when I was a barrister and human rights lawyer

20 年前，

in full-time legal practice in London,

我擔任訟務律師和人權律師時，

and the highest court in the land

在倫敦從事全職的法律實務，

still convened, some would say by an accident of history,

英國最高法院依然在這裡開庭；

in this building here,

有人說這是因為歷史上的一個意外；

I met a young man who had just quit his job

就在這一棟建築裡，

in the British Foreign Office.

我遇見了一個男生，

When I asked him, "Why did you leave,"

他剛從英國外交部辭去工作。

he told me this story.

我問他：「為什麼你要離開？」

He had gone to his boss one morning and said,

他告訴我下面的故事。

"Let's do something about human rights abuses in China."

有一天早上，他問他的上司說：

And his boss had replied,

「我們可以為中國 人權問題做點事嗎？」

"We can't do anything about human rights abuses in China

他的上司回答他：

because we have trade relations with China."

「我們無法為中國 人權問題做任何事，

So my friend went away with his tail between his legs,

因為我們跟中國 有貿易的往來關係。」

and six months later, he returned again to his boss,

所以我的朋友悻悻地離開，

and he said this time,

六個月以後他再去見他的上司，

"Let's do something about human rights in Burma,"

這次他這麼說：

as it was then called.

「讓我們為緬甸 (Burma) 人權問題做點事好嗎？」

His boss once again paused

那時還是這麼稱呼這個國家。 （現稱 Myanmar）

and said, "Oh, but we can't do anything about human rights in Burma

他的上司再次停下來，然後說：

because we don't have any trade relations with Burma."

「哦，可是我們沒辦法 為緬甸人權問題做任何事啊，

(Laughter)

因為我們跟緬甸沒有 半點貿易關係。」

This was the moment he knew he had to leave.

（笑聲）

It wasn't just the hypocrisy that got to him.

當下那一刻， 他了解他必須辭去工作了。

It was the unwillingness of his government

那不只是那種 假仁假義的感覺襲上他，

to engage in conflict with other governments,

而是他對於這個政府， 不願去與其他政府發生「衝突」，

in tense discussions,

不願意去進行密切的商談， 才使他死了心。

all the while, innocent people were being harmed.

因為與此同時， 無辜的人正在受到傷害。

We are constantly told

我們經常被告知：

that conflict is bad

「與人發生衝突是不好的，

that compromise is good;

妥協才是好的；」

that conflict is bad

「衝突是壞的，

but consensus is good;

達成共識是好的；」

that conflict is bad

「衝突是不對的，

and collaboration is good.

合作才是好的。」

But in my view,

但是以我的觀點來看，

that's far too simple a vision of the world.

對與這個世界而言， 這些話顯得太單純了。

We cannot know

我們無從知道，

whether conflict is bad

衝突是否不好，

unless we know who is fighting,

除非我們了解是誰在奮鬥，

why they are fighting

為什麼他們要抗爭，

and how they are fighting.

和他們如何抗戰。

And compromises can be thoroughly rotten

妥協可能會徹底腐敗，

if they harm people who are not at the table,

假如它們傷害到 沒有在談判桌上的人，

people who are vulnerable, disempowered,

那些很脆弱和被剝奪權利的人；

people whom we have an obligation to protect.

那些我們有義務去保護的人。

Now, you might be somewhat skeptical of a lawyer

現在你可能會對眼前 這位律師感到懷疑：

arguing about the benefits of conflict

他在這裡談論衝突的好處，

and creating problems for compromise,

向妥協發難，

but I did also qualify as a mediator,

但是我的資格的確 足夠作為一個和事佬，

and these days, I spend my time giving talks about ethics for free.

最近我花了很多時間免費演講， 談論自由和倫理道德的關係。

So as my bank manager likes to remind me, I'm downwardly mobile.

所以我的銀行經理提醒我， 說我是在向下沉淪。

But if you accept my argument,

（笑聲）

it should change not just the way we lead our personal lives,

但是如果你接受我的論點，

which I wish to put to one side for the moment,

它不但可以改變 我們過生活的方式──

but it will change the way we think about major problems

這個話題我暫時先把它放到一旁；

of public health and the environment.

也可以改變我們對於公衛和環境等 主要問題的思考方式。

Let me explain.

讓我解釋一下。

Every middle schooler in the United States,

美國的每一位國中生，

my 12-year-old daughter included,

包括我 12 歲的女兒在內，

learns that there are three branches of government,

都知道政府有三個分支，

the legislative, the executive and the judicial branch.

