I spent the better part of a decade looking at American responses to mass atrocity and genocide. And I'd like to start by sharing with you one moment that to me sums up what there is to know about American and democratic responses to mass atrocity.
我花了许多年的时间 考察美国人对大规模的暴行和种族灭绝的反应。 我想跟大家分享一个我经历的重要时刻开始我的演讲 那个时刻唤起我关注 美国人和民主对大规模暴行的反应。
And that moment came on April 21, 1994. So 14 years ago, almost, in the middle of the Rwandan genocide, in which 800,000 people would be systematically exterminated by the Rwandan government and some extremist militia. On April 21, in the New York Times, the paper reported that somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 people had already been killed in the genocide. It was in the paper -- not on the front page. It was a lot like the Holocaust coverage, it was buried in the paper. Rwanda itself was not seen as newsworthy, and amazingly, genocide itself was not seen as newsworthy.
那是1994年4月21日。 将近14年前的今天,正在进行卢旺达种族灭绝, 在那个事件中,有80万人遭到有组织地屠杀, 刽子手是卢旺达政府和其他的极端分子。 在4月21号的纽约时报上, 报道有20万到30万人 在种族灭绝运动中遭到屠杀。 这条消息是在报纸版面当中-而不是首页上。 像大屠杀这样的报道很多, 都夹杂在报纸上的其他信息中间。 卢旺达本身不怎么值得报道, 让人诧异的是,种族灭绝本身也不值得报道。
But on April 21, a wonderfully honest moment occurred. And that was that an American congresswoman named Patricia Schroeder from Colorado met with a group of journalists. And one of the journalists said to her, what's up? What's going on in the U.S. government? Two to 300,000 people have just been exterminated in the last couple of weeks in Rwanda. It's two weeks into the genocide at that time, but of course, at that time you don't know how long it's going to last. And the journalist said, why is there so little response out of Washington? Why no hearings, no denunciations, no people getting arrested in front of the Rwandan embassy or in front of the White House? What's the deal? And she said -- she was so honest -- she said, "It's a great question. All I can tell you is that in my congressional office in Colorado and my office in Washington, we're getting hundreds and hundreds of calls about the endangered ape and gorilla population in Rwanda, but nobody is calling about the people. The phones just aren't ringing about the people."
但是在4月21号,出现了一个非常诚实的时刻。 那就是有个美国女议员 来自科罗拉多州的帕特里夏施罗德 她接见了一批记者。 其中一个记者问她,怎么回事? 美国政府怎么了? 有20万到30万人在卢旺达遭到屠杀 就在最近几天。 那个时候屠杀已经进行了两周, 当然,那时你不确定那个运动还要持续多久。 那个记者说,为什么华盛顿没有任何反应? 为什么没有听证会,没有谴责, 没有人在卢旺达大使馆前闹事,遭到被捕 或者是在白宫前面游行?到底怎么了? 这个女议员说-她非常诚实-她说,“你问了个好问题。 我可以告诉你,在我科罗拉多的议会办公室 和我在华盛顿的办公室, 收到了成百上千的电话 关于卢旺达即将灭绝的猿和大猩猩, 但是没有接到谈论当地人的电话。 就是没有关于人的电话。”
And the reason I give you this moment is there's a deep truth in it. And that truth is, or was, in the 20th century, that while we were beginning to develop endangered species movements, we didn't have an endangered people's movement. We had Holocaust education in the schools. Most of us were groomed not only on images of nuclear catastrophe, but also on images and knowledge of the Holocaust. There's a museum, of course, on the Mall in Washington, right next to Lincoln and Jefferson. I mean, we have owned Never Again culturally, appropriately, interestingly. And yet the politicization of Never Again, the operationalization of Never Again, had never occurred in the 20th century.
我现在可以告诉你一个理由,有一个很深刻的道理。 这个道理是20世纪, 当我们开始开展拯救濒临物种的运动时, 我们并没有一个关于濒临灭绝人种的运动。 在学校我们有关大屠杀内容的教育。 我们大多数人不仅见识了核灾难的照片, 还学习了关于大屠杀的图片和知识。 当然,华盛顿广场有个博物馆, 就在林肯和杰斐逊雕塑旁边。 我的意思是,我们已经有了“再不让类似悲剧发生”的概念, 文化层面的,非常恰当且非常有趣的。 但是政治层面的“再不发生”, 以及“再不发生”的实际操作, 在20世纪从未实现。
And that's what that moment with Patricia Schroeder I think shows: that if we are to bring about an end to the world's worst atrocities, we have to make it such. There has to be a role -- there has to be the creation of political noise and political costs in response to massive crimes against humanity, and so forth. So that was the 20th century.
