Jason McCue: Terrorism is a failed brand

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Morton Bast

Translator: Ditte Christensen Reviewer: Anders Finn Jørgensen

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

Der er ingen tvivl om, at vi taler med terrorister.

We are at war with a new form of terrorism.

Vi er i krig mod en ny form for terror.

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

Det er ligesom den gode gamle terrorisme,

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

men tilpasset det 21. århundrede.

One of the big things about countering terrorism

Hvordan man opfatter terrorisme, spiller en stor rolle,

is, how do you perceive it?

når det kommer til bekæmpelse.

Because perception leads to your response to it.

For din opfattelse påvirker din håndtering.

So if you have a traditional perception of terrorism,

Så hvis du har en traditionel opfattelse af terrorisme,

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

ser du det som en form for kriminalitet, en krig.

So how are you going to respond to it?

Så hvordan håndterer du den?

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

Naturligvis møder du den i krig.

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

Du bekæmper den. Hvis du havde en mere moderne tilgang,

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

og din opfattelse af terrorisme er mere årsag og virking,

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

så vil dit svar helt naturligt

are much more asymmetrical.

være mere asymmetrisk.

We live in a modern, global world.

Vi bor i en moderne og global verden.

Terrorists have actually adapted to it.

Terroristerne har tilpasset sig.

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

Det bør vi også, så de folk,

who are working on counterterrorism responses

der arbejder med kontraterrorisme,

have to start, in effect, putting on

skal måske begynde at bruge deres

their Google-tinted glasses, or whatever.

Google-briller.

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

Jeg mener, at vi skal se terrorisme

terrorism as though it was a global brand,

som et globalt brand,

say, Coca-Cola.

ligesom for eksempel Coca-Cola.

Both are fairly bad for your health. (Laughter)

Begge er ret dårlige for din helbred. (Latter)

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

Hvis du ser på det som et brand,

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

opdager du, at produktet er ret dårligt.

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

Vi har allerede sagt, at det er dårligt for dit helbred,

it's bad for those who it affects,

det er dårligt for dem, der påvirkes,

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

og det er heller ikke særlig godt, hvis du er selvmordsbomber.

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

Det giver ikke hvad det lover.

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

Du får ikke 72 jomfruer i himmelen.

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

Det tvivler jeg stærkt på.

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

Og i 80erne ødelagde du ikke kapitalismen,

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

ved at støtte disse grupper. Selvfølgelig ikke.

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

Du opdager nu, at det har svagheder.

The brand has an Achilles' heel.

Dette brand har svagheder.

We've mentioned the health,

Vi har nævnt helbredet,

but it needs consumers to buy into it.

men det skal også tiltrække forbrugere.

The consumers it needs are the terrorist constituency.

Forbrugerne er terroristernes støtter.

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

Dem, der benytter sig af brandet, støtter dem,

facilitate them, and they're the people

hjælper dem, og det er dem,

we've got to reach out to.

som vi skal have fat i.

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

Vi skal angribe brandet for øjnene af dem.

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

Fortsætter vi med brandtemaet, så kan vi angribe på to måder.

One is reducing their market. What I mean is,

Den ene er ved at reducere markedet.

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

Altså er det deres brand mod vores. Vi skal konkurrere.

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

Vi skal vise, at vi har et bedre produkt.

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

Ønsker jeg at vise, at vi har et bedre produkt,

I probably wouldn't do things like Guantanamo Bay.

så vil jeg nok ikke have noget som Guantanamo Bay.

We've talked there about curtailing the underlying need

Det handler om at indskrænke det underliggende behov

for the product itself. You could be looking there at

for produktet. Såsom fattigdom,

poverty, injustice, all those sorts of things

uretfærdighed, og alle de ting,

which feed terrorism.

der afføder terrorisme.

The other thing to do is to knock the product,

Vi kan også angribe brandet,

attack the brand myth, as we've said.

altså gå imod brandets myte.