它們分別是立法部門、 行政部門和司法單位。

James Madison wrote,

詹姆斯．麥迪遜在他的書中寫到：

"If there is any principle more sacred in our Constitution,

「在我們的憲法中， 應該說是在任何自由的憲法中，

and indeed in any free constitution,

如果有什麼原則， 比起其他原則更為神聖的話；

than any other,

就是那種將立法、行政、司法權， 個別分開獨立出來的原則。」

it is that which separates

憲法制訂者不只是關注 權力的集中和實行而已。

the legislative, the executive and the judicial powers."

他們也理解「影響力」的危險。

Now, the framers were not just concerned

法官不可以決定法律本身是否合憲，

about the concentration and exercise of power.

假使法官本身參與制訂法律的話；

They also understood the perils of influence.

他們也無法對政府 其他分支機構進行追究，

Judges cannot determine the constitutionality of laws

如果他們之間有合作關係，

if they participate in making those laws,

或是與他們建立密切的關係。

nor can they hold the other branches of government accountable

「憲法」，正如一位 著名學者所說的，

if they collaborate with them

「是一封鬥爭的邀請函。」

or enter into close relationships with them.

而老百姓是被影響的對象，

The Constitution is, as one famous scholar put it,

假如那些政府機構 彼此之間互相對抗的話。

"an invitation to struggle."

我們理解鬥爭的重要性，

And we the people are served

不僅是在我們政府分支的 公眾部門而已，

when those branches do, indeed, struggle with each other.

我們也知道在私人公司的部門之間，

Now, we recognize the importance of struggle

也存在同樣問題。

not just in the public sector

讓我們想像一下，

between our branches of government.

如果兩家美國航空公司集合在一起，

We also know it too in the private sector,

彼此同意不要把經濟艙的機票 價格降到每張 250 美元以下，

in relationships among corporations.

那就是「合作」， 有人把它稱之為「共謀」，

Let's imagine that two American airlines get together and agree

而不是競爭，

that they will not drop the price

那麼遭殃的是大家，

of their economy class airfares below 250 dollars a ticket.

因為我們要付出 更高的價格來買機票。

That is collaboration, some would say collusion,

假想一下，同樣的 兩家航空公司如果這樣說：

not competition,

「航空公司甲，我們想飛 洛杉磯到芝加哥的航線。」

and we the people are harmed

然後航空公司乙說：

because we pay more for our tickets.

「我們想飛芝加哥 到華盛頓的這條航線。

Imagine similarly two airlines were to say,

那麼我們就不用互相競爭了。」

"Look, Airline A, we'll take the route from LA to Chicago,"

這同樣也是一種合作或共謀， 而不是競爭，

and Airline B says, "We'll take the route from Chicago to DC,

受到傷害的還是大家。

and we won't compete."

就政府公眾部門之間的關係而論， 我們知道抗爭的重要性。

Once again, that's collaboration or collusion instead of competition,

就私人公司各單位之間的關係而論， 我們也知道衝突的重要性。

and we the people are harmed.

但是我們忽略的是，

So we understand the importance of struggle

公家單位與私營企業之間的關係。

when it comes to relationships between branches of government,

全世界的政府都在與工業界合作，

the public sector.

解決公共衛生和環境的問題，

We also understand the importance of conflict

通常合作的對象是那些製造出 更多問題，或是使問題惡化的公司。

when it comes to relationships among corporations,

我們被告知這些關係 是一個雙贏的關係。

the private sector.

但是如果一方有利益損失怎麼辦呢？

But where we have forgotten it

讓我給你一些案例。

is in the relationships between the public and the private.

聯合國的一個機構， 決定處理一個嚴峻的問題：

And governments all over the world are collaborating with industry

印度鄉下學校極差的衛生狀況。

to solve problems of public health and the environment,

他們不僅與國家和當地政府合作，

often collaborating with the very corporations

也和一家電視公司合作，

that are creating or exacerbating the problems they are trying to solve.

還有一家跨國汽水公司合作，

We are told that these relationships

以交換低於 100 萬美元的經費，

are a win-win.

讓那家公司獲得一個月的促銷活動，

But what if someone is losing out?

包含一個持續 12 個小時的 電視募款活動，

Let me give you some examples.

全部使用該公司的商標和配色設計。

A United Nations agency decided to address a serious problem:

從該公司的角度來看，

poor sanitation in schools in rural India.

這種安排是完全可以理解的。

They did so not just in collaboration with national and local governments

它強化了公司的名譽，

but also with a television company

也創造了他們產品的品牌忠誠度。

and with a major multinational soda company.

但是從我的眼光來看，

In exchange for less than one million dollars,

這對於此跨政府的機構 會造成深遠的問題，

that corporation received the benefits of a months-long promotional campaign

這個機構的使命是提倡永續生活。

including a 12-hour telethon

透過增加含糖飲料的銷售量，

all using the company's logo and color scheme.