我想这就是帕特里夏施罗德当时想的: 如果我们想阻止世界上最恐怖的暴行, 我们必须行动起来。 必须有个人- 必须发出政治声音,承担政治成本 作为对反人性的大规模犯罪的反应等等。 那是20世纪的情况。
Now here -- and this will be a relief to you at this point in the afternoon -- there is good news, amazing news, in the 21st century, and that is that, almost out of nowhere, there has come into being an anti-genocide movement, an anti-genocide constituency, and one that looks destined, in fact, to be permanent. It grew up in response to the atrocities in Darfur. It is comprised of students. There are something like 300 anti-genocide chapters on college campuses around the country. It's bigger than the anti-apartheid movement. There are something like 500 high school chapters devoted to stopping the genocide in Darfur. Evangelicals have joined it. Jewish groups have joined it. "Hotel Rwanda" watchers have joined it. It is a cacophonous movement.
现在-对今天下午在座的你们来说,有一种解脱- 有一个好消息,非常让人惊奇的消息,在21世纪, 这就是,不知从哪里开始的, 开展了反种族屠杀的运动,有了反种族屠杀的支持者, 这看起来是注定要产生的,事实上,也会永久存在下去。 它是在反抗达尔富尔暴行的过程中产生的。 它主要由学生组成。大概有300个左右的反种族灭绝分会, 在全国各地的大学校园里。 它比反种族隔离运动规模要大。 有大约500个高中分会 致力于阻止达尔富尔的种族灭绝。 新教徒加入了进来,犹太教徒也加入了。 卢旺达酒店观察家也加入了进来。这是一个声势浩大的运动。
To call it a movement, as with all movements, perhaps, is a little misleading. It's diverse. It's got a lot of different approaches. It's got all the ups and the downs of movements. But it has been amazingly successful in one regard, in that it has become, it has congealed into this endangered people's movement that was missing in the 20th century. It sees itself, such as it is, the it, as something that will create the impression that there will be political cost, there will be a political price to be paid, for allowing genocide, for not having an heroic imagination, for not being an upstander but for being, in fact, a bystander.
把这称作“运动”,和其他若干次运动一起,或许有些误导。 这次运动非常多样化,有很多不同的方法。 经历了所有运动都有的高潮和低谷。 但是在一个方面,这次运动非常成功, 它变成了一个 针对所有面临种族灭绝危险的人群的运动 这种人群运动是20世纪没有的。 这次运动就是这样,不同, 它制造出这样一种印象,就是需要政治成本,或者说, 必须付出政治代价, 允许种族屠杀,不让人们有做英雄的幻想, 不做一个支持者,而是,事实上,一个旁观者。
Now because it's student-driven, there's some amazing things that the movement has done. They have launched a divestment campaign that has now convinced, I think, 55 universities in 22 states to divest their holdings of stocks with regard to companies doing business in Sudan. They have a 1-800-GENOCIDE number -- this is going to sound very kitsch, but for those of you who may not be, I mean, may be apolitical, but interested in doing something about genocide, you dial 1-800-GENOCIDE and you type in your zip code, and you don't even have to know who your congressperson is. It will refer you directly to your congressperson, to your U.S. senator, to your governor where divestment legislation is pending. They've lowered the transaction costs of stopping genocide. I think the most innovative thing they've introduced recently are genocide grades. And it takes students to introduce genocide grades. So what you now have when a Congress is in session is members of Congress calling up these 19-year-olds or 24-year-olds and saying, I'm just told I have a D minus on genocide; what do I do to get a C? I just want to get a C. Help me. And the students and the others who are part of this incredibly energized base are there to answer that, and there's always something to do.
现在因为是学生驱动的, 这个运动已经做了一些成绩。 他们已经发动了撤资运动 在22个州的55所学校里面已经得到证实了 让那些有股票的人赎回自己的股票 如果出售股票的公司在苏丹做生意的话。 他们有一个1-8--GENOCIDE(种族灭绝)热线- 这听起来有些愚蠢, 但是对那些不,我的意思是,不怎么关心政治, 但是对种族灭绝感兴趣的人, 你可以拨打1-800-GENOCIDE,输入你的邮编, 你甚至不需要知道你们州的国会议员是谁。 它也会直接接通到你的国会议员,或者是美国参议员, 或者接到州长那里,撤资立法虽然还未签订。 他们这样做降低了组织种族灭绝的交易成本。 我认为他们最近做的最有新意的事情 是种族灭绝评分。 需要学生来介绍这种种族灭绝评分。 所以你现在会看到,当国会开会时, 有国会议员会打给19岁或者24岁的学生,然后说, 我刚得知我的种族灭绝评分是D-; 我如何做才能得到C,我想得到C,请帮帮我。 这时,该学生和其他人 那些同样是这个非常有活力的集体的一分子 会在那里,回答说,总有些办法的。
Now, what this movement has done is it has extracted from the Bush administration from the United States, at a time of massive over-stretch -- military, financial, diplomatic -- a whole series of commitments to Darfur that no other country in the world is making. For instance, the referral of the crimes in Darfur to the International Criminal Court, which the Bush administration doesn't like. The expenditure of 3 billion dollars in refugee camps to try to keep, basically, the people who've been displaced from their homes by the Sudanese government, by the so-called Janjaweed, the militia, to keep those people alive until something more durable can be achieved. And recently, or now not that recently, about six months ago, the authorization of a peacekeeping force of 26,000 that will go.
