Today I want to talk to you about ethnic conflict and civil war. These are not normally the most cheerful of topics, nor do they generally generate the kind of good news that this conference is about. Yet, not only is there at least some good news to be told about fewer such conflicts now than two decades ago, but what is perhaps more important is that we also have come to a much better understanding of what can be done to further reduce the number of ethnic conflicts and civil wars and the suffering that they inflict. Three things stand out: leadership, diplomacy and institutional design. What I will focus on in my talk is why they matter, how they matter, and what we can all do to make sure that they continue to matter in the right ways, that is, how all of us can contribute to developing and honing the skills of local and global leaders to make peace and to make it last. But let's start at the beginning.
今天向各位演講的內容是 「種族衝突 以及內戰」 一般說來,這種主題不會振奮人心 通常也不會傳達 令人欣慰的好消息 這就是今天研討會的議題 然而,我們至少還有一些好消息: 比起二十年前的情況 這類衝突已經日趨減少 也許更重要的是 現在我們已經更加瞭解 必須採取什麼方法 才能減少 種族衝突與內戰 以及隨之而來的苦難 其中包括三個顯著的因素: 領導能力、外交手腕 以及憲政設計 今天的演講,我會著重在: 這三者為什麼重要、有多重要 以及我們能夠作些什麼 以確保這三個重要的因素 繼續發揮正面的影響力 也就是,我們全人類如何貢獻心力 以培養、琢磨 當地與國際領袖 締結休戰 並長久維護和平的技巧 現在,我們先回到原點
Civil wars have made news headlines for many decades now, and ethnic conflicts in particular have been a near constant presence as a major international security threat. For nearly two decades now, the news has been bad and the images have been haunting. In Georgia, after years of stalemate, we saw a full-scale resurgence of violence in August, 2008. This quickly escalated into a five-day war between Russia and Georgia, leaving Georgia ever more divided. In Kenya, contested presidential elections in 2007 -- we just heard about them -- quickly led to high levels of inter-ethnic violence and the killing and displacement of thousands of people. In Sri Lanka, a decades-long civil war between the Tamil minority and the Sinhala majority led to a bloody climax in 2009, after perhaps as many as 100,000 people had been killed since 1983. In Kyrgyzstan, just over the last few weeks, unprecedented levels of violence occurred between ethnic Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbeks. Hundreds have been killed, and more than 100,000 displaced, including many ethnic Uzbeks who fled to neighboring Uzbekistan. In the Middle East, conflict between Israelis and Palestinians continues unabated, and it becomes ever more difficult to see how, just how a possible, sustainable solution can be achieved. Darfur may have slipped from the news headlines, but the killing and displacement there continues as well, and the sheer human misery that it creates is very hard to fathom. And in Iraq, finally, violence is on the rise again, and the country has yet to form a government four months after its last parliamentary elections.
幾十年來 內戰一直是新聞標題的常客 特別是種族衝突 已經是持續不斷的 重大國際安全威脅 過去二十年來 壞消息不斷 境況也令人憂心 在喬治亞,經過多年的對峙 於 2008 年八月 再度爆發全面的暴力衝突 迅速惡化為俄羅斯與喬治亞之間的 五日戰爭 導致喬治亞更為分崩離析 在肯亞,2007 年備受爭議的總統選舉 ——我們才剛聼到這件事的演講—— 立刻轉變為嚴重的 種族之間的暴力衝突 成千上萬的人 遭受殺害、流離失所 在斯里蘭卡 少數族群泰米爾人 與多數族群僧伽羅人之間 數十年漫長的內戰 於 2009 年演變為恐怖的血腥衝突 在此之前,自 1983 年以來 已經有將近 十萬人死於內戰 在吉爾吉斯,僅在前幾個星期之中 吉爾吉斯族人 與烏茲別克族人之間 爆發了史無前例的暴力衝突 數百人遭到殺害 超過十萬人無家可歸 其中包括許多逃到鄰國烏茲別克的 烏茲別克族人 在中東地區 以色列人與巴勒斯坦人之間的衝突 持續不斷 而我們愈來愈難以預見 該如何達成 可以令兩方接受、長久維持 的和平方案 達佛地區也許沒有出現在新聞標題上 但是當地的殺戮與人民的流離失所 從未間斷 該地所製造的人間悲劇 遠超過你我的想像 在伊拉克 終於再度面臨暴力衝突 而伊拉克於四個月前 進行的國會選舉 直到目前仍無法籌組政府
But hang on, this talk is to be about the good news. So are these now the images of the past? Well, notwithstanding the gloomy pictures from the Middle East, Darfur, Iraq, elsewhere, there is a longer-term trend that does represent some good news. Over the past two decades, since the end of the Cold War, there has been an overall decline in the number of civil wars. Since the high in the early 1990s, with about 50 such civil wars ongoing, we now have 30 percent fewer such conflicts today. The number of people killed in civil wars also is much lower today than it was a decade ago or two. But this trend is less unambiguous. The highest level of deaths on the battlefield was recorded between 1998 and 2001, with about 80,000 soldiers, policemen and rebels killed every year. The lowest number of combatant casualties occurred in 2003, with just 20,000 killed. Despite the up and down since then, the overall trend -- and this is the important bit -- clearly points downward for the past two decades.