消耗當地已經匱乏的水資源， 來製造塑膠瓶裝飲料，

This was an arrangement

在一個已經陷入肥胖症困境的國家，

which was totally understandable

站在公共衛生的立場來看，

from the corporation's point of view.

這既不合乎永續性， 也不合乎環保的觀點。

It enhances the reputation of the company

為了解決一個公共衛生問題，

and it creates brand loyalty for its products.

這個機構埋下另一個壞的種子。

But in my view,

這只是我在書中搜尋 政府與工業關係的時候，

this is profoundly problematic for the intergovernmental agency,

很多例子的其中一個。

an agency that has a mission to promote sustainable living.

我還可以告訴你另外一個提案，

By increasing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages

要在倫敦和整個英國的 公園倡導運動，

made from scarce local water supplies and drunk out of plastic bottles

也牽涉到同一家公司，

in a country that is already grappling with obesity,

或實際上，是由英國政府出面，

this is neither sustainable from a public health

主動向工業界承諾並建立合作關係，

nor an environmental point of view.

而不是向工業界提出規範。

And in order to solve one public health problem,

這些合作或合夥關係， 已經成為公共健康的範例，

the agency is sowing the seeds

而再一次，

of another.

以工業界的角度來看， 他們讓此種作法合理化，

This is just one example of dozens I discovered

容許他們框架 公共衛生問題及解決方法，

in researching a book on the relationships between government and industry.

採用對他們最少威脅的手法，

I could also have told you about the initiatives in parks

而且大部分都與他們的 商業利益一致。

in London and throughout Britain,

所以肥胖的困擾，

involving the same company, promoting exercise,

成為個人抉擇的問題，

or indeed of the British government creating voluntary pledges

或個人的行為問題，

in partnership with industry

是個人的責任還有缺乏運動的問題。

instead of regulating industry.

照這樣的框架來看，這根本不是

These collaborations or partnerships have become the paradigm in public health,

牽涉大企業的跨國食品系統問題。

and once again, they make sense from the point of view of industry.

再說一次，我並不怪罪工業界。

It allows them to frame public health problems and their solutions

工業界很自然地 會運用策略發揮影響力，

in ways that are least threatening to,

為了謀求商業利益而進行促銷活動。

most consonant with their commercial interests.

但是政府有責任，

So obesity becomes a problem

研究對策，

of individual decision-making,

來保護我們，

of personal behavior,

和我們的公共利益。

personal responsibility and lack of physical activity.

（字幕：公共利益）

It is not a problem,

政府其實是在製造錯誤，

when framed this way,

當他們用這種方式 與工業界協調的時候，

of a multinational food system involving major corporations.

錯在於：政府把 兩件事情混淆在一起。

And again, I don't blame industry.

那就是「共同點」與「公共利益。」

Industry naturally engages in strategies of influence

當你跟工業界合作的時候，

to promote its commercial interests.

你必須先把那些促進公共利益的事情，

But governments have a responsibility

先從談判桌上移走，

to develop counterstrategies

因為那些事情工業界可能不會接受。

to protect us

他們不會同意加強對他們的約束，

and the common good.

除非他們相信這種合作， 可以讓他們避開更多的管制，

The mistake that governments are making

或讓他們的競爭對手 被踢出市場之外。

when they collaborate in this way

公司也不見得願意去做某一些事，

with industry

例如提高他們不健康產品的售價，

is that they conflate

因為那樣會違反「公平交易法」，

the common good

那是我們已經建立完成的。

with common ground.

所以我們的政府，

When you collaborate with industry,

不應該將公共利益 和共同點混淆在一起，

you necessarily put off the table

特別是當共同點代表的是 與工業界達成的協議的時候。

things that might promote the common good to which industry will not agree.

我想再給你一個例子，

Industry will not agree to increased regulation

我們已經講過備受矚目的合作計畫，

unless it believes this will stave off even more regulation

再來是有關檯面下合作的案例；

or perhaps knock some competitors out of the market.

從字面上或用比喻的方式來看。

Nor can companies agree to do certain things,

那就是水力壓裂法開採天然氣。

for example raise the prices of their unhealthy products,

假想一下你購買了一塊土地，

because that would violate competition law,

但是不知道採礦權已經被賣掉了，

as we've established.

這是水力壓裂法榮景之前發生的事。

So our governments should not confound

你在你的產業上 蓋了一棟夢想的房子，

the common good and common ground,

蓋好之後沒多久，

especially when common ground means reaching agreement with industry.