现在这个运动已经完成的不同于布什政府 从美国, 从军事、财政、外交都高度控制 对达尔富尔有着一系列的承诺, 世界上其他国家尚未做到的承诺。 例如,把达尔富尔的罪犯转给 国际法庭, 这是美国政府不喜欢的方式。 花30亿美元在那些难民营上, 基本养活了那些被 苏丹政府,被那些所谓的Janjaweed,被那些民兵驱逐出家园的人, 维持那些难民的生命 直到更加可持续的方案达成。 最近,或者不是最新的消息, 大概六个月前,维和部队得到授权, 两万六千士兵将被派驻那里。
And that's all the Bush administration's leadership, and it's all because of this bottom-up pressure and the fact that the phones haven't stopped ringing from the beginning of this crisis. The bad news, however, to this question of will evil prevail, is that evil lives on. The people in those camps are surrounded on all sides by so-called Janjaweed, these men on horseback with spears and Kalashnikovs. Women who go to get firewood in order to heat the humanitarian aid in order to feed their families -- humanitarian aid, the dirty secret of it is it has to be heated, really, to be edible -- are themselves subjected to rape, which is a tool of the genocide that is being used. And the peacekeepers I've mentioned, the force has been authorized, but almost no country on Earth has stepped forward since the authorization to actually put its troops or its police in harm's way.
这都是在布什政府的领导下, 都是因为有自下而上的压力 热线电话一直未断 从危机刚开始出现就这样。 坏消息是, 邪恶还存在。 难民营中的人被 所谓的Janjaweed军团围着,这些军人骑着马 带着矛还有卡拉什尼科夫冲锋枪。 女人们去拾柴来加热人道主义援助食品 来养活她们的家人-人道主义援助食品- 卑鄙的地方就在于需要加热才能吃,真的是这样- 她们也遭到强奸, 这是种族屠杀的工具之一。 我刚提到的维和部队,这些军队已经得到了联合国的授权, 但是从得到授权来,几乎没有国家迈出这一步, 把他们的部队实际派过去,或者是警察。
So we have achieved an awful lot relative to the 20th century, and yet far too little relative to the gravity of the crime that is unfolding as we sit here, as we speak. Why the limits to the movement? Why is what has been achieved, or what the movement has done, been necessary but not sufficient to the crime? I think there are a couple -- there are many reasons -- but a couple just to focus on briefly.
所以我们实际做到的相比20世纪还是很多, 但是打击这些已经出现的严重犯罪的力度很小, 我们坐在这里,讨论这些。 这种运动的局限性是什么? 为什么我们当前取得的,或者说运动带来的成效, 虽然很有必要,但是对制止犯罪却远远不够呢? 我认为有一些-应该说有很多原因- 但是我们今天只简要地集中讨论其中的一些。
The first is that the movement, such as it is, stops at America's borders. It is not a global movement. It does not have too many compatriots abroad who themselves are asking their governments to do more to stop genocide. And the Holocaust culture that we have in this country makes Americans, sort of, more prone to, I think, want to bring Never Again to life. The guilt that the Clinton administration expressed, that Bill Clinton expressed over Rwanda, created a space in our society for a consensus that Rwanda was bad and wrong and we wish we had done more, and that is something that the movement has taken advantage of. European governments, for the most part, haven't acknowledged responsibility, and there's nothing to kind of to push back and up against.
第一个是这些运动, 比如发生在美国边境内的运动。它并不是全球性的运动。 这些运动并没有得到很多国外同胞 那些认为他们的政府也该为阻止种族屠杀采取更多的措施。 我认为美国大屠杀的文化 使得美国人,部分使得我们更加 倾向于支持让这种事情“再不发生”。 克林顿政府表达出来的愧疚, 比尔·克林顿本人对卢旺达屠杀表示出来的愧疚 使得我们整个社会达成了这样一个共识, 那就是卢旺达政府很坏并且做了错事, 我们希望能够做的更多,这种感情使得 运动更容易展开。 而欧洲政府,很大程度上, 从未承认过他们的责任,没有什么 要承担或推卸的责任。
So this movement, if it's to be durable and global, will have to cross borders, and you will have to see other citizens in democracies, not simply resting on the assumption that their government would do something in the face of genocide, but actually making it such. Governments will never gravitate towards crimes of this magnitude naturally or eagerly. As we saw, they haven't even gravitated towards protecting our ports or reigning in loose nukes. Why would we expect in a bureaucracy that it would orient itself towards distant suffering? So one reason is it hasn't gone global.