但是,我的演講帶來的是好消息 所以剛提到的都是過去的境況了嗎? 雖然我們看到了悲慘灰暗的現狀 存在於中東、達佛 伊拉克、以及其他地區。 以長期的趨勢來看 我們確實有好消息 自從冷戰結束以來的二十年間 內戰的數量 呈現下降的趨勢 從 1990 年代早期的高峰期 大約有 50 場內戰 而至今天,這種衝突的數量 減少了百分之三十 今日在內戰之中遭到殺害的人數 也遠低於 十年前或二十年前的數字 但是,這個趨勢並不明顯 戰場上最多的死亡人數 紀錄於 1998 年到 2001 年之間 大約是每年八萬名軍人、警察、叛軍 死於戰場 最低的戰鬥人員死亡人數 紀錄於 2003 年 只有兩萬人死亡 雖然數字上下起伏不定 總體的趨勢 ——也是最重要的關鍵—— 明顯下降 過去二十年來
The news about civilian casualties is also less bad than it used to be. From over 12,000 civilians deliberately killed in civil wars in 1997 and 1998, a decade later, this figure stands at 4,000. This is a decrease by two-thirds. This decline would be even more obvious if we factored in the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. But then 800,000 civilians were slaughtered in a matter of just a few months. This certainly is an accomplishment that must never be surpassed. What is also important is to note that these figures only tell part of the story. They exclude people that died as a consequence of civil war, from hunger or disease, for example. And they also do not properly account for civilian suffering more generally. Torture, rape and ethnic cleansing have become highly effective, if often non-lethal, weapons in civil war. To put it differently, for the civilians that suffer the consequences of ethnic conflict and civil war, there is no good war and there is no bad peace. Thus, even though every civilian killed, maimed, raped, or tortured is one too many, the fact that the number of civilian casualties is clearly lower today than it was a decade ago, is good news.
有關平民死亡的新聞 與往昔比較亦相對減輕 在 1997 年與 1998 年間 超過一萬兩千位平民 遭到蓄意屠殺 十年之後 遭到殺害的平民降低為四千人 數字減少了三分之二 如果我們列入 1994 年 盧安達的種族屠殺 下降的趨勢就更為明顯 那時在短短的幾個月之內 就有八十萬平民遭到屠殺 這是我們後人永遠不可超越的 殘暴罪行 我們也應該同樣謹記 這些數字只代表著冰山的一角 這些數字沒有列入 因為內戰造成的飢荒、疾病 種種惡果之下死亡的人數 這些數字也無法真實地反映 遭受各種苦難的平民百姓 酷刑、強暴、種族淨化 已經成為內戰之中極為有效 令人生不如死的非致命性武器 換句話說 對於遭受種族衝突、內戰苦果的 平民百姓來說 戰爭永遠是邪惡的 和平永遠是良善 任何一位平民遭到殺害、傷殘、強暴、酷刑 都不能輕視 然而平民死亡的數字 比起十年前 已經明顯降低 這項事實 確實是好消息
So, we have fewer conflicts today in which fewer people get killed. And the big question, of course, is why? In some cases, there is a military victory of one side. This is a solution of sorts, but rarely is it one that comes without human costs or humanitarian consequences. The defeat of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka is perhaps the most recent example of this, but we have seen similar so-called military solutions in the Balkans, in the South Caucasus and across most of Africa. At times, they are complimented by negotiated settlements, or at least cease-fire agreements, and peacekeepers are deployed. But hardly ever do they represent a resounding success -- Bosnia and Herzegovina perhaps more so than Georgia. But for many parts of Africa, a colleague of mine once put it this way, "The cease-fire on Tuesday night was reached just in time for the genocide to start on Wednesday morning."
