we think of financial and economic primarily --

在所有今日世人仍然必需去努力實現的種種令人憂心的缺點之中---

the ones that concern me most

我們認為金融和經濟是最根本主要的--

is the deficit of political dialogue --

但是我最關心的是

our ability to address modern conflicts

是政治上對話的不足--

as they are,

我們有能力應付現今的衝突

to go to the source of what they're all about

實際上就是，

and to understand the key players

找到事情發生的原因

and to deal with them.

了解關鍵人物

We who are diplomats,

再和他們打交道。

we are trained to deal with conflicts between states and issues between states.

這就是我們：這些外交官，

And I can tell you, our agenda is full.

我們受過訓練以應付國家之間的衝突及問題

There is trade, there is disarmament,

我可以告訴你們，我們的工作滿檔。

there is cross-border relations.

工作內容有貿易，有裁減軍備，

But the picture is changing,

有跨界關係。

and we are seeing that there are new key players

但是情勢一直在變，

coming onto the scene.

我們看見有新的關鍵人物

We loosely call them "groups."

一直跟著出現

They may represent social, religious,

我們概括稱之為“集團”

political, economic, military realities.

他們可能是社會、宗教的代表

And we struggle with how to deal with them.

政治、經濟、軍事實相

The rules of engagement:

我們為了如何應付他們而奮鬥

how to talk, when to talk,

交戰規則

and how to deal with them.

怎麼交談，什麼時候交談

Let me show you a slide here

以及如何和他們打交道

which illustrates the character of conflicts

容我在此放個幻燈片

since 1946 until today.

可以說明衝突的性質

You see the green

從1946年起一直到今天

is a traditional interstate conflict,

就是你看見的綠色部份

the ones we used to read about.

是傳統的國家之間的衝突

The red is modern conflict,

也是我們習慣看到的

conflicts within states.

紅色部份是現今的衝突

These are quite different,

國家內部的衝突

and they are outside the grasp

兩者是完全不同的

of modern diplomacy.

連現今的外交

And the core of these key actors

都無法掌握

are groups

這些關鍵參與者的核心

who represent different interests

就是集團

inside countries.

他們代表著國家內部

And the way they deal with their conflicts rapidly spreads to other countries.

不同的利益

So in a way, it is everybody's business.

他們處理衝突的方式迅速蔓延到其他國家

Another acknowledgment we've seen during these years,

所以，在某種程度上而言，這是攸關眾人之事

recent years,

另一件我們這幾年所見印證的事

is that very few

近幾年

of these domestic interstate, intrastate conflicts

就是極少數的

can be solved militarily.

國內的州際之間、州內的衝突

They may have to be dealt with with military means,

可以用軍事來解決

but they cannot be solved by military means.

他們處理時可能會涉及軍事

They need political solutions.

但是不能用軍事手段來解決

And we, therefore, have a problem,

他們需要用到政治解決方案

because they escape traditional diplomacy.

而且我們，有個問題

And we have among states

因為他們脫離了傳統外交

a reluctance in dealing with them.

所以許多國家

Plus, during the last decade,

都不願和他們打交道

we've been in the mode

再加上，過去的10年間

where dealing with groups

我們一直處於這種模式

was conceptually and politically dangerous.

就是和集團打交道

After 9/11,

在觀念上及政治上都極其危險

either you were with us or against us.

911之後

It was black or white.

非敵即友

And groups are very often

非黑即白

immediately label terrorists.

小集團時而有之

And who would talk to terrorists?

很快地就被貼上恐怖份子的標籤

The West, as I would see it,

誰要和恐怖份子談話?

comes out of that decade weakened,

西方，就像我看到的

because we didn't understand the group.

擺脫了虛弱的十年

So we've spent more time

因為我們對集團不了解

on focusing on why we should not talk to others

所以我們花了更多的時間

than finding out how we talk to others.

在為什麼我們不應該和別人談話上

Now I'm not naive.