所以要想使得这项运动持续下去,推广到全球, 越过国界,我们就必须 去观察其他民主政体下的人民,而不仅仅是 设想他们的政府在种族屠杀面前会做出点什么, 我们要实际去推动这项运动。 政府从不会自动关注这样大规模的犯罪 既不会自然地关注,也没有太多热情。 正如我们知道的,他们也不会自动去保护我们的港口 或者施加核制裁。 为什么我们会期待官僚机构能够调整方向, 关注遥远的人民所受的痛苦? 这是这项运动没有走向全球的一个原因。
The second is, of course, that at this time in particular in America's history, we have a credibility problem, a legitimacy problem in international institutions. It is structurally really, really hard to do, as the Bush administration rightly does, which is to denounce genocide on a Monday and then describe water boarding on a Tuesday as a no-brainer and then turn up on Wednesday and look for troop commitments. Now, other countries have their own reasons for not wanting to get involved. Let me be clear. They're in some ways using the Bush administration as an alibi. But it is essential for us to be a leader in this sphere, of course to restore our standing and our leadership in the world. The recovery's going to take some time.
第二个原因,当前,在这个美国历史上特殊的时刻 我们出现了信誉危机, 在国际机构中的合法性的问题。 这在结构上很难,真的很难解决, 正如布什政府正在做的, 周一谴责种族屠杀, 周二讨论水上登陆问题,就像一个没有脑子的人, 然后,周三又出面给部队各种承诺。 现在,其他国家有他们不参与此事的理由了。 让我说清楚一些。 他们在某种程度上把美国政府当做一个借口。 当然,在这件事情上,我们必须成为一个领导者,这非常重要, 对于坚持我们的立场,以及我们对世界的领导权非常重要。 复原需要时间。
We have to ask ourselves, what now? What do we do going forward as a country and as citizens in relationship to the world's worst places, the world's worst suffering, killers, and the kinds of killers that could come home to roost sometime in the future? The place that I turned to answer that question was to a man that many of you may not have ever heard of, and that is a Brazilian named Sergio Vieira de Mello who, as Chris said, was blown up in Iraq in 2003. He was the victim of the first-ever suicide bomb in Iraq. It's hard to remember, but there was actually a time in the summer of 2003, even after the U.S. invasion, where, apart from looting, civilians were relatively safe in Iraq.
我们必须反问自己,现在该怎么办?我们如何作为一个国家、 一个公民维持与世界上最糟糕的地方的关系, 这个地方是世界上受苦最多的地方,杀手和准杀手们 在未来可能会自食恶果。 我要回答的问题来自一个男士 这个人你们或许从未听说过, 这个人是巴西人,叫塞尔吉奥·维埃拉·德梅洛, 他就像克里斯说的,在2003年伊拉克战争中被炸死。 他是最早的伊拉克自杀性爆炸袭击中的受害者。 这很难记起,是2003年夏天中的某个时间, 尽管在美国介入后, 伊拉克除了抢劫外,民众相对安全了许多。
Now, who was Sergio? Sergio Vieira de Mello was his name. In addition to being Brazilian, he was described to me before I met him in 1994 as someone who was a cross between James Bond on the one hand and Bobby Kennedy on the other. And in the U.N., you don't get that many people who actually manage to merge those qualities. He was James Bond-like in that he was ingenious. He was drawn to the flames, he chased the flames, he was like a moth to the flames. Something of an adrenalin junkie. He was successful with women. He was Bobby Kennedy-like because in some ways one could never tell if he was a realist masquerading as an idealist or an idealist masquerading as a realist, as people always wondered about Bobby Kennedy and John Kennedy in that way.
那谁是塞尔吉奥呢?他的全名是塞尔吉奥·维埃拉·德梅洛。 除了是个巴西人外,在1994年我们见面之前, 他被描述为介于詹姆斯邦德 和博比肯尼迪之间的一个人。 在联合国,我们认为并没有很多人 能够将这两人的品质同时具备。 他像詹姆斯邦德是说他的机警灵活。 他被吸引到危险的事业中,他追逐这样的事业, 就像飞蛾扑火;就像上瘾后被激发的肾上腺素。 他对付女人也很有一套。 他像博比肯尼迪是说没有任何人能够说出 他是伪装成现实主义者的理想主义者 或者是伪装成理想主义者的现实主义者,正如人们经常 描述博比肯尼迪和约翰肯尼迪那样。
What he was was a decathlete of nation-building, of problem-solving, of troubleshooting in the world's worst places and in the world's most broken places. In failing states, genocidal states, under-governed states, precisely the kinds of places that threats to this country exist on the horizon, and precisely the kinds of places where most of the world's suffering tends to get concentrated. These are the places he was drawn to. He moved with the headlines. He was in the U.N. for 34 years. He joined at the age of 21. Started off when the causes in the wars du jour in the '70s were wars of independence and decolonization. He was there in Bangladesh dealing with the outflow of millions of refugees -- the largest refugee flow in history up to that point. He was in Sudan when the civil war broke out there. He was in Cyprus right after the Turkish invasion. He was in Mozambique for the War of Independence. He was in Lebanon. Amazingly, he was in Lebanon -- the U.N. base was used -- Palestinians staged attacks out from behind the U.N. base. Israel then invaded and overran the U.N. base.
