non Mendebaldea bakarrik egitea saiatu zen, eta ez genuen lortu. Nire hipotesia da 400 urtetako amaieraren hasierara heltzear gaudela. Eta 400 urte aipatzen dut, Otomandar Inperioaren amaiera delako, Mendebaldeko boterearen lehentasunarena, Mendebaldeko baloreen eta instituzioenak. Eta jakin badakizue, orain arte, Mendebaldeak elkarrekin aritu bazuen, proposa eta agindu zezakeen munduaren edozein txokotan, hori ez da jadanik egia. Begira ezazue azkenengo finantza-krisia, 2. Mundu Gerra amaitu ostean. Mendebaldea lotu zen Bretton Woods-en instituzioarekin, Nazioarteko Diru Funtsa, eta horrela arazoa konpondu zen. Orain beste herri batzuk deitzea komenigarria da. Orain beharrezkoa da G-20a sortzea. Orain gure lagun mendebaldarren elkarte atseginez bestalde joan behar dugu.
Let me make a prediction for you, which is probably even more startling. I suspect we are now reaching the end of 400 years when Western power was enough. People say to me, "The Chinese, of course, they'll never get themselves involved in peace-making, multilateral peace-making around the world." Oh yes? Why not? How many Chinese troops are serving under the blue beret, serving under the blue flag, serving under the U.N. command in the world today? 3,700. How many Americans? 11. What is the largest naval contingent tackling the issue of Somali pirates? The Chinese naval contingent. Of course they are, they are a mercantilist nation. They want to keep the sea lanes open. Increasingly, we are going to have to do business with people with whom we do not share values, but with whom, for the moment, we share common interests. It's a whole new different way of looking at the world that is now emerging.
Eman baimena iragarpena egiteko zein are harrigarriagoa den. 400 urtetako amaierara heltzen ari garela susmatzen dut non Mendebaldeko boterea nahikorik zen. Pertsonek esaten didate: "Txinatarrek, jakina, ez dute inoiz parte hartuko munduaren inguruko baketze aldeaniztuan". Ah, bai? Zergatik ez? Zenbat soldadu txinatarrak daude gaur egun kasko urdinen zerbitzuetara, ikur urdinarena, NBaren menpean? 3,700. Zenbat estatubatuarrak? 11. Zein da itsasontzi-kuota handiena Somaliako itsas-piraten kontrako arazoa aurka egiteko? Txinako itsasontzi-kuota. Bai jakina, Txina nazio merkantilista da. Haiek itsas-bideak zabalik mantendu nahi dituzte. Gero eta negozio gehiago egin behar izango ditugu balorerik partekatzen ez ditugun pertsonekin, nahiz eta interes berdinak partekatu. Orain sortzen ari den munduaren ikuspegi guztiz ezberdina da.
And here's the third factor, which is totally different. Today in our modern world, because of the Internet, because of the kinds of things people have been talking about here, everything is connected to everything. We are now interdependent. We are now interlocked, as nations, as individuals, in a way which has never been the case before, never been the case before. The interrelationship of nations, well it's always existed. Diplomacy is about managing the interrelationship of nations. But now we are intimately locked together. You get swine flu in Mexico, it's a problem for Charles de Gaulle Airport 24 hours later. Lehman Brothers goes down, the whole lot collapses. There are fires in the steppes of Russia, food riots in Africa.
Eta hirugarren faktorea, guztiz ezberdina da. Gaur egun gure munduan, Interneten dela eta, eta han jorratutako gaiak direla eta, dena elkarrekin lotuta dago. elkarrekin menpekoak gara. Elkarrekin lotuta gaude, nazio gisa, gizaki gisa, inoiz gertatu ez den heinean; inoiz ez. Nazioen elkarrekiko lotura, beti zegoen. Nazioen elkarrekiko loturaren kudeaketa da diplomazia. Baina orain guztiz elkarrekin lotuta gaude. Mexikon txerri-gripea kutsatzen baduzue, Pariseko Charles de Gaulle aireporturako arazo galanta izango da 24 ordu eta gero. Lehman Brothers-ek porrot egiten badu, dena kolapsatu. Rusiako estepetan suteak daude, Afrikan gosete-matxinadak.
We are all now deeply, deeply, deeply interconnected. And what that means is the idea of a nation state acting alone, not connected with others, not working with others, is no longer a viable proposition. Because the actions of a nation state are neither confined to itself, nor is it sufficient for the nation state itself to control its own territory, because the effects outside the nation state are now beginning to affect what happens inside them.