比找出我們如何和別人交談還多

You cannot talk to everybody all the time.

現在我不是白癡

And there are times you should walk.

你不能一直在和別人交談

And sometimes military intervention is necessary.

有時候你該站起來走出去

I happen to believe that Libya was necessary

所以有時候軍事干預是必要的

and that military intervention in Afghanistan was also necessary.

我碰巧認為利比亞是必要的

And my country relies on its security

在阿富汗的軍事干預也是必要的

through military alliance, that's clear.

我的國家重視安全感

But still we have a large deficit

透過軍事聯盟，這很明顯

in dealing with and understanding modern conflict.

但是我們還是有一個很大的落差

Let us turn to Afghanistan.

在處理和了解現今的衝突上

10 years after that military intervention,

讓我們再來談談阿富汗

that country is far from secure.

在軍事介入的10年之後

The situation, to be honest, is very serious.

那個國家已很不安全了

Now again, the military is necessary,

這種情況，老實說，非常嚴重

but the military is no problem-solver.

所以現在再說一次，軍事是必要的

When I first came to Afghanistan in 2005 as a foreign minister,

但是軍事不是用來解決問題的

I met the commander of ISAF,

當我於2005年以外交部長的身份第一次到阿富汗時

the international troops.

我與駐阿富汗國際安全援助部隊的指揮官碰面

And he told me that, "This can be won militarily, minister.

是個國際部隊

We just have to persevere."

他告訴我：這是一支勝算在握的軍隊，部長

Now four COM ISAF's later,

我們只需堅持不懈。”

we hear a different message:

現在換了四位國際救援部隊指揮官之後

"This cannot be won militarily.

我們又聽到了不同的訊息

We need military presence,

這不是穩操勝算的軍隊

but we need to move to politics.

我們需要軍事存在

We can only solve this through a political solution.

但是我們必需移向政治

And it is not us who will solve it;

我們只能透過政治來解決

Afghans have to solve it."

而且不是我們來解決

But then they need a different political process

必需阿富汗自己來解決

than the one they were given in 2001, 2002.

但到那時候他們需要的是個不一樣的政治過程

They need an inclusive process

而不是他們在2001年及2002年所得到的

where the real fabric of this very complicated society

他們需要的是一種包容性的進程

can deal with their issues.

在那裏，這個相當複雜社會的實際結構

Everybody seems to agree with that.

可以處理他們的問題

It was very controversial to say three, four, five years ago.

每個人似乎都同意

Now everybody agrees.

3,4,5年前談起來還頗有爭議

But now, as we prepare to talk,

現在大家都同意了

we understand how little we know.

但是現在，我們準備談談的是

Because we didn't talk.

我們發現我們所知的不多

We didn't grasp what was going on.

因為我們不跟人交談

The International Committee of the Red Cross, the ICRC,

我們不了解到底是怎麼回事

is talking to everyone,

國際紅十字會

and it is doing so because it is neutral.

和每個人交談

And that's one reason why

是因為立場中立所以這樣做

that organization probably

這是其中一個原因為什麼

is the best informed key player

那個機構可能

to understand modern conflict --

是消息了解現今衝突

because they talk.

消息最靈通的關鍵人物--

My point is that you don't have to be neutral to talk.

因為他們與人交談

And you don't have to agree

我的重點是你不是一定要立場中立才與人交談

when you sit down with the other side.

你也不必贊成對方的觀點

And you can always walk.

當你和對方一起坐下來時。

But if you don't talk,

你可以一直進行談話

you can't engage the other side.

但是如果你不與人交談

And the other side which you're going to engage

你就不能加入對方

is the one with whom you profoundly disagree.

而你想加入的對方

Prime Minister Rabin said when he engaged the Oslo process,

是你極度唱反調的一方

"You don't make peace with your friends,

拉賓總理說當他參與奧斯陸和平進程時，

you make peace with your enemies."

