Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

已審核 字幕已審核
  • Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Morton Bast

    毫無疑問的,我們當然會與恐怖主義份子對話。

  • We most certainly do talk to terrorists, no question about it.

    我們所對抗的,是一種新型態的恐怖主義。

  • We are at war with a new form of terrorism.

    它仍然具有傳統恐怖主義的部份特性

  • It's sort of the good old, traditional form of terrorism,

    但是也具有部分的21世紀的包裝方式

  • but it's sort of been packaged for the 21st century.

    打擊恐怖主義的最重要的事情之一

  • One of the big things about countering terrorism

    就是,你如何看待它呢?

  • is, how do you perceive it?

    因為看待它的方式,決定了你如何回應它。

  • Because perception leads to your response to it.

    所以,若你用傳統的角度來看恐怖主義

  • So if you have a traditional perception of terrorism,

    它會是一種犯罪行為,一種戰爭

  • it would be that it's one of criminality, one of war.

    你會如何回應呢?

  • So how are you going to respond to it?

    很自然的,你的回應會是以牙還牙

  • Naturally, it would follow that you meet kind with kind.

    跟它作戰。但若你用比較進步的角度來看待

  • You fight it. If you have a more modernist approach,

    恐怖主義應該更像是一種因果關係

  • and your perception of terrorism is almost cause-and-effect,

    從這樣的角度,你所產生的回應方式

  • then naturally from that, the responses that come out of it

    就不會是那種一報還一報的

  • are much more asymmetrical.

    我們生活在一個現代的、 全球化的世界。

  • We live in a modern, global world.

    恐怖分子其實已經做了調適

  • Terrorists have actually adapted to it.

    我們也應該要做調適,而這意味著那些

  • It's something we have to, too, and that means the people

    負責反恐對策工作的人

  • who are working on counterterrorism responses

    必須開始,如同戴上

  • have to start, in effect, putting on

    谷歌眼鏡之類的(以新的角度看事情的方式)

  • their Google-tinted glasses, or whatever.

    對我來說,我想要的是讓我們對於恐怖主義

  • For my part, what I wanted us to do was just to look at

    採用全球品牌這樣的角度來看

  • terrorism as though it was a global brand,

    比如說,可口可樂。

  • say, Coca-Cola.

    兩者都對你的健康不太好。(笑聲)

  • Both are fairly bad for your health. (Laughter)

    如果你用這種 品牌 的角度來看恐怖主義

  • If you look at it as a brand in those ways,

    你應該會發現到,這是一個相當有缺陷的產品。

  • what you'll come to realize is, it's a pretty flawed product.

    我們已經說過,它對你的健康非常不好

  • As we've said, it's pretty bad for your health,

    對那些被它影響的人也不好

  • it's bad for those who it affects,

    就算是對於自殺炸彈客,也是不好的

  • and it's not actually good if you're a suicide bomber either.

    它並不如它的外包裝上說的那樣

  • It doesn't actually do what it says on the tin.

    你也不會真的上了天堂,還得到72個美女

  • You're not really going to get 72 virgins in heaven.

    這些都不會發生, 我認為不會

  • It's not going to happen, I don't think.

    就算你贊助恐怖主義組織, 這也不會如同80年代時所宣稱的

  • And you're not really going to, in the '80s, end capitalism

    終結資本主義。它是一派胡言。

  • by supporting one of these groups. It's a load of nonsense.

    於是你會發現,它有一個致命弱點(阿奇里斯踵)。

  • But what you realize, it's got an Achilles' heel.

    恐怖主義這個品牌有一個致命弱點。

  • The brand has an Achilles' heel.

    我們前面提到過 健康,

  • We've mentioned the health,

    恐怖主義需要有客戶來買單

  • but it needs consumers to buy into it.

    有這樣的客戶的地方,可稱為恐怖主義的選區

  • The consumers it needs are the terrorist constituency.

    這樣的選區裡的人喜歡並支持這個品牌、

  • They're the people who buy into the brand, support them,

    協助這個品牌。這些人也就是

  • facilitate them, and they're the people

    我們必須去接觸的目標族群。

  • we've got to reach out to.

    我們必須在目標族群的面前與恐怖主義來較量

  • We've got to attack that brand in front of them.

    有兩種基本的進行方式可採用,若我們從品牌的思路來看

  • There's two essential ways of doing that, if we carry on this brand theme.

    一個是降低恐怖主義的市占率,我的意思是

  • One is reducing their market. What I mean is,

    這是我們的品牌在對抗它們的品牌,我們要競爭

  • it's their brand against our brand. We've got to compete.