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

Der er intet heroisk ved at dræbe børn,

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

og det skal vi fortælle videre.

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

Vi skal vise farerne ved produktet.

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

Vores målgruppe er ikke kun producenterne,

as I've said, the terrorists.

altså terroristerne.

It's not just the marketeers of terrorism,

Det er ikke kun terrorismens sælgere,

which is those who finance, those who facilitate it,

altså dem, der finansierer og støtter,

but it's the consumers of terrorism.

men det er forbrugerne af terrorismen.

We've got to get in to those homelands.

Vi skal tage til deres hjemland.

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

Dér finder de deres rekrutter. Dér får de magt og styrke.

That's where their consumers come from.

Det er dér, deres forbrugere kommer fra.

And we have to get our messaging in there.

Og det er dem, vi skal have fat i.

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

Så vi bør være i kontakt

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

med disse områder, med terroristerne, med hjælperne og så videre.

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

Vi skal engagere os, oplyse folk

and we've got to have dialogue.

og tage dialogen.

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

For lige at blive ved brandidéen,

think about delivery mechanisms.

skal vi tænke på vores strategi.

How are we going to do these attacks?

Hvordan angriber vi brandet?

Well, reducing the market is really one for governments

Egentlig bør regeringer og samfund reducere markedet.

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

Vi skal vise, at vi er bedre.

We've got to show our values.

Vi skal vise vores værdier.

We've got to practice what we preach.

Vi skal sætte handling bag ordene.

But when it comes to knocking the brand,

Men når vi skal slå et brand,

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

hvis terroristerne er cola og vi er pepsi,

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

så vil folk ikke tro på, hvad vi, som pepsi,

anyone's going to believe us.

har at sige om cola.

So we've got to find a different mechanism,

Derfor skal vi finde en anden strategi,

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

og en af de bedste strategier,

is the victims of terrorism.

er terrorismens ofre.

They are somebody who can actually stand there and say,

De kan stå frem og sige

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

"Dette produkt er dårligt. Jeg har prøvet det og var syg i flere dage.

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

Det brændte min hånd." Og du tror på dem.

You can see their scars. You trust them.

Du kan se deres ar. Du stoler på dem.

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

Men hvad enten det er ofre, regeringer,

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

NGO'er eller dronningen,

we have to interact and engage with those different

så skal vi interagere med de forskellige

layers of terrorism, and, in effect,

lag af terrorisme, selvom det betyder,

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

at vi tager en lille dans med djævelen.

This is my favorite part of my speech.

Vi kommer nu til min yndlingsdel.

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

Planen var at springe jer alle sammen i luften for pointens skyld,

but — (Laughter) —

men — (Latter) —

TED, for health and safety reasons, have told me

TED har af helbreds- og sikkerhedmæssige årsager fortalt mig,

I've got to do a countdown, so

at jeg skal tælle ned,

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

så jeg føler mig lidt som en irsk eller jødisk terrorist,

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

en meget ansvarlig terrorist, og — (latter) —

I've got to count 3, 2, 1, and

jeg skal tælle 3, 2,1 og

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

det er lidt skræmmende, så jeg tænker på mit motto,

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

"Kropsdele, ikke hjerteanfald."

So 3, 2, 1. (Explosion sound)

Så, 3, 2, 1. (Eksplosionslyd)

Very good. (Laughter)

Rigtig godt. (Latter)

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

Så, damen på sæde 15J var en selvmordsbomber.

We're all victims of terrorism.

Vi er alle ofre for terrorisme.

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

Vi er 625 personer. Vi vil alle være mærkede for livet.

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

Der sad en far og en søn lige derovre.

The son's dead. The father lives.

Sønnen er død. Faren er i live.

The father will probably kick himself for years to come

Faren vil nok forbande sig selv i flere år,

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

fordi han ikke tog sin søns plads.