“你不是和你朋友和平相處，

It's hard, but it is necessary.

而是和敵人同床共枕

Let me go one step further.

很難，但是必要

This is Tahrir Square.

容我再進一步說

There's a revolution going on.

這是塔里爾廣場

The Arab Spring is heading into fall

有場革命將發生

and is moving into winter.

阿拉伯之春的熱火

It will last for a long, long time.

持續到秋天冬天

And who knows what it will be called in the end.

會持續很長很長的一段時間

That's not the point.

有誰知道它最終將被稱為什麼

The point is that we are probably seeing,

這不是重點

for the first time in the history of the Arab world,

重點是我們可能看到

a revolution bottom-up --

阿拉伯世界歷史上的第一次

people's revolution.

一場自下而上的革命

Social groups are taking to the streets.

人民的革命

And we find out in the West

社會集團走上街頭

that we know very little about what's happening.

我們發現在西方

Because we never talk to the people in these countries.

我們對於發生的事所知甚少

Most governments followed

因為我們從不和這些國家的人民交談

the dictate of the authoritarian leaders

大部份政府遵守

to stay away from these different groups,

獨裁主義領導人的命令規定

because they were terrorists.

就是遠離這些各種不同的集團

So now that they are emerging in the street

因為他們曾是恐怖份子

and we salute the democratic revolution,

所以現在他們出現在街頭

we find out how little we know.

我們讚揚民主革命

Right now, the discussion goes,

我們發現我們所知竟如此之少

"Should we talk to the Muslim Brotherhood?

就是現在，討論下去

Should we talk to Hamas?

我們是不是應該和穆斯林弟兄會交談?

If we talk to them, we may legitimize them."

我們是不是應該和哈瑪斯交談?

I think that is wrong.

如果我們和他們交談，就是承認他們合法

If you talk in the right way, you make it very clear

我覺得這是不對的

that talking is not agreeing.

如果用正確的方式交談，你非常明白

And how can we tell the Muslim Brotherhood,

這樣的交談是不被同意的

as we should,

而且我們要怎樣才能告訴穆斯林弟兄會?

that they must respect minority rights,

就像我們應該告訴他們一樣

if we don't accept majority rights?

他們必需尊重少數人的權利

Because they may turn out to be a majority.

如果我們不接受多數人的權利?

How can we escape [having] a double-standard,

因為他們可能變成多數人

if we at the same time preach democracy

我們怎能避免雙重標準?

and at the same time

如果我們同時宣揚民主

don't want to deal with the groups that are representative?

然而

How will we ever be interlocutors?

又不想和具有代表性的集團打交道

Now my diplomats are instructed

我們如何永遠做個談話對象?

to talk to all these groups.

所以現在教我的外交官被教導

But talking can be done in different ways.

要和所有這樣的集團交談

We make a distinction between talking from a diplomatic level

但是談話有各種不同的方式

and talking at the political level.

我們從外交層面的談話

Now talking can be accompanied with aid or not with aid.

以及政治層面的談話做個區分

Talking can be accompanied with inclusion or not inclusion.

現在談話分成有援助也有沒有援助的

There's a big array

也分成有內容的也有沒有內容的

of the ways of dealing with this.

有一大批

So if we refuse

處理這些問題的方式

to talk to these new groups

所以如果我們拒絕

that are going to be dominating the news in years to come,

與這些今後幾年將主導新聞

we will further radicalization,

的新集團談話

I believe.

我們將更激進化

We will make the road from violent activities into politics

我相信

harder to travel.

我們將使這條路從暴力活動進入政治活動

And if we cannot demonstrate to these groups

更難以行進

that if you move towards democracy,

如果我們無法向這些集團證明

if you move towards taking part

如果你向民主妥協

in civilized and normal standards among states,

如果你走向參與

there are some rewards on the other side.