他像全能运动员一样,处理国家建设,解决问题, 解决世界上最难的问题, 以及走访世界上最动乱的地方。 在破碎的政权、种族灭绝的国家、无政府国家中, 正是这些对这个国家一直构成威胁, 也正是在这些地方 集中了世界上最悲惨的遭遇。 他正是被吸引到了这些地方。 他大张旗鼓地去了那里。 他加入联合国34年,从21岁开始加入。 从70年代的战争时期加入 是独立和反对殖民主义的战争。 那时他在孟加拉国 处理成百万的难民外流- 那是当时历史上最大的难民潮。 当苏丹内战爆发时他正在那里。 在土耳其入侵时,他正在塞浦路斯。 他在莫桑比克参与了独立运动。 他在黎巴嫩。很神奇的是,他在黎巴嫩-联合国基地被用来- 正是在联合国基地后部不远处巴勒斯坦人发动了攻击。 以色列人入侵,占据了当时的联合国基地。
Sergio was in Beirut when the U.S. Embassy was hit by the first-ever suicide attack against the United States. People date the beginning of this new era to 9/11, but surely 1983, with the attack on the US Embassy and the Marine barracks -- which Sergio witnessed -- those are, in fact, in some ways, the dawning of the era that we find ourselves in today. From Lebanon he went to Bosnia in the '90s. The issues were, of course, ethnic sectarian violence. He was the first person to negotiate with the Khmer Rouge. Talk about evil prevailing. I mean, here he was in the room with the embodiment of evil in Cambodia. He negotiates with the Serbs. He actually crosses so far into this realm of talking to evil and trying to convince evil that it doesn't need to prevail that he earns the nickname -- not Sergio but Serbio while he's living in the Balkans and conducting these kinds of negotiations.
当美国大使馆被袭时,塞尔吉奥在贝鲁特 受到针对美国政府的第一个自杀性人体炸弹的袭击。 人们认为自杀炸弹事件最早是9/11,但是事实上应该是在1983年, 对美国大使馆和海军基地的袭击- 这些塞尔吉奥都目睹了-事实上,在某种程度上, 这些是我们今天这些运动的起点。 90年代,从黎巴嫩回来之后,他去了波西尼亚。 那些事件是种族宗教暴力。 他是第一个与红色高棉人进行谈判的。 谈论邪恶的盛行。我的意思是,当前他与 柬埔寨邪恶的代表在同一个房间。 他与塞尔维亚人谈判。 他甚至谈论到了善恶 并且试图说服恶的一方不要那么猖獗, 为此,他得到了一个昵称-不是塞尔吉奥而是赛尔比奥 当时他就住在巴尔干,进行这些谈判。
He then goes to Rwanda and to Congo in the aftermath of the genocide, and he's the guy who has to decide -- huh, OK, the genocide is over; 800,000 people have been killed; the people responsible are fleeing into neighboring countries -- into Congo, into Tanzania. I'm Sergio, I'm a humanitarian, and I want to feed those -- well, I don't want to feed the killers but I want to feed the two million people who are with them, so we're going to go, we're going to set up camps, and we're going to supply humanitarian aid. But, uh-oh, the killers are within the camps. Well, I'd like to separate the sheep from the wolves. Let me go door-to-door to the international community and see if anybody will give me police or troops to do the separation. And their response, of course, was no more than we wanted to stop the genocide and put our troops in harm's way to do that, nor do we now want to get in the way and pluck genocidaires from camps.
他之后去到卢旺达和刚果,就在种族屠杀之后, 他是那种有决心的人-嗯,好啦,种族屠杀到此为止吧, 80万人已经被杀死了;对此负责的人已经转移 到邻近的国家-到刚果,到坦桑比亚。 我是塞尔吉奥,我是人道主义者,我会援助那些- 当然,我不想援助杀手, 但我想救助与杀手混在一起的两百万人口,所以我们出发吧, 我们到那里建难民营, 我们要提供人道主义援助。 但是,哦,杀手也在那些难民营里。 我要把羊和狼分开。 让我们到国际社区挨个去找国家, 看看是否有哪个国家愿意派出军队或者警察来把杀手和难民分开。 当然,他们的反应不仅仅想阻止 种族屠杀,并用军队以一种伤害的方式来区分杀手和难民, 我们当时也不想以这种武力方式把种族屠杀分子从难民营里驱逐出去。
So then you have to make the decision. Do you turn off the international spigot of life support and risk two million civilian lives? Or do you continue feeding the civilians, knowing that the genocidaires are in the camps, literally sharpening their knives for future battle? What do you do? It's all lesser-evil terrain in these broken places.