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

Han begynder at drikke,

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

og begår nok selvmord om tre år. Det siger statistikken.

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

Der er en meget ung og pæn dame herovre,

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

med en af de værste slags

of psychological, physical injury I've ever seen

psykologiske og fysiske skader, jeg har set

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

fra en selvmordsbombe: Menneskelige granatsplinter.

What it means is, when she sat in a restaurant

Så når hun om 10 og 15 år

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

sidder på en restaurant

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

eller ligger på stranden,

rubbing her skin, and out of there will come

gnubber hun sin hud, og pludselig

a piece of that shrapnel.

kommer der en granatsplint ud.

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

Det kan være utrolig svært for hjernen at forstå.

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

Der er også en dame herovre,

in this bombing.

som mistede benene i eksplosionen.

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

Hun finder ud af, at hun kun får

of money off our government

en lille slat penge fra staten,

for looking after what's happened to her.

for at tage sig af hende efterfølgende.

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

Hendes datter gik på et af de bedste univesiteter,

universities. She's going to give up university

men dropper det

to look after Mum.

for at passe sin mor.

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

Vi er her alle sammen, og alle dem, der ser med,

are going to be traumatized by this event,

vil være traumatiserede af dette angreb,

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

men alle jer ofre gør jer

some hard truths.

nogle bitre erfaringer.

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

Derunder at samfundets sympati ikke varer ved.

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

Vi gør simpelthen ikke nok som samfund.

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

Vi holder ikke øje med ofrene, vi hjælper dem ikke,

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

og jeg vil prøve at vise,

victims are the best weapon we have

at ofrene er vores bedste våben

against more terrorism.

mod terrorisme.

How would the government at the turn of the millennium

Hvordan ville regeringen fra år 2000

approach today? Well, we all know.

håndtere i dag? Det ved vi alle.

What they'd have done then is an invasion.

De ville have startet en invasion.

If the suicide bomber was from Wales,

Hvis selvmordsbomberen kom fra Wales,

good luck to Wales, I'd say.

så ville Wales stå for skud.

Knee-jerk legislation, emergency provision legislation --

Hastelovgivning og nødlove --

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

der som bekendt rammer kernen af vores samfund --

it's a mistake.

er en fejl.

We're going to drive prejudice throughout Edinburgh,

Vi fylder hele Storbritannien

throughout the U.K., for Welsh people.

med had til walisere.

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

I dag har regeringer lært af deres fejl.

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

De holder øje med det, jeg nævnte tidligere,

on these more asymmetrical approaches to it,

de mere asymmetriske tilgange,

more modernist views, cause and effect.

mere moderne indgangsvinkler med årsag og virkning.

But mistakes of the past are inevitable.

Men man kan ikke undgå fortidens fejl.

It's human nature.

Det er menneskets natur.

The fear and the pressure to do something on them

Frygten er stor og de vil blive presset

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

til at reagere. De laver fejl.

They're not just going to be smart.

De er ikke kun kloge.

There was a famous Irish terrorist who once summed up

En berømt irsk terrorist sagde det engang

the point very beautifully. He said,

meget præcist. Han sagde, at

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

"Den britiske regering skal være heldig hver gang.

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

Vi skal kun være heldige én gang."

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

Så vi skal sørge for at gøre det ordentligt.

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

Vi skal blive mere proaktive.

We need to build an arsenal of noncombative weapons

Vi skal opbygge et arsenal af fredelige våben

in this war on terrorism.

til denne krig mod terror.

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

Men det er selvfølgelig idéer, som regeringer generelt ikke er gode til.

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

Jeg vil lige gå tilbage til idéen om brands,

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

hvor jeg nævnte Coca-Cola og Pepsi.

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

Vi ser det som en brandkrig mellem terror og demokrati.

They'll see it as freedom fighters and truth

De ser det som frihedskæmpere og sandhed

against injustice, imperialism, etc.

imod uretfærdighed, imperialisme osv.