Guztiz elkarrekin lotuta gaude. Eta horrek esan nahi du nazio bakar baten ideia beste nazioekin elkarrekiko loturarik gabe, beste nazioekin lan egin gabe, ez da proposamen bideragarri inoiz ere. Zeren Estatu-nazio baten ekintzak ez dira bere existentzian murrizten, ez da beharrezkoa Estatu-nazioarentzat bere lurraldea kontrolatzea, Estatu-nazioaren kanpoko efektuek eragiten dute bere baitan.
I was a young soldier in the last of the small empire wars of Britain. At that time, the defense of my country was about one thing and one thing only: how strong was our army, how strong was our air force, how strong was our navy and how strong were our allies. That was when the enemy was outside the walls. Now the enemy is inside the walls. Now if I want to talk about the defense of my country, I have to speak to the Minister of Health because pandemic disease is a threat to my security, I have to speak to the Minister of Agriculture because food security is a threat to my security, I have to speak to the Minister of Industry because the fragility of our hi-tech infrastructure is now a point of attack for our enemies -- as we see from cyber warfare -- I have to speak to the Minister of Home Affairs because who has entered my country, who lives in that terraced house in that inner city has a direct effect on what happens in my country -- as we in London saw in the 7/7 bombings. It's no longer the case that the security of a country is simply a matter for its soldiers and its ministry of defense. It's its capacity to lock together its institutions.
Ni soldadu gaztea nintzen azkenengo gerra inperial britaniarren bitartean. Garai hartan, nire herriaren defentsa oinarritzen zen gure armadaren boterean, gure aireko indarran, gure itsas armadan eta gure aliatuetan. Garai hartan etsaia harresien kanpo zegoen. Orain etsaia barruan dago. Orain, nire herriaren defentsari buruz hitz egin nahi izango banu, Osasun ministroarekin hitz egin behar dut, gaixo pandemikoak nire segurtasunerako mehatxua direlako. Nekazaritza ministroarekin hitz egin behar dut, elikagai-segurtasuna nire segurtasunerako mehatxua delako. Baita Industria ministroarekin ere, goi mailako teknologiaren gure azpiegituraren hauskortasuna, gure etsaien itua delako, gerra zibernetikoetan ikusten den bezala. Barne ministroekin hitz egin behar dut, zeren nire herrira sartu zen pertsona, auzo bazterrekoen etxe elkarri atxiki horretan bizi den pertsona (haiek) nire herrian gertatutakoekin badituen ondorio zuzena, Londres-eko Uztailaren 7ko erasoetan ikusi genuen bezala. Orain herri baten segurtasunak ez du zerikusirik soldaduekin ezta Defentsa ministroekin ere. Baizik eta instituzioak estutzeko eta bateratzeko ahalmenarekin.
And this tells you something very important. It tells you that, in fact, our governments, vertically constructed, constructed on the economic model of the Industrial Revolution -- vertical hierarchy, specialization of tasks, command structures -- have got the wrong structures completely. You in business know that the paradigm structure of our time, ladies and gentlemen, is the network. It's your capacity to network that matters, both within your governments and externally.
Eta horrek zerbait garrantzitsua erakusten du. Izan ere, (hark) erakusten du bertikalki egindako gure gobernuek, Industri-Iraultzaren eredua jarraituz -- hierarkia bertikalekin, lan-espezializazioekin, arduradun-estrukturekin -- (haiek) guztiz estruktura okerrak izan direla. Jakin badakigu, negozioetan gure garaiko paradigma, jaun-andreak sarea dela. Ardura dagoena, elkarrekiko lotura da, gobernuen barruan zein kanpokoaldekoekin.
So here is Ashdown's third law. By the way, don't ask me about Ashdown's first law and second law because I haven't invented those yet; it always sounds better if there's a third law, doesn't it? Ashdown's third law is that in the modern age, where everything is connected to everything, the most important thing about what you can do is what you can do with others. The most important bit about your structure -- whether you're a government, whether you're an army regiment, whether you're a business -- is your docking points, your interconnectors, your capacity to network with others. You understand that in industry; governments don't.