    就必須顯示我們的產品比較好。

  • We've got to show we're a better product.

    如果我想要顯示我們的產品比較好,

  • If I'm trying to show we're a better product,

    我應該不會做出像 關塔那摩灣 那樣的事情 (美國海軍在該基地拘留審訊恐怖嫌疑份子)

  • I probably wouldn't do things like Guantanamo Bay.

    我們所談的是 降低對產品本身的需求

  • We've talked there about curtailing the underlying need

    你可以發現到,恐怖主義的壯大,

  • for the product itself. You could be looking there at

    是因為 貧困、 不公正待遇,這些各種各樣的事件

  • poverty, injustice, all those sorts of things

    的發生而滋長的。

  • which feed terrorism.

    另一個進行方式是直接打擊對手的產品

  • The other thing to do is to knock the product,

    打破對手的品牌迷思,如同前面說過的。

  • attack the brand myth, as we've said.

    比如說,殺死一個年幼的孩子,根本算不上英勇的行為。

  • You know, there's nothing heroic about killing a young kid.

    也許我們需要專注於此,讓這樣的訊息傳回去

  • Perhaps we need to focus on that and get that message back across.

    我們必須顯示恐怖主義這個產品的危險性。

  • We've got to reveal the dangers in the product.

    我們的目標群眾,不只是恐怖主義的製造者,

  • Our target audience, it's not just the producers of terrorism,

    如我前面說過的,目標不只是恐怖分子。

  • as I've said, the terrorists.

    也不只是恐怖主義的宣傳人員

  • It's not just the marketeers of terrorism,

    不只是這些資助並培養恐怖主義的人

  • which is those who finance, those who facilitate it,

    而應該把目標擴及恐怖主義的消費者。

  • but it's the consumers of terrorism.

    我們必須去到那些消費者的家鄉。

  • We've got to get in to those homelands.

    那是他們招募的地方,也是他們得到權勢與力量的地方

  • That's where they recruit from. That's where they get their power and strength.

    也就是他們的消費者所來自的地方。

  • That's where their consumers come from.

    我們必須讓我們的訊息傳到那裏去。

  • And we have to get our messaging in there.

    所以從根本來說,我們必需在那些地區,

  • So the essentials are, we've got to have interaction

    與恐怖分子、贊助者......等等,進行互動。

  • in those areas, with the terrorists, the facilitators, etc.

    我們必須投入,我們必須去教育,

  • We've got to engage, we've got to educate,

    而且我們必須去對話。

  • and we've got to have dialogue.

    現在,再花一點時間談品牌這回事

  • Now, staying on this brand thing for just a few more seconds,

    想想進行傳達的機制。

  • think about delivery mechanisms.

    我們該如何進行這些攻擊?

  • How are we going to do these attacks?

    嗯,減少市占率是可行的方式之一。

  • Well, reducing the market is really one for governments

    政府和文明社會必須顯示我們是更好的選擇。

  • and civil society. We've got to show we're better.

    我們必須顯示我們的價值觀。

  • We've got to show our values.

    我們必須身體力行。

  • We've got to practice what we preach.

    當談論到打擊品牌這件事的時候

  • But when it comes to knocking the brand,

    如果恐怖分子是可口可樂,而我們是百事可樂,

  • if the terrorists are Coca-Cola and we're Pepsi,

    我不認為,身為百事可樂,我們說的任何關於可口可樂的話

  • I don't think, being Pepsi, anything we say about Coca-Cola,

    會有人來相信

  • anyone's going to believe us.

    所以我們必須找一個不同的機制,

  • So we've got to find a different mechanism,

    我所看過的最好的機制中的一個

  • and one of the best mechanisms I've ever come across

    就是恐怖主義的受害者。

  • is the victims of terrorism.

    如果有一個人可以真正站在那裡,說,

  • They are somebody who can actually stand there and say,

    "本產品真的很爛。我用了它結果病了好些天

  • "This product's crap. I had it and I was sick for days.

    它燒傷了我的手,諸如此類的"。你會相信他們。

  • It burnt my hand, whatever." You believe them.

    你可以看到他們的傷疤。你會相信他們。

  • You can see their scars. You trust them.

    但不管是受害者,也不管是政府、

  • But whether it's victims, whether it's governments,

    非政府組織、或甚是英國女王昨天在北愛爾蘭,

  • NGOs, or even the Queen yesterday, in Northern Ireland,

    我們都是需要進行互動,並與這些不同層次的

  • we have to interact and engage with those different

    恐怖主義,建立有效的接觸

  • layers of terrorism, and, in effect,

    我們的確需要與魔鬼跳支小舞。

  • we do have to have a little dance with the devil.