We do have to see this as a deadly battlefield.

Vi skal se det som en kamp om døden.

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

De er ikke kun efter [vores] kød og blod.

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

De ønsker vores kulturelle sjæle,

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

så brandanalogien er en meget interessant tilgang.

If we look at al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was essentially

Hvis vi ser på al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda var

a product on a shelf in a souk somewhere

et produkt på en hylde i en basar,

which not many people had heard of.

som ikke mange havde hørt om.

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

De blev lanceret d. 11. september. Det var deres marketingsdag,

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

og de var klar til det 21. århundrede. De vidste, hvad de havde gang i.

They were effectively [doing] something in this brand image

De var gode til branding, og oprettede et brand,

of creating a brand which can be franchised around

der kan markedsføres overalt i verden,

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

hvor der er fattigdom, uvidenhed og uretfærdighed.

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

Vi skal ind på dette marked,

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

men vi skal bruge vores hjerner mere end vores magt.

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

Vi løser eller bekæmper ikke terrorisme,

we will not resolve or counter terrorism.

ved at se det som et brand.

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

Lad mig give jer nogle eksempler

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

fra mit arbejde, hvor vi forsøger at håndtere tingene anderledes.

The first one has been dubbed "lawfare,"

Den første kalder vi "lovførsel"

for want of a better word.

af mangel på bedre ord.

When we originally looked at bringing civil actions against terrorists,

Da vi begyndte at sagsøge terrorister,

everyone thought we were a bit mad and mavericks

syntes alle, at vi var nogle skøre enspændere.

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

Nu har det fået en titel. Nu gør alle det.

There's a bomb, people start suing.

Sker der en eksplosion, lægger folk sag an.

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

En af de første sager, var eksplosionen i Omagh.

A civil action was brought from 1998.

Der blev anlagt et civilt søgsmål i 1998.

In Omagh, bomb went off, Real IRA,

En bombe fra Real IRA gik af i Omagh

middle of a peace process.

under en fredsforhandling.

That meant that the culprits couldn't really be prosecuted

Gerningsmændene kunne ikke retsforfølges af flere forskellige årsager.

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

Mest på grund af fredsprocessen

and what was going on, the greater good.

og det gode, man forsøgte at opnå.

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

Det betød derfor også

that the people who bombed your children

at personen, der bombede dine børn

and your husbands were walking around the supermarket

og din mand, gik rundt i det supermarked,

that you lived in.

hvor du normalt handlede.

Some of those victims said enough is enough.

Nogle af disse ofre havde fået nok.

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

Vi lagde en privat sag an og efter 10 år

we actually won it. There is a slight appeal on

vandt vi. Resultatet er blevet appelleret,

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

så jeg skal være lidt forsigtig,

but I'm fairly confident.

men jeg er ret sikker.

Why was it effective?

Hvorfor virkede det?

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

Til dels fordi der endelig var retfærdighed, hvor der

where there was a huge void.

ellers ikke havde været nogen.

It was because the Real IRA and other terrorist groups,

Og fordi Real IRA og andre terrorgruppers

their whole strength is from the fact that they are

styrke ligger i, at de er de undertrykte.

an underdog. When we put the victims as the underdog

Når vi gjorde ofrene til de undertrykte

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

vidste grupperne ikke, hvad de skulle gøre.

They were embarrassed. Their recruitment went down.

De blev flove. De fik svært ved at få nye medlemmer.

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

Deres bomber stoppede på grund af denne sag.

We became, or those victims became, more importantly,

Vi og især ofrene blev et spøgelse,

a ghost that haunted the terrorist organization.

der forfulgte terrororganisationen.

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

Der er andre eksempler. Vi har en sag, Almog,

which is to do with a bank that was,

som handler om en bank,

allegedly, from our point of view,

der ifølge os gav penge

giving rewards to suicide bombers.

til selvmordsbombere.