随后你必须做这个决定。 你要么断绝挽救生命的国际援助, 拿两百万人的生命冒险? 或者你继续救助这些难民,即使知道种族屠杀分子就在 人群中间,并且为继续屠杀暗暗做着准备? 你会怎么选择? 在这些破碎的地方,都会面临较小恶行这样的选择。
Late '90s: nation-building is the cause du jour. He's the guy put in charge. He's the Paul Bremer or the Jerry Bremer of first Kosovo and then East Timor. He governs the places. He's the viceroy. He has to decide on tax policy, on currency, on border patrol, on policing. He has to make all these judgments. He's a Brazilian in these places. He speaks seven languages. He's been up to that point in 14 war zones so he's positioned to make better judgments, perhaps, than people who have never done that kind of work. But nonetheless, he is the cutting edge of our experimentation with doing good with very few resources being brought to bear in, again, the world's worst places.
90年代后期:建设国家是根本之道。 塞尔吉奥是那个负责的家伙。他是什么保罗·布雷默或者杰瑞·布雷默, 他首先走访科索沃,之后是东帝汶。他管理那些地方。 他是主管,他必须决定税收政策和货币, 安排边境巡逻和部署警力。他必须做这些判断。 在这些地方,他是一个巴西人,会七种语言。 到那时,他已经去过14个战争地区 或许,他能够做出更好的判断, 比那些从未做过类似工作的人。 但是无论如何,他刚好是我们实验的典范 用很少的资源做了善事, 并且,是在世界上最糟糕的地方。
And then after Timor, 9/11 has happened, he's named U.N. Human Rights Commissioner, and he has to balance liberty and security and figure out, what do you do when the most powerful country in the United Nations is bowing out of the Geneva Conventions, bowing out of international law? Do you denounce? Well, if you denounce, you're probably never going to get back in the room. Maybe you stay reticent. Maybe you try to charm President Bush -- and that's what he did. And in so doing he earned himself, unfortunately, his final and tragic appointment to Iraq -- the one that resulted in his death.
在帝汶岛(马来群岛中一岛)之后,发生了9/11事件, 他作为联合国的人权事务高级专员, 必须在自由和安全之间实现平衡,并指出, 在联合国最有实力的国家 违反了日内瓦国际公约, 违反了国际法之后你该怎么办?你会站出来谴责吗? 如果你谴责的话, 你或许再也无法回到那个团体中。 或许你保持沉默。也或许你试图说服布什政府- 他正是这么做的。正是因为这样,他为自己赢得了, 不幸的是,他最后一任也是最悲惨的一任职务,去伊拉克- 正是这导致了他的死亡。
One note on his death, which is so devastating, is that despite predicating the war on Iraq on a link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism in 9/11, believe it or not, the Bush administration or the invaders did no planning, no pre-war planning, to respond to terrorism. So Sergio -- this receptacle of all of this learning on how to deal with evil and how to deal with brokenness, lay under the rubble for three and a half hours without rescue. Stateless. The guy who tried to help the stateless people his whole career. Like a refugee. Because he represents the U.N.
关于他去世还有一个需要注意的,也是令人绝望的, 那就是,尽管发动了伊拉克战争, 借着萨达姆侯赛因和911恐怖袭击的机会, 信不信有你,布什政府或者说入侵者 并没有计划,没有在战前计划对恐怖主义做出反应。 因此,塞尔吉奥-他在学习如何处理恶行方面是最值得尊敬的一位 并且知道如何处理烂摊子- 他躺倒在废墟中三个半小时,无一人援救。 没有国籍。在他的一生中,塞尔吉奥尽力帮助那些没有国籍的人。 像一个难民营。因为他代表着联合国。
If you represent everyone, in some ways you represent no one. You're un-owned. And what the American -- the most powerful military in the history of mankind was able to muster for his rescue, believe it or not, was literally these heroic two American soldiers went into the shaft. Building was shaking. One of them had been at 9/11 and lost his buddies on September 11th, and yet went in and risked his life in order to save Sergio. But all they had was a woman's handbag -- literally one of those basket handbags -- and they tied it to a curtain rope from one of the offices at U.N. headquarters, and created a pulley system into this shaft in this quivering building in the interests of rescuing this person, the person we most need to turn to now, this shepherd, at a time when so many of us feel like we're lacking guidance.
如果你代表每一个人,在某种程度上也可以说你谁也代表不了。 你不被任何人接受。 美国-这个人类历史上最强大的军事国家 能够为挽救他的生命做些什么呢, 信不信由你,实质上只两个英雄式的美国士兵 走到建筑物里面。建筑物在摇晃。 他们其中一个曾经经历过911事件,并在事件中丧失了他的伙伴, 走进了摇晃的建筑物,冒着生命的危险救塞尔吉奥。 他们当时拥有的仅仅是一个女士手提包- 具体来说是一个篮子- 他们把篮子绑到联合国总部大楼一间办公室的窗帘绳上, 制作了一个轮滑系统伸到了摇晃建筑物中的这个部分 为了救这个人, 这个我们当前最需要救助的,这个牧羊人, 每次当我们感觉缺乏指导的时候。
And this was the pulley system. This was what we were able to muster for Sergio. The good news, for what it's worth, is after Sergio and 21 others were killed that day in the attack on the U.N., the military created a search and rescue unit that had the cutting equipment, the shoring wood, the cranes, the things that you would have needed to do the rescue. But it was too late for Sergio.