今日的衝突數量減少 遭受殺害的人數下降 我們當然要問一個核心問題: 「為什麼減少?」 某些案例之中 是一方獲得了軍事勝利 這是一種解決方法 但是這種解決方法 很少是在沒有人員傷亡 或是沒有人道代價之下達成的 斯里蘭卡的塔米爾之虎的戰敗 我想是最近的一個血腥例子 但是我們也在巴爾幹半島、南高加索 以及非洲的大部分區域 見過類似的 所謂的血腥「軍事手段」 在其他的情況之中 衝突者因為談判解決而接受讚揚 或是至少達成停火協議 接受和平部隊派駐 但是這些情況並不表示 成功獲得的和平 波士尼亞與黑塞哥維那 與喬治亞相比,更接近此種狀況 但對於非洲的多數區域 我的同事曾經如此形容: 「星期二晚上的停火協議 及時阻止了 星期三早上正要開始的種族屠殺」
But let's look at the good news again. If there's no solution on the battlefield, three factors can account for the prevention of ethnic conflict and civil war, or for sustainable peace afterwards: leadership, diplomacy and institutional design. Take the example of Northern Ireland. Despite centuries of animosity, decades of violence and thousands of people killed, 1998 saw the conclusion of an historic agreement. Its initial version was skillfully mediated by Senator George Mitchell. Crucially, for the long-term success of the peace process in Northern Ireland, he imposed very clear conditions for the participation and negotiations. Central among them, a commitment to exclusively peaceful means. Subsequent revisions of the agreement were facilitated by the British and Irish governments, who never wavered in their determination to bring peace and stability to Northern Ireland.
我們回頭再看看好的消息 如果戰場之上無法獲得解決方案 有三個因素 可以阻止種族衝突與內戰 或取得日後足以令人接受的和平 領導能力、外交手腕 以及憲政設計 以北愛爾蘭為例 即使有著橫跨幾個世紀的仇恨 數十年的暴力衝突 數千人遭受殺害 仍於 1998 年達成了 歷史性的協議 喬治.米切爾參議員十分有技巧地中介了 雙方最初的協議版本 讓北愛爾蘭的和平進程 能夠長久維持的關鍵 是他為了雙方參與和談判 加上了十分明確的條件 在這些條件之中 最重要的是只能使用 和平手段的承諾 隨後的修訂協議 因為英國與愛爾蘭政府 從未動搖的和平決心 迅速帶來了北愛爾蘭的和平與穩定
The core institutions that were put in place in 1998 and their modifications in 2006 and 2008 were highly innovative and allowed all conflict parties to see their core concerns and demands addressed. The agreement combines a power-sharing arrangement in Northern Ireland with cross-border institutions that link Belfast and Dublin and thus recognizes the so-called Irish dimension of the conflict. And significantly, there's also a clear focus on both the rights of individuals and the rights of communities. The provisions in the agreement may be complex, but so is the underlying conflict. Perhaps most importantly, local leaders repeatedly rose to the challenge of compromise, not always fast and not always enthusiastically, but rise in the end they did. Who ever could have imagined Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness jointly governing Northern Ireland as First and Deputy First Minister?
於 1998 年起草的 核心憲法 以及 2006 與 2008 年 對憲法的修訂 具有十足創新的精神 並讓所有互相衝突的黨派 見到他們所關注的核心問題、需求獲得處理 此份協議結合了北愛爾蘭 分享權力的安排 與超越國境的憲法 連接了貝爾法斯特與都柏林 以此承認了 所謂的愛爾蘭地區的衝突 顯而易見 這份憲法同時明確地保障了 個人的權利 與當地社群的權利 也許這份協議的條款非常複雜 但是在它背後的衝突也是同樣複雜 最重要的是 當地領袖不斷地回應對於妥協讓步的反對意見 不見得每次都迅速反應 也不見得每次都充滿熱情 但是最終證明他們締造了和平 又有誰想像得到 依安.佩斯利與馬丁.麥吉尼斯 以首相與副首相的身份 攜手共同領導北愛爾蘭政府
But then, is Northern Ireland a unique example, or does this kind of explanation only hold more generally in democratic and developed countries? By no means. The ending of Liberia's long-lasting civil war in 2003 illustrates the importance of leadership, diplomacy and institutional design as much as the successful prevention of a full-scale civil war in Macedonia in 2001, or the successful ending of the conflict in Aceh in Indonesia in 2005. In all three cases, local leaders were willing and able to make peace, the international community stood ready to help them negotiate and implement an agreement, and the institutions have lived up to the promise that they held on the day they were agreed.
然而,北愛爾蘭究竟是個特例? 還是這種解釋 一般只能套用在 民主與已發展國家上? 絕非如此 2003 年所結束 利比亞漫長的內戰 描繪了 領導能力、外交手腕 以及憲法設計的重要性 這三個因素也成功阻止了 2001 年馬其頓 即將爆發的全面內戰 以及成功結束了 2005 年發生於印尼亞齊地區的衝突 在這三個案例之中 當地領袖皆願意、亦有能力 締造和平 國際社會也準備好 協助他們談判與制定協議 憲法制度則實踐了 自從點頭同意那天開始 各方黨派所許下的承諾
Focusing on leadership, diplomacy and institutional design also helps explain failures to achieve peace, or to make it last. The hopes that were vested in the Oslo Accords did not lead to an end of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Not all the issues that needed to be resolved were actually covered in the agreements. Rather, local leaders committed to revisiting them later on. Yet instead of grasping this opportunity, local and international leaders soon disengaged and became distracted by the second Intifada, the events of 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
注重領導能力、外交手腕 與憲法設計 也解釋了無法得到和平或是 和平無法長久維持的原因 人們對於奧斯陸協定所賦予的希望 並沒有終結 以色列人與巴勒斯坦人的衝突 雙方需要解決的問題 並沒有全部達成協議 結果,當地領袖承諾 稍後重審協議 他們並沒有抓住和平的機會 當地與國際領袖 不久之後即分崩離析 並且因為隨後的 第二次巴勒斯坦大起義、9/11 事件 阿富汗與伊拉克的戰爭而分心
The comprehensive peace agreement for Sudan signed in 2005 turned out to be less comprehensive than envisaged, and its provisions may yet bear the seeds of a full-scale return to war between north and south. Changes and shortcomings in leadership, more off than on international diplomacy and institutional failures account for this in almost equal measure. Unresolved boundary issues, squabbles over oil revenues, the ongoing conflict in Darfur, escalating tribal violence in the south and generally weak state capacity across all of Sudan complete a very depressing picture of the state of affairs in Africa's largest country.
蘇丹於 2005 年所簽署 詳盡的和平協議 最後證明它不如預期 而且它的條款很可能埋下 南北之間 再次引發全面戰爭的種子 領袖的更迭與缺乏領導能力 以及國際外交 無效的憲政 三者同時 導致了失敗的結局 尚未解決的國界問題、原油收益的爭議 達佛正在進行的衝突 都加劇了南蘇丹的部落暴力衝突 也削弱了蘇丹對於 全國的控制能力 這些都為非洲最大的國家 未來的前景 繪製了一幅令人沮喪的畫像
A final example: Kosovo. The failure to achieve a negotiated solution for Kosovo and the violence, tension and de facto partition that resulted from it have their reasons in many, many different factors. Central among them are three. First, the intransigence of local leaders to settle for nothing less than their maximum demands. Second, an international diplomatic effort that was hampered from the beginning by Western support for Kosovo's independence. And third, a lack of imagination when it came to designing institutions that could have addressed the concerns of Serbs and Albanians alike. By the same token -- and here we have some good news again -- the very fact that there is a high-level, well-resourced international presence in Kosovo and the Balkans region more generally and the fact that local leaders on both sides have showed relative restraint, explains why things have not been worse over the past two years since 2008.
最後一個例子:科索沃 科索沃談判 以失敗收場 當地的暴力衝突、緊張情勢 以及所導致的實質分裂 都牽涉到 眾多不同的因素 其中最關鍵的因素有三: 第一,各個當地領袖 貪求自己的最高利益 而不願妥協讓步 第二,國際外交所做的努力 從一開始就因為西方國家支持科索沃獨立 而遭到莫大的阻礙 第三,制定足以同時 保障塞爾維亞人與阿爾巴尼亞 的憲法之時 缺乏對於未來的想像力 同樣地 ——我們在此也有些好消息 從 2008 開始至今兩年 科索沃目前 已有高階層、資源充足的 國際勢力介入調停 而且巴爾幹地區已經普遍地展現出 雙方的當地領袖 擁有相當的自制力 讓事態不再繼續惡化
So even in situations where outcomes are less than optimal, local leaders and international leaders have a choice, and they can make a difference for the better. A cold war is not as good as a cold peace, but a cold peace is still better than a hot war. Good news is also about learning the right lesson. So what then distinguishes the Israeli/Palestinian conflict from that in Northern Ireland, or the civil war in Sudan from that in Liberia? Both successes and failures teach us several critically important things that we need to bear in mind if we want the good news to continue. First, leadership. In the same way in which ethnic conflict and civil war are not natural but man-made disasters, their prevention and settlement does not happen automatically either. Leadership needs to be capable, determined and visionary in its commitment to peace. Leaders need to connect to each other and to their followers, and they need to bring them along on what is an often arduous journey into a peaceful future.
所以,即使是 情勢不甚樂觀的局面 當地領袖 與國際領袖仍有抉擇的空間 他們擁有能力打造更好的未來 冷戰 不會比冷和平 來的更好 但是冷和平 總比戰爭爆發好得多 好消息也包括學習正確的教訓 是什麼原因造成 以色列人/巴勒斯坦人的衝突 與北愛爾蘭不同的結局? 導致蘇丹內戰 與賴比瑞亞不同的結果? 成功與失敗 都會給予我們必須 謹記在心的教訓 如果我們希望好消息持續下去。 第一,領導能力 無論是種族衝突還是內戰 都不是天災 而是人禍 阻止與解決紛爭 不會如同天災結束一般水到渠成 領導者必須有能力 擁有決心與願景 致力於締造和平 領導者之間必須合作 團結彼此的追隨者 以帶領他們 踏上艱鉅的旅程 一起走向和平的未來
Second, diplomacy. Diplomacy needs to be well resourced, sustained, and apply the right mix of incentives and pressures on leaders and followers. It needs to help them reach an equitable compromise, and it needs to ensure that a broad coalition of local, regional and international supporters help them implement their agreement.
第二,外交手腕 外交必須擁有充足的資源 持續不斷努力 以及施加於領袖與追隨者之上 恰到好處的誘因與壓力 外交必須協助他們達成彼此公平的妥協讓步 也必須確保 當地、區域 與國際支持者之間 廣大的聯盟 以協助他們制定協議
Third, institutional design. Institutional design requires a keen focus on issues, innovative thinking and flexible and well-funded implementation. Conflict parties need to move away from maximum demands and towards a compromise that recognizes each other's needs. And they need to think about the substance of their agreement much more than about the labels they want to attach to them. Conflict parties also need to be prepared to return to the negotiation table if the agreement implementation stalls.
第三,憲政設計 憲政設計需要 對於問題的敏銳專注 創新的思考 以及具有彈性與資金充足的實施方法 衝突的黨派必須從彼此的最高利益之下 各讓一步 以達成承認彼此需求的 妥協結果 而且他們必須思考 協議的實質意義 而不是 他們想加諸其上的膚淺標籤 衝突的黨派也必須在 協議實行停滯不前的時候 作好回到談判桌旁的準備
For me personally, the most critical lesson of all is this: Local commitment to peace is all-important, but it is often not enough to prevent or end violence. Yet, no amount of diplomacy or institutional design can make up for local failures and the consequences that they have. Therefore, we must invest in developing leaders, leaders that have the skills, vision and determination to make peace. Leaders, in other words, that people will trust and that they will want to follow even if that means making hard choices.
以我個人的意見 從這些例子得到最重要的教訓是: 當地是否致力於和平 至為重要 光是這樣還不夠 為了阻止或終結暴力衝突 再多的外交手段 再多的憲法設計 都不足以彌補當地的失敗 和其後果 所以,我們必須協助 具有潛力的領導者 以及擁有能力、願景、決心的 領導者 以創造和平 領導者,換句話說 就是人民願意信任 願意追隨的人 即使意味著 他必須做出艱難的抉擇
A final thought: Ending civil wars is a process that is fraught with dangers, frustrations and setbacks. It often takes a generation to accomplish, but it also requires us, today's generation, to take responsibility and to learn the right lessons about leadership, diplomacy and institutional design, so that the child soldiers of today can become the children of tomorrow.
最後的想法: 終結內戰 是一個充滿危險、挫敗 與逆境的過程 經常需要一整個世代的時間才能達成 也需要我們今日的世代 負起責任 學習正確的教訓 瞭解領導能力、外交手腕 以及憲政設計 讓今日戰火摧殘之下的兒童兵 成為明日享有安祥和平的孩子
Thank you.
謝謝各位
(Applause)
(掌聲)