    這是我的演講裡我最喜歡的部分

  • This is my favorite part of my speech.

    我曾想要把你們大家都炸上天來表達我的立場

  • I wanted to blow you all up to try and make a point,

    但是 — — (笑聲) — —

  • but — (Laughter) —

    TED,基於健康和安全方面的考慮,已經告訴我

  • TED, for health and safety reasons, have told me

    我必須要倒數計時

  • I've got to do a countdown, so

    我感覺好像有點愛爾蘭或猶太人的恐怖分子的樣子,

  • I feel like a bit of an Irish or Jewish terrorist,

    有點像是健康和安全的恐怖分子,而且我 — — (笑聲) — —

  • sort of a health and safety terrorist, and I — (Laughter) —

    我想要倒數 3、2、1,而且

  • I've got to count 3, 2, 1, and

    這有點令人震驚,順便想想我要喊什麼樣的口號,

  • it's a bit alarming, so thinking of what my motto would be,

    可能會是 "身體分開了,不是心臟病發。"

  • and it would be, "Body parts, not heart attacks."

    所以 3、 2、 1。(爆炸聲)

  • So 3, 2, 1. (Explosion sound)

    非常好。(笑聲)

  • Very good. (Laughter)

    現在,坐在 15J 的女士是藏身我們之中的一個自殺炸彈客。

  • Now, lady in 15J was a suicide bomber amongst us all.

    我們都變成了恐怖主義的受害者。

  • We're all victims of terrorism.

    這房間裡有625個人,每個人都會終身帶著傷疤

  • There's 625 of us in this room. We're going to be scarred for life.

    有一位父親和兒子坐在那邊的座位。

  • There was a father and a son who sat in that seat over there.

    兒子死了。父親活了下來。

  • The son's dead. The father lives.

    父親在往後的歲月中會自責

  • The father will probably kick himself for years to come

    為什麼他坐的不是他的兒子的位置

  • that he didn't take that seat instead of his kid.

    他可能會開始喝酒,他大概

  • He's going to take to alcohol, and he's probably

    會在三年內自殺。這是統計出來的數據。

  • going to kill himself in three years. That's the stats.

    在那裡,有一個很年輕貌美的女人

  • There's a very young, attractive lady over here,

    爆炸對她帶來的結果,會是我認為由自殺爆炸造成的

  • and she has something which I think's the worst form

    我所見過最糟糕的心理與

  • of psychological, physical injury I've ever seen

    身體上的損傷: 所謂的霰彈片人。

  • out of a suicide bombing: It's human shrapnel.

    這個意思是,當她坐在一家餐館

  • What it means is, when she sat in a restaurant

    在未來的年頭,10 年,15 年,

  • in years to come, 10 years to come, 15 years to come,

    或者她是在沙灘上,每隔一陣子她就會開始

  • or she's on the beach, every so often she's going to start

    揉她的皮膚,然後就會掉出來

  • rubbing her skin, and out of there will come

    一片的霰彈片。

  • a piece of that shrapnel.

    這對理智來說,是件很難接受的事情

  • And that is a hard thing for the head to take.

    有位女士在那邊,在這次爆炸事件中

  • There's a lady over there as well who lost her legs

    也失去了她的雙腿。

  • in this bombing.

    她將會發現,她會得到一筆少的可憐

  • She's going to find out that she gets a pitiful amount

    的金錢,從我們的政府發給她的

  • of money off our government

    來照顧她所遭遇的事件後的生活。

  • for looking after what's happened to her.

    她有一個女兒原本打算去就讀一所最好的大學

  • She had a daughter who was going to go to one of the best

    這個女兒打算放棄大學

  • universities. She's going to give up university

    來照顧媽媽。

  • to look after Mum.

    我們都在這裡,而所有看到這個爆炸事件的人

  • We're all here, and all of those who watch it

    將會受到心理創傷

  • are going to be traumatized by this event,

    而你們這些遇難者,將會學到

  • but all of you here who are victims are going to learn

    一些殘酷的真理。

  • some hard truths.

    也就是說,我們的社會,一開始會同情,但過了一陣子,

  • That is, our society, we sympathize, but after a while,

    我們就會開始忽略。作為一個社會,我們做得不夠。

  • we start to ignore. We don't do enough as a society.