那个简易的轮滑系统。那是我们能够挽救塞尔吉奥的东西。 好消息,也是值得的, 是当塞尔吉奥和其他21个在那天针对联合国的袭击中牺牲之后, 部队成立了调查和援救小组, 他们有切割设备,有用于支护的木头,起重机, 那些在营救中必须的设备。 但是这对塞尔吉奥来说已经太迟了。
I want to wrap up, but I want to close with what I take to be the four lessons from Sergio's life on this question of how do we prevent evil from prevailing, which is how I would have framed the question. Here's this guy who got a 34-year head start thinking about the kinds of questions we as a country are grappling with, we as citizens are grappling with now. What do we take away?
我想做个总结,但是我想以 我从塞尔吉奥一生中学到的四个教训结束, 关于如何阻止恶行的蔓延, 也是我理解这个问题的方式。 正是这个人花了34年时间 思考我们这个国家正在努力解决的问题, 我们这些公民正在面临的问题。我们能学到什么呢?
First, I think, is his relationship to, in fact, evil is something to learn from. He, over the course of his career, changed a great deal. He had a lot of flaws, but he was very adaptive. I think that was his greatest quality. He started as somebody who would denounce harmdoers, he would charge up to people who were violating international law, and he would say, you're violating, this is the U.N. Charter. Don't you see it's unacceptable what you're doing? And they would laugh at him because he didn't have the power of states, the power of any military or police. He just had the rules, he had the norms, and he tried to use them. And in Lebanon, Southern Lebanon in '82, he said to himself and to everybody else, I will never use the word "unacceptable" again. I will never use it. I will try to make it such, but I will never use that word again. But he lunged in the opposite direction. He started, as I mentioned, to get in the room with evil, to not denounce, and became almost obsequious when he won the nickname Serbio, for instance, and even when he negotiated with the Khmer Rouge would black-box what had occurred prior to entering the room.
首先,我认为,是他与恶行的关系,事实上,恶行是需要学习的, 他,在他的一生中,做出了许多改变。 他有很多不足,但是他的适应能力很强。 我认为这是他最棒的品质。 他一开始也谴责那些造成伤害的人, 他指控那些违反国际法的人, 他会说,你犯法了,这是联合国的条例。 难道你不觉得你这样做是难以让人接受的? 他们会嘲笑他,因为他没有国家的实力, 也没有军队和警察。 他有的只是规则,标准,试图使用它们。 在黎巴嫩南部,1982年, 他对自己和其他人说, 我再也不用“无法接受”一词了。 我绝不使用它。我试图这样做, 但是我再也不会用这个词了。 他朝着另一个方向走去。 他开始,就像我提到的,开始走进恶行, 不去谴责,几乎变得顺从, 例如,当他赢得赛尔比奥这个昵称时, 甚至当他与红色高棉人谈判时, 在走进谈判室之前也会把那些人曾经做过的恶行放在脑后。
But by the end of his life, I think he had struck a balance that we as a country can learn from. Be in the room, don't be afraid of talking to your adversaries, but don't bracket what happened before you entered the room. Don't black-box history. Don't check your principles at the door. And I think that's something that we have to be in the room, whether it's Nixon going to China or Khrushchev and Kennedy or Reagan and Gorbachev. All the great progress in this country with relation to our adversaries has come by going into the room. And it doesn't have to be an act of weakness. You can actually do far more to build an international coalition against a harmdoer or a wrongdoer by being in the room and showing to the rest of the world that that person, that regime, is the problem and that you, the United States, are not the problem.
在他生命的最后阶段,我认为他在尽力实现平衡, 这是我们作为一个国家应该学习的。 在谈判室,不要畏惧你的敌手, 但是在进入谈判室之前,不要抱着先入为主的态度。 不要回顾历史。不要检视你的原则。 我想这就是我们在谈判室应该做的, 无论是尼克松去中国、赫鲁晓夫和肯尼迪 抑或是里根和戈尔巴乔夫的谈判。 我们这个国家在于敌手的关系中最大的进步 都开始于谈判桌。 它不必是示弱。 实际上,你可以通过谈判和那些 造成伤害者或者做错事者建立国际联合。 并且向全世界展示那个人,那个政权 是问题所在,而你,美国,并没有问题。
Second take-away from Sergio's life, briefly. What I take away, and this in some ways is the most important, he espoused and exhibited a reverence for dignity that was really, really unusual. At a micro level, the individuals around him were visible. He saw them. At a macro level, he thought, you know, we talk about democracy promotion, but we do it in a way sometimes that's an affront to people's dignity. We put people on humanitarian aid and we boast about it because we've spent three billion. It's incredibly important, those people would no longer be alive if the United States, for instance, hadn't spent that money in Darfur, but it's not a way to live. If we think about dignity in our conduct as citizens and as individuals with relation to the people around us, and as a country, if we could inject a regard for dignity into our dealings with other countries, it would be something of a revolution.