Just by bringing the very action,

Da vi lagde sag an

that bank has stopped doing it, and indeed,

stoppede banken denne praksis,

the powers that be around the world, which for real politic

og kræfter rundt om i verden, der af politiske årsager

reasons before, couldn't actually deal with this issue,

ikke før kunne håndtere problemet på grund af

because there was lots of competing interests,

modstridende interesser,

have actually closed down those loopholes in the banking system.

har lukket hullerne i banksystemerne.

There's another case called the McDonald case,

En anden sag, McDonald-sagen,

where some victims of Semtex, of the Provisional IRA bombings,

hvor ofre fra Semtex, et Provisional IRA angreb med våben fra Gaddafi,

which were supplied by Gaddafi, sued,

lagde sag an,

and that action has led to amazing things for new Libya.

og den sag har haft stor betydning for det nye Libyen.

New Libya has been compassionate towards those victims,

Det nye Libyen er mere venligt overfor disse ofre,

and started taking it -- so it started a whole new dialogue there.

så det har startet en helt ny dialog der.

But the problem is, we need more and more support

Men vi har brug for mere og mere støtte

for these ideas and cases.

til disse ideer og sager.

Civil affairs and civil society initiatives.

Civile sager og samfundsinitiativer.

A good one is in Somalia. There's a war on piracy.

Et godt eksempel er Somalia, hvor man kæmper mod pirateri.

If anyone thinks you can have a war on piracy

Hvis man tror, at man kan bekæmpe

like a war on terrorism and beat it, you're wrong.

pirateri som terrorisme og vinde, tager man fejl.

What we're trying to do there is turn pirates to fisherman.

Vi prøver i stedet at gøre piraterne til fiskere.

They used to be fisherman, of course,

De plejede selvfølgelig at være fiskere,

but we stole their fish and dumped a load of toxic waste

men vi stjal deres fisk og fyldte deres

in their water, so what we're trying to do is create

vand med giftigt affald. Så vi prøver nu at øge sikkerheden

security and employment by bringing a coastguard

og beskæftigelsen ved at medbringe en vagt

along with the fisheries industry, and I can guarantee you,

sammen med fiskerne, og jeg kan garantere,

as that builds, al Shabaab and such likes will not have

at efterhånden som det vokser, vil al-Shabaab og lignende grupper

the poverty and injustice any longer to prey on those people.

ikke kunne bruge fattigdom og uretfærdighed til at rekruttere folk.

These initiatives cost less than a missile,

Disse initiativer er billigere end et missil,

and certainly less than any soldier's life,

og meget billigere end en soldats liv.

but more importantly, it takes the war to their homelands,

Men endnu vigtigere, det tager krigen til deres hjemland

and not onto our shore,

og ikke til vores territorium,

and we're looking at the causes.

og vi ser efter årsagerne.

The last one I wanted to talk about was dialogue.

Til sidst vil jeg nævne dialog.

The advantages of dialogue are obvious.

Fordelen ved dialog er tydelige.

It self-educates both sides, enables a better understanding,

Den uddanner begge sider, forbedrer forståelsen,

reveals the strengths and weaknesses,

viser styrker og svagheder,

and yes, like some of the speakers before,

og ligesom nogle af de tidligere talere,

the shared vulnerability does lead to trust, and

fører den delte sårbarhed til tillid,

it does then become, that process, part of normalization.

hvilket bliver en del af processen, en del af normaliseringen.

But it's not an easy road. After the bomb,

Men det er ikke nemt. Efter en bombe,

the victims are not into this.

er ofrene ikke interesserede.

There's practical problems.

Der er praktiske problemer.