    我們沒有照顧我們的受害者,我們也沒有賦予他們力量,

  • We do not look after our victims, and we do not enable them,

    我將嘗試表現的是,實際上,

  • and what I'm going to try and show is that actually,

    受害者是我們擁有來對抗恐怖主義

  • victims are the best weapon we have

    的最佳武器。

  • against more terrorism.

    在千禧年交替時的政府會如何面對恐怖攻擊?

  • How would the government at the turn of the millennium

    嗯,我們都知道。

  • approach today? Well, we all know.

    他們所做過的是侵略。

  • What they'd have done then is an invasion.

    如果自殺炸彈客是來自威爾斯,

  • If the suicide bomber was from Wales,

    我會說: 祝好運啊,威爾斯。

  • good luck to Wales, I'd say.

    訴諸直覺的立法,緊急條文的立法

  • Knee-jerk legislation, emergency provision legislation --

    這些都打擊了我們社會的根本基礎,我們都知道 — —

  • which hits at the very basis of our society, as we all know --

    這樣做是錯的。

  • it's a mistake.

    我們將會驅動對威爾斯人的偏見,從愛丁堡,

  • We're going to drive prejudice throughout Edinburgh,

    到整個英國。

  • throughout the U.K., for Welsh people.

    現今的做法,政府已從他們的錯誤中學習。

  • Today's approach, governments have learned from their mistakes.

    他們開始研究我在演講開頭所說的,

  • They are looking at what I've started off on,

    關於這些更加不對稱的做法,

  • on these more asymmetrical approaches to it,

    更多的現代主義者的觀點、 因果關係。

  • more modernist views, cause and effect.

    但過去的錯誤是無法避免的。

  • But mistakes of the past are inevitable.

    這是人類的天性。

  • It's human nature.

    做這些事情所要面對的壓力和恐懼

  • The fear and the pressure to do something on them

    將會是巨大的。他們將會犯錯。

  • is going to be immense. They are going to make mistakes.

    他們不只是要變聰明。

  • They're not just going to be smart.

    有一個著名的愛爾蘭恐怖分子曾下了一個

  • There was a famous Irish terrorist who once summed up

    十分漂亮的結論。他說,

  • the point very beautifully. He said,

    "事情昰這樣的,對於英國政府來說,

  • "The thing is, about the British government, is, is that it's got

    必須要每次都幸運才行, 而對我們來說,只要幸運一次就夠了"。

  • to be lucky all the time, and we only have to be lucky once."

    所以我們需要做的是,我們要去影響它。

  • So what we need to do is we have to effect it.

    我們得開始想想,更積極地去預防。

  • We've got to start thinking about being more proactive.

    我們需要建立一個非武力戰爭的武器庫

  • We need to build an arsenal of noncombative weapons

    來因應這場反恐戰爭。

  • in this war on terrorism.

    但當然,這只是想法,這並不是政府能做得很好的事情。

  • But of course, it's ideas -- is not something that governments do very well.

    我想回到剛剛的爆炸前,那個關於品牌的想法

  • I want to go back just to before the bang, to this idea of

    那時我談到可口可樂和百事可樂,等等。

  • brand, and I was talking about Coke and Pepsi, etc.

    我們認為這就像是恐怖主義與民主的品牌戰爭。

  • We see it as terrorism versus democracy in that brand war.

    他們(恐怖份子)則會把這看作自由戰士與真理

  • They'll see it as freedom fighters and truth

    對抗不公正與帝國主義。

  • against injustice, imperialism, etc.

    我們必須把這看作是一個致命的戰場。

  • We do have to see this as a deadly battlefield.

    恐怖分子不只是想要我們的生命。

  • It's not just [our] flesh and blood they want.

    他們實際上想要的,是我們文化的靈魂,這就是為什麼

  • They actually want our cultural souls, and that's why

    品牌比喻是一個非常有趣的方式來看待這問題。

  • the brand analogy is a very interesting way of looking at this.

    如果我們看看阿爾蓋達組織。阿爾蓋達基本上算是

  • If we look at al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was essentially

    在某處露天市場的貨架上的產品

  • a product on a shelf in a souk somewhere

    並沒有很多人聽說過的產品

  • which not many people had heard of.

    而9/11事件就像是產品發表。這是一個重大的行銷日子

  • 9/11 launched it. It was its big marketing day,

    這整個事件用21世紀的手法包裝。他們知道他們在做什麼。

  • and it was packaged for the 21st century. They knew what they were doing.