你發現天然氣公司 在你的土地上興建鑽井平台，

I want to give you another example,

這其實正是哈洛維奇家族 以前碰到的困境。

moving from high-profile collaboration

在非常短的一段時間內，

to something that is below ground

他們開始抱怨頭痛、

both literally and figuratively:

喉嚨痛、眼睛癢，

the hydraulic fracturing of natural gas.

除此之外還有噪音震動的干擾，

Imagine that you purchase a plot of land

和天然氣燃燒時發出的亮光等。

not knowing the mineral rights have been sold.

他們激烈地批評這些事，

This is before the fracking boom.

然後他們突然噤聲了。

You build your dream home on that plot,

多虧匹茲堡郵報， 才有上面的那張圖像，

and shortly afterwards,

加上另一家報社， 我們才瞭解他們不再發聲的原因，

you discover that a gas company is building a well pad on your land.

這家報社跑到法院去問： 「哈洛維奇家族到底如何了？」

That was the plight of the Hallowich family.

結果發現哈洛維奇家族，

Within a very short period of time,

已經私下與天然氣業者 達成秘密協議，

they began to complain of headaches,

而且那是一種 「不要就拉倒」的協議。

of sore throats, of itchy eyes,

天然氣公司說，

in addition to the interference of the noise, vibration

你可以獲得六位數字的補償金額，

and the bright lights from the flaring of natural gas.

搬到其他地方去重新展開你的生活，

They were very vocal in their criticisms,

但代價是：你必須答應我們，

and then they fell silent.

不可以將我們公司的事說出去，

And thanks to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, where this image appeared,

也不可以談論 你對於水力壓裂法的體驗，

and one other newspaper, we discovered why they fell silent.

不可以談到你的健康受損情況，

The newspapers went to the court and said, "What happened to the Hallowiches?"

這個或許早已在健康檢查中就發現了。

And it turned out the Hallowiches had made a secret settlement

其實我不怪哈洛維奇接受那種 「不要就拉倒」的協議，

with the gas operators, and it was a take-it-or-leave-it settlement.

並且搬到其他地方重新展開生活。

The gas company said,

因為大家都能夠理解，

you can have a six-figure sum

為什麼那家公司希望禁止 尋求賠償的抱怨者發出聲音。

to move elsewhere and start your lives again,

我想指責的對象是法律和管理系統，

but in return

一個隱藏了合作協議 在內的網路系統，

you must promise not to speak of your experience with our company,

就像這件事一樣，

not to speak of your experience with fracking,

用來封住人們的嘴巴， 把資料點封鎖住，

not to speak about the health consequences

將公共健康專家 和流行病學家排除在外。

that might have been revealed by a medical examination.

作為一個系統內的管理者，

Now, I do not blame the Hallowiches for accepting

竟敢在污染事件中， 逃避開出違規事件通知單，

a take-it-or-leave-it settlement

只要土地所有人和天然氣業者之間， 私下達成協議就好。

and starting their lives elsewhere.

從公共衛生的角度來看， 這種系統不只是壞的，

And one can understand

它更讓當地居民暴露在風險之中，

why the company would wish to silence a squeaky wheel.

任令他們躲在黑暗之處。

What I want to point the finger at is the legal and regulatory system,

現在我已經提出了兩個例子，

a system in which there are networks of agreements

不是因爲他們是被孤立的個案。

just like this one

而是因為它們是 系統性問題的一個範例。

which serve to silence people and seal off data points

我可以分享一些反例，

from public health experts and epidemiologists,

例如某位公家官員的案件，

a system in which regulators

他以隱瞞真相的理由， 控告製藥公司，

will even refrain from issuing a violation notice

因為他們的抗憂鬱藥劑，

in the event of pollution

會增加青少年自殺的念頭。

if the landowner and the gas company

我可以告訴你們某位管理官員，

agree to settle.

追逐在食品服務公司後面，

This is a system which isn't just bad from a public health point of view;

對其酸奶製品，誇大聲稱 對健康有益所做的事。

it exposes hazards to local families

我也可以告訴你們某位立法人員，

who remain in the dark.

不理會那些站在 走廊兩旁的眾多說客，

Now, I have given you two examples not because they are isolated examples.

他還是不為所動地在推動環保。

They are examples of a systemic problem.

這些都是獨立的個案，

I could share some counterexamples,

但是他們都是黑夜裡燈塔中的光明，

the case for example of the public official

而他們可以為我們指引道路。

who sues the pharmaceutical company

我演講開始時提出 我們有時需要參與鬥爭，

for concealing the fact

政府應該與公司爭執、

that its antidepressant increases suicidal thoughts in adolescents.

鬥爭、時時直接與公司衝突，

I can tell you about the regulator who went after the food company

這不是因為政府本質上是好的，