其次从塞尔吉奥一生中学到的,简短地说。 我学到的,某种程度上是最重要的, 他信奉和展现出对尊严的敬重, 这一点,真的,很不同寻常。 从微观层面说,他能够看到那些他周围的人。 他看见了他们。 从宏观上说,他思考过,要知道, 我们谈论过促进民主,但是我们实现它的方式 有时候是通过冒犯人的尊严。 我们施加人道主义援助, 并且吹嘘这件事情,因为我们因此花了30亿美元。 这非常重要, 例如,如果没有美国,这些人会饿死, 如果这些钱不花在达尔富尔的话, 但是这并不是指生活方式。 如果你考虑过,作为公民,我们行为中的尊严 以及作为个体与周围人关系, 还有作为国家,如果我们能够实现对尊严的敬重 在于他国交往的过程中, 这会成为一场革命。
Third point, very briefly. He talked a lot about freedom from fear. And I recognize there is so much to be afraid of. There are so many genuine threats in the world. But what Sergio was talking about is, let's calibrate our relationship to the threat. Let's not hype the threat; let's actually see it clearly. We have reason to be afraid of melting ice caps. We have reason to be afraid that we haven't secured loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. Let's focus on what are the legitimate challenges and threats, but not lunge into bad decisions because of a panic, of a fear. In times of fear, for instance, one of the things Sergio used to say is, fear is a bad advisor. We lunge towards the extremes when we aren't operating and trying to, again, calibrate our relationship to the world around us.
在此,很简短。他多次提到不要害怕。 我认为要怕的东西有许多。 在这个世界上有那么多真实存在的威胁。 但是塞尔吉奥谈论的是, 让我们来庆祝与威胁的关系。 我们不要夸大威胁;而是看清楚它。 我们有理由害怕融化的冰川。 我们有理由害怕我们没有办法去解决 前苏联泄露的核物质。 让我们集中于立法方面的挑战和威胁, 不仅仅是因为存在焦虑和害怕就做出错误的决定。 当我们感觉恐惧时,例如,塞尔吉奥曾经说过一件事 他说害怕是个坏顾问。 我们走向了极端, 如果我们不去开创,和试图 庆祝我们与周围世界的关系。
Fourth and final point: he somehow, because he was working in all the world's worst places and all lesser evils, had a humility, of course, and an awareness of the complexity of the world around him. I mean, such an acute awareness of how hard it was. How Sisyphean this task was of mending, and yet aware of that complexity, humbled by it, he wasn't paralyzed by it. And we as citizens, as we go through this experience of the kind of, the crisis of confidence, crisis of competence, crisis of legitimacy, I think there's a temptation to pull back from the world and say, ah, Katrina, Iraq -- we don't know what we're doing. We can't afford to pull back from the world. It's a question of how to be in the world.
最后的一点:他,或许由于他 在世界各地的工作经历,他面对所有较小的恶行时, 都有一种谦卑感,当然, 他对周围世界复杂性的认识也是无与伦比的。 我的意思是,他对到底有多困难有着非常敏锐的认识。 要解决这些任务是永远都做不完的, 尽管他知道任务的复杂性, 并由此感到自己的渺小,但是他并没有因此停滞不前。 我们作为公民,当我们经历这些,某种程度上的, 自信心危机,能力危机和合法性危机, 我认为都会产生一种逃离世界的冲动,并说, 啊,卡媞丽娜,伊拉克-我们不知道自己正在做什么。 我们承担不起逃离世界的后果。 问题是该如何在这个世界上存在。
And the lesson, I think, of the anti-genocide movement that I mentioned, that is a partial success but by no means has it achieved what it has set out to do -- it'll be many decades, probably, before that happens -- but is that if we want to see change, we have to become the change. We can't rely upon our institutions to do the work of necessarily talking to adversaries on their own without us creating a space for that to happen, for having respect for dignity, and for bringing that combination of humility and a sort of emboldened sense of responsibility to our dealings with the rest of the world. So will evil prevail? Is that the question? I think the short answer is: no, not unless we let it.
这些教训,我认为, 这些反种族灭绝运动 是局部的成功,但是无论如何 它是否达到了当初设立的目标了呢- 这需要经过数十年,可能的话,它才能实现目标- 但是如果我们想要看到变化,我们自己首先需要改变。 我们不能依赖直觉去做事, 去与我们的敌手谈判, 而不提供实现的可能性, 对尊严报以敬重, 把谦逊和 责任感结合起来 建设世界上其他地方。 恶行会蔓延吗?是这个问题吧? 我认为简短的回答应该是,不,除非我们想让它发生。
Thank you. (Applause)
谢谢! (鼓掌)