Orduan hemen dago Ashdown-en hirugarren legea Aizue, ez didate lehenengoari eta bigarrenari buruz galdetzen, oraindik asmatu ez nituelako. Onena da hirugarren legea egotea, ezta? Ashdown-en hirugarren legeak dio aro garaikidean non dena elkarreriko lotuta dagoen egin dezakegun garrantzi handikoa da besteekin egiten ditugunak (ekintzak). Estrukturaren eremu garrantzitsuena, gobernuan zein armadaren erregimentuan, edo negozio batean, artikulazio-puntuak, elkarrekiko loturak izango dira, besteekin elkarrekiko lotzeko ahalmena. Industri-eremuan badakite, gobernuetan oraindik ez.
But now one final thing. If it is the case, ladies and gentlemen -- and it is -- that we are now locked together in a way that has never been quite the same before, then it's also the case that we share a destiny with each other. Suddenly and for the very first time, collective defense, the thing that has dominated us as the concept of securing our nations, is no longer enough. It used to be the case that if my tribe was more powerful than their tribe, I was safe; if my country was more powerful than their country, I was safe; my alliance, like NATO, was more powerful than their alliance, I was safe. It is no longer the case. The advent of the interconnectedness and of the weapons of mass destruction means that, increasingly, I share a destiny with my enemy.
Eta azkena, Horrela bada, jaun-andreak... eta izan bada, elkarrekiko lotu egitea lehen gertatatu inoiz ez zen moduan, orduan, besteekin ere patua partekatzen dugu. Bat-batean eta lehenengo aldiz, talde-defentsa, nagusi izan zaigun ideia hau da, gure nazioen segurtasunaren ideia, ez da jadanik nahikorik. Bazen behin nire tribua besteak baino boteretsuagoa bazen, salbu nengoen; nire herria besteak baino boteretsuagoa bazen, segur nengoen; nire aliantza, e.b OTAN, beste aliantza baino boteretsuagoa bazen, salbu nengoen. Gaur egun ez da horrela gertatzen. Elkarrekiko loturaren etorrerak baita suntsiketa askoren armak ere esan nahi du, gero eta patu handiagoa da, nire etsaiarekin partekatzen dudana.
When I was a diplomat negotiating the disarmament treaties with the Soviet Union in Geneva in the 1970s, we succeeded because we understood we shared a destiny with them. Collective security is not enough. Peace has come to Northern Ireland because both sides realized that the zero-sum game couldn't work. They shared a destiny with their enemies. One of the great barriers to peace in the Middle East is that both sides, both Israel and, I think, the Palestinians, do not understand that they share a collective destiny. And so suddenly, ladies and gentlemen, what has been the proposition of visionaries and poets down the ages becomes something we have to take seriously as a matter of public policy.
Diplomazialaria izan nintzenean, lortu genuen akordio arrakastatsua Soviet Batasunarekiko desarmatze-itunen negoziazioan, Genevan, 1970eko hamarkadan, haiekin patua partekatzen genuen ideia ulertu genuelako. Segurtasun kolektiboa ez da nahikorik. Bakea Ipar Irlandara heldu zen bi taldeek ulertu zutelako zero-gehiketa jokua ez litzatekeela ibiliko. Haiek euren etsiekin patua partekatzen dute. Ekialde Ertainan bakerako oztopo handienetariko bat da bi taldeek, Israel zein palestinarrak, ulertzen ez duten patu kolektiboa partekatzen duten ideia. Eta bat-batean, jaun-andreak, poeten eta ameslarien proposamena mendeetan zehar, serioski hartu behar dugun ideia bihurtzen da politika publikoaren gertaera bezala.
I started with a poem, I'll end with one. The great poem of John Donne's. "Send not for whom the bell tolls." The poem is called "No Man is an Island." And it goes: "Every man's death affected me, for I am involved in mankind, send not to ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." For John Donne, a recommendation of morality. For us, I think, part of the equation for our survival.
Poema batekin hasi eta beste batekin amaituko dut. John Donne-ren poema handia: "Ez galdetu kanpaiak jotzen ari den pertsonaz" Poema deitzen da: "Inor ez da uhartea". Eta horrela dio: "Edozein gizakiren heriotzak gutxitzen nau, gizateriaren partaidea naizelako, hots, ez galdetu kanpaiak jotzen ari den pertsonaz, zutaz jotzen ari dira" John Donne-rentzat, moraltasunaren ikasgaia da. Guretzat, nire ustez, gure biziraupenarako ekuaziaoren zatia da.
Thank you very much.
Mila esker
(Applause)
(Txaloak)