國家之間的文明及正常標準

The paradox here

對方會有回報的

is that the last decade probably was a lost decade

這裏有個自相矛盾的議論

for making progress on this.

就是最後的這十年完全沒有進展

And the paradox is that the decade before the last decade was so promising --

是個失去的十年

and for one reason primarily.

而自相矛盾的議論就是十年前到二十年前中間這段時間相當有前景

And the reason is what happened in South Africa:

主要的原因之一

Nelson Mandela.

原因就是在南非發生的事

When Mandela came out of prison

尼爾遜 曼德拉

after 27 years of captivity,

當曼德拉在27年的牢獄之災之後

if he had told his people,

從牢裏被放出來的時候

"It's time to take up the arms,

如果他告訴國民

it's time to fight,"

“拿起武器的時候到了，

he would have been followed.

作戰的時候到了，”

And I think the international community

就會有人聽他的話

would have said, "Fair enough.

而且我想國際社會

It's their right to fight."

會說，“很好。

Now as you know, Mandela didn't do that.

他們有權開戰

In his memoirs, "Long Road to Freedom,"

現在如你所知，曼德拉並未如此做

he wrote that he survived

在他的回憶錄“漫漫自由路”中

during those years of captivity

他寫道他活在

because he always decided to look upon his oppressor

牢獄之中的這些年

as also being a human being,

因為他總是決定將壓迫他的人

also being a human being.

也看做是個人

So he engaged a political process of dialogue,

也視為一個人

not as a strategy of the weak,

所以他參與了一個政治對話進程

but as a strategy of the strong.

不是弱者的戰略

And he engaged talking profoundly

而是強者的戰略

by settling some of the most tricky issues

而且他從事深入交談

through a truth and reconciliation process

透過解決一些最棘手的問題

where people came and talked.

憑藉著真相及和解的進程

Now South African friends will know

人們來到這裏而且交談著

that was very painful.

現在南非的朋友會知道

So what can we learn from all of this?

那很痛苦

Dialogue is not easy --

所以我們從這一切中學到了什麼?

not between individuals, not between groups, not between governments --

對話並不簡單

but it is very necessary.

不管於人與人之間，集團與集團之間，政府與政府之間

If we're going to deal with political conflict-solving of conflicts,

它都是非常必要的

if we're going to understand these new groups

如果我們要解決政治上的衝突

which are coming from bottom-up,

如果我們要了解這些新團體

supported by technology, which is available to all,

這些事都是從下至上、從細節到總體、從個別到全貌而來的

we diplomats cannot be sitting back in the banquets

有科技資助，每個人都會知道

believing that we are doing interstate relations.

我們做外交官的總不能在宴會時坐在後方

We have to connect

然後就相信我們正在做國際關係

with these profound changes.

我們必需拉攏

And what is dialogue really about?

這些深刻改變的關係

When I enter into dialogue,

而對話的真意為何?

I really hope that the other side

當我和他人交談時

would pick up my points of view,

我真誠的希望對方

that I would impress upon them

能抓到我的觀點

my opinions and my values.

我就會讓他們留下深刻的印象

I cannot do that

我的意見和我的價值觀

unless I send the signals that I will be open

但是我不能做這樣的事

to listen to the other side's signals.

除非我示意我會公開地表示

We need a lot more training on how to do that

我一直都會注意你的暗示

and a lot more practice

我們需要更多如何做到這一點的訓練

on how that can take problem-solving forward.

以及更多的練習

We know from our personal experiences

在如何將解決問題推展開來

that it's easy sometimes

我們從自己體驗中知道

just to walk,

它有時候很容易

and sometimes you may need to fight.

就只是走出去

And I wouldn't say that is the wrong thing in all circumstances.

有時候卻需要開戰

Sometimes you have to.

我不會說在所有情況下那都是件錯事

But that strategy seldom takes you very far.

因為有時候你必需這樣做

The alternative is a strategy

但那策略不會花你太多時間