It's politically risky for the protagonists

Det er politisk risikabelt for hovedpersonerne

and for the interlocutors. On one occasion

og for kontaktpersonerne. Engang da jeg var kontaktperson,

I was doing it, every time I did a point that they didn't like,

smed de sten på mig, hver gang

they actually threw stones at me,

jeg sagde noget, de ikke kunne lide,

and when I did a point they liked,

og når jeg sagde noget, de kunne lide,

they starting shooting in the air, equally not great. (Laughter)

begyndte de at skyde op i luften, hvilket heller ikke var optimalt. (Latter)

Whatever the point, it gets to the heart of the problem,

Hvad end pointen er, så når det problemets kerne.

you're doing it, you're talking to them.

Du er i gang, og du snakker med dem.

Now, I just want to end with saying, if we follow reason,

Jeg vil slutte med at sige, hvis følger vi vores fornuft,

we realize that I think we'd all say that we want to

opdager vi, at vi alle ønsker

have a perception of terrorism which is not just a pure

at have et indtryk af terrorisme,

military perception of it.

der ikke kun er militært.

We need to foster more

Vi skal skabe mere

modern and asymmetrical responses to it.

moderne og assymmetriske svar.

This isn't about being soft on terrorism.

Det handler ikke, om at sympatisere med terrorister.

It's about fighting them on contemporary battlefields.

Det handler om moderne bekæmpelse.

We must foster innovation, as I've said.

Vi skal skabe innovation.

Governments are receptive. It won't come from those dusty corridors.

Regeringerne er lydhør, men de har ikke løsningerne.

The private sector has a role.

Den private sektor har en betydning.

The role we could do right now is going away

Det betyder noget, hvis vi går ud herfra

and looking at how we can support victims around the world

og ser, hvordan vi kan støtte ofre i hele verden

to bring initiatives.

med nye initiativer.

If I was to leave you with some big questions here which

Hvis jeg ville forlade jer med nogle store spørgsmål,

may change one's perception to it, and who knows what

der kan ændre ens opfattelse,

thoughts and responses will come out of it,

og måske afføde nye tanker og svar,

but did myself and my terrorist group actually need

havde jeg og min terrorgruppe egentlig

to blow you up to make our point?

behøvet at springe jer i luften for pointens skyld?

We have to ask ourselves these questions, however unpalatable.

Vi skal stille os selv disse ubehagelige spørgsmål.

Have we been ignoring an injustice or a humanitarian

Har vi ignoreret en uretfærdighed eller en humanitær

struggle somewhere in the world?

kamp et sted i verden?

What if, actually, engagement on poverty and injustice

Hvad hvis terroristerne vil have os til

is exactly what the terrorists wanted us to do?

at fokusere på fattigdom og uretfærdighed?

What if the bombs are just simply wake-up calls for us?

Hvad hvis bomberne blot er for at vække os?

What happens if that bomb went off

Hvad sker der, hvis bomben gik af

because we didn't have any thoughts and things in place

fordi vi ikke overvejede

to allow dialogue to deal with these things and interaction?

at håndtere disse ting og begivenheder med dialog?

What is definitely uncontroversial

Helt ukontroversielt skal vi

is that, as I've said, we've got to stop being reactive,

stoppe med at være reaktive,

and more proactive, and I just want to leave you

men blive mere proaktive.

with one idea, which is that

Jeg vil forlade jer

it's a provocative question for you to think about,

med et provokerende spørgsmål,

and the answer will require sympathy with the devil.

hvor svaret kræver sympati med djævelen.

It's a question that's been tackled by many great thinkers

Det er udbredt spørgsmål blandt tænkere og forfattere.

and writers: What if society actually needs crisis to change?

Hvad hvis samfundet har brug for kriser, for at forandre sig?

What if society actually needs terrorism

Hvad hvis samfundet har brug for terrorisme

to change and adapt for the better?

for at ændre og forbedre sig?

It's those Bulgakov themes, it's that picture of Jesus

Det er Bulgakov-temaerne, det er billedet af Jesus og djævelen

and the Devil hand in hand in Gethsemane

går hånd i hånd i Gethsemane

walking into the moonlight.

