评论
打印
Almost 20 years have passed since 9/11.
911事件几乎是二十年前的事了。
It is time to take stock of where we stand and stop and think.
此刻我们应该要评估一下我们现在所处的状况，停下来做些思考。
It is time to ask ourselves,
此刻我们应该问问自己，
have the assumptions and policies we developed in the wake of those tragic events truly made us more secure?
在那些悲剧事件之后，我们所发展出来的假设和政策真的有让我们更安全吗？
Have they made our societies, both in Europe and in the United States, more resilient?
它们有让我们的社会，包括在欧洲和美国的社会，更有恢复力吗？
I've worked all my life in the field of security and defense, and I am convinced that now, more than ever,
我一生都在安全与防卫的领域工作，我深信，我们现今比以往更需要
we need to radically reframe the way we think and act about security, and especially about international security.
彻底地重新构造我们针对安全所用的思考和行动方式，特别是针对国际安全。
By international security, I actually mean what we do,
我所谓的国际安全指的是我们的作为，
how we prepare our countries to better respond and prevent external threats, and how we protect our citizens.
我们如何让我们的国家有更好的准备来应变和预防外在威胁，以及我们如何保护我们的公民。
The key to both is to focus on protecting civilians,
这两者的关键都在于把焦点放在保护平民百姓，
both in our own countries and in those where we are present in the name of security.
包括在我们自己国内的，以及我们以安全之名前往的国家中的平民百姓。
Now, this idea goes against the fixed narrative that we developed over the past 20 years over what security is and how to get it,
这个想法其实并不符合我们在过去二十年所发展出来的不变说法，关于安全应该是什么及如何得到安全的说法，
but that narrative is flawed, and worse, it is counterproductive.
但那说法有瑕疵，更糟糕的是，它还会产生不良的后果。
Over the past 20 years, both in the United States and in Europe,
在过去二十年间，在美国和在欧洲，
we've come to accept that we must talk about security in zero sum terms,
我们渐渐接受了必须要用零和的方式来谈论安全性，
as if the only way to gain more security is by compromising on values and rights:
彷彿能够更安全的唯一方式就是在价值观和权利上做妥协：
security versus human rights, safety versus freedom and development.
安全性vs.人权，安全vs.自由和发展。
This is a false opposition. It just doesn't work like that.
这是种错误的对立。实际上不是这样运作的。
We need to recognize that security and human rights are not opposite values, they are intrinsically related.
我们得要了解到安全性和人权并不是对立的价值观，它们在内在其实是相关的。
After all, the most basic human right is the right to live and to be free from violence,
毕竟，最基本的人权就是生存和免于暴力的权利，
and a state's most basic responsibility is to guarantee that right for its citizens.
而一个国家最基本的责任就是要保障其公民的权利。
Conversely, if we think about communities all over the world affected by war and conflict,
反过来说，如果我们想想全世界受到战争和冲突影响的社区，
it is insecurity and violence that stops them from achieving their full freedom and development.
正是不安全感和暴力让他们无法达到完全的自由和发展。
Now, they need basic security just as much as we do
他们和我们一样需要基本的安全，
and they need it so they can live a normal life and so that they can enjoy their human rights.
他们需要基本的安全，才能够过正常的生活，才能享受他们的人权。
This is why we need to shift.
这就是为什么我们需要转变。
We need to acknowledge that sustainable security builds on a foundation of human rights,
我们必须要承认，永续的安全性应该要立基在人权的基础之上，
builds on promoting and respecting human rights.
立基在推动和尊重人权之上。
Also, over the past two decades, we have accepted that the best way to guarantee our own security is by defeating our enemies,
此外，在过去二十年间，我们也已经接受了保障我们安全最好的方式就是打败我们的敌人，
and to do that, we need to rely almost exclusively on the military.
若要打败敌人，我们几乎就完全要仰赖军队。
Again, this clashes with my work, with my research, with what I see in the field.
同样的，这也抵触我的工作、研究和我在这领域的所见所闻。
What I see is that building sustainable security has a lot less to do with crushing enemies,
我看到的是：建立永续的安全性和摧毁敌人并没有很大的关系，
has a lot less to do with winning on the battlefield, and has a lot more to do with protecting victims and building stability.
和在战场上获胜没有很大的关系，比较有关系的是保护受害者以及建立稳定性。
And to do that, well, the military alone is simply insufficient.
如果要做到这些，光用军队是不足够的。
This is why I believe we need to shelve the never-ending War on Terror,
这就是为什么我相信我们需要把反恐战争摆到一边去，
and we need to replace it with a security agenda that is driven by the principle of protecting civilians,
我们需要将它换成一种安全议程，由保护平民百姓的原则所驱使的议程，
no matter where they are from, what passport they hold, or where they live: Vancouver, New York, Kabul, Mosul, Aleppo or Douma.