    他們有效地 [執行] 關於這個品牌形象的工作

  • They were effectively [doing] something in this brand image

    創建了一個可以連鎖開業到全世界的品牌

  • of creating a brand which can be franchised around

    只要有貧窮、 愚昧和不公正的現象就行得通。

  • the world, where there's poverty, ignorance and injustice.

    我已經說過,我們要打進這個市場,

  • We, as I've said, have got to hit that market,

    但我們要使用我們的頭腦,而不是我們的力量。

  • but we've got to use our heads rather than our might.

    如果我們把這當成品牌來看,或以其他類似的方式來思考它

  • If we perceive it in this way as a brand, or other ways of thinking at it like this,

    我們就不會去解決或打擊恐怖主義。

  • we will not resolve or counter terrorism.

    我想做的是只簡短地舉出幾個例子

  • What I'd like to do is just briefly go through a few examples

    從我在一些區域的實務經驗,試著用不同的方式進行這些事情。

  • from my work on areas where we try and approach these things differently.

    第一個被命名為 "lawfare" (法律戰爭)

  • The first one has been dubbed "lawfare,"

    因為這樣名字比較響亮。

  • for want of a better word.

    當我們最初開始對恐怖分子提出民事訴訟的時候,

  • When we originally looked at bringing civil actions against terrorists,

    每個人都以為我們是有點瘋狂的初生之犢

  • everyone thought we were a bit mad and mavericks

    和狂想家。現在它有一個標題。每個人都在這樣做。

  • and crackpots. Now it's got a title. Everyone's doing it.

    如果有一枚炸彈炸了,人們就會提出訴訟。

  • There's a bomb, people start suing.

    這類早期案例之一是奧馬爆炸事件 (1998.8.15發生在北愛爾蘭)。

  • But one of the first early cases on this was the Omagh Bombing.

    從 1998 年提出了民事訴訟。

  • A civil action was brought from 1998.

    在奧馬,真愛爾蘭共和軍在一個和談過程之中

  • In Omagh, bomb went off, Real IRA,

    引爆了炸彈。

  • middle of a peace process.

    這意味著匪徒不能真的因此而被起訴

  • That meant that the culprits couldn't really be prosecuted

    基於許多考量,主要與和談過程有關

  • for lots of reasons, mostly to do with the peace process

    和當時正在進行的程續,公眾利益等

  • and what was going on, the greater good.

    這也意味著,如果你可以這樣想像,

  • It also meant, then, if you can imagine this,

    那個人炸死了你的孩子

  • that the people who bombed your children

    和你的丈夫,卻仍然可以走在你日常生活會去的

  • and your husbands were walking around the supermarket

    那個市場。

  • that you lived in.

    有些受害者站出來說: 真的受夠了。

  • Some of those victims said enough is enough.

    我們提出了私人訴訟,感謝上帝,10 年後,

  • We brought a private action, and thank God, 10 years later,

    我們實際上贏得了訴訟。仍有一小塊上訴

  • we actually won it. There is a slight appeal on

    目前還在進行中,所以我要稍微謹慎一點,

  • at the moment so I have to be a bit careful,

    但我很有信心。

  • but I'm fairly confident.

    為什麼這樣做會有效?

  • Why was it effective?

    這會有效,並不只是因為正義被伸張了

  • It was effective not just because justice was seen to be done

    其實這裡有一個巨大的空白。

  • where there was a huge void.

    這是因為真愛爾蘭共和軍和其他恐怖團體,

  • It was because the Real IRA and other terrorist groups,

    他們整體實力是基於一個事實: 他們是

  • their whole strength is from the fact that they are

    弱者。而當我們把受害者作為弱者

  • an underdog. When we put the victims as the underdog

    就翻轉了局面,他們不知道該怎麼應付了。

  • and flipped it, they didn't know what to do.

    他們都感到尷尬。他們能招募的人員變少了。

  • They were embarrassed. Their recruitment went down.

    爆炸案實際上停止了 — — 這是事實 — — 就因為這樣的行動。

  • The bombs actually stopped -- fact -- because of this action.

    更重要的是,我們,或者該說是這些受害者,變成了

  • We became, or those victims became, more importantly,

    糾纏著恐怖組織的鬼魂。

  • a ghost that haunted the terrorist organization.

    還有其他的例子。我們有一個叫做阿爾莫格的案子

  • There's other examples. We have a case called Almog

    是關於一家銀行,

  • which is to do with a bank that was,

    據說呢,從我們的觀點來看,

  • allegedly, from our point of view,

    這家銀行對自殺炸彈客給予獎勵。