并且不去区分平民百姓是来自何方、持有哪一国的护照，或现居地是哪里：温哥华、纽约、喀布尔、摩苏尔、阿勒颇或杜马。
Sustainable security tells us that we're more likely to have long-term security at home for ourselves
永续安全性告诉我们，如果我们想要自己在家乡能够拥有长期的安全，
if we focus our engagements abroad on protecting civilians and on ensuring their lives are lived in dignity and free from violence.
我们就必须要把我们对国外的干涉，着重在保护平民百姓，着重在确保他们能有尊严地过生活，免受暴力威胁。
For example, we all know that defeating ISIS is a security achievement. Absolutely.
比如，我们都知道打败伊斯兰国是安全上的一项成就。当然。
But rebuilding destroyed homes, restoring order, ensuring a representative political system,
但重建被摧毁的家园、重新恢复秩序、确保能有代议的政治体制，
these are just as, if not more important, and not just for the security of civilians in Iraq and in Syria,
这些都同等重要，甚至更重要，而且不只是为了伊拉克和叙利亚平民百姓的安全，
but for our own security and for global stability.
也是为了我们自己的安全以及全球的稳定性。
More fundamentally, ISIS's danger should not just be counted in the number of weapons it holds
更重要的，伊斯兰国的危险性不应该只用它所持有的武器数目来计算，
but also in the number of children it has kept out of school or indoctrinated.
还要考量它让多少孩子无法上学，或被灌输信仰。
This is from a security perspective. From a security perspective,
这是从安全性的角度来看。从安全性的角度，
the long-term generational impact of having millions of children in Syria growing up knowing only war and out of school,
如果让数百万的叙利亚孩子在成长过程中只知道战争和不上学，就长期的世代冲击来看，
this is a far more dangerous threat to stability than all of ISIS's weapons combined,
对稳定性所产生的威胁，会比所有伊斯兰国的武器加起来都还要危险，
and we should spend just as much time and just as much energy to counter this as what we spend when countering ISIS militarily.
我们花在这上面的时间和精力，应该要跟反击伊斯兰军队所花的时间和精力一样。
Over the past two decades, our security policy has been short-term. It has focused on the here and now.
在过去二十年间，我们的安全政策都是短期的。安全政策的焦点都放在此时此刻。
It has systematically downplayed the link between what we do today in the name of security and the long-term impact of those choices.
它很有计划性地将我们现今以安全之名所做的行为与那些选择的长期影响之间的连结给轻描淡写过去。
In the years after 9/11, some of the choices,
在911事件后的这些年，我们所做的一些选择，
some of the policies we've implemented have probably made us less, not more secure in the long term.
我们导入的一些政策，在长期来看可能并没有让我们更安全，反而是更不安全。
Sustainable, civilian-centered security needs to look at what happens in the long term.
若要做到以平民百姓为中心的永续安全性，就得要去看长期会发生的状况。
Again, for example, relying on drones to target enemies in faraway countries may be a tool.
再举个例子，靠无人机来锁定远方国家的敌人可能是一种工具。
It may be a tool to make sure or to lessen the threat of an imminent attack on the United States.
这种工具可能可以确保或减少即将对美国进行之攻击的威胁性。
But what about the long-term impact? If civilians are killed, if communities are targeted,
但长期的影响呢？如果平民百姓被杀害，如果社区成为目标，
this will feed a vicious circle of war, conflict, trauma and radicalization,
这会促成恶性循环，战争、冲突、伤害，以及极端化的恶性循环，
and that vicious circle is at the center of so many of the security challenges we face today.
而现今我们所面临的安全性难题当中，中心议题常常就是那恶性循环。
This will not make us safer in the long term.
长期来看，这样做不会让我们更安全。
We need civilian security, we need sustainable civilian-centered security, and we need it now.
我们需要平民百姓的安全性，我们需要以平民百姓为中心的永续安全性，我们现在就需要。
We need to encourage thinking and research around this concept, and to implement it.
我们需要鼓励关于这个概念的思想和研究，并付诸实行。
We live in a dangerous world. We have many threats to peace and conflict.
我们住在一个危险的世界上。我们的和平会受到很多威胁，会有许多冲突。
Much like in the days after 9/11, we simply cannot afford not to think about international security.
就很像在911事件之后的日子，我们实在无法承担不去思考国际安全的后果。
But we have to learn the lessons of the past 20 years.
但我们得要从过去二十年学到教训。
To get it right, to get security right, we need to focus on the long term.
要把它做对，要把安全性做对，我们就得要把焦点放在长期。
We need to focus on protecting civilians.
我们得要把焦点放在保护平民百姓。
And we need to respect and acknowledge the fact that sustainable security builds on a foundation of human rights.
我们得要尊重及承认一项事实：永续的安全性是立基在人权上的。
Otherwise, in the name of security,
否则，我们就是以安全为名，
we risk leaving the world a far more dangerous and unstable place than what we already found it in. Thank you.
却在冒险让这个世界变成一个比我们现在的状况更危险许多且不稳定的地方。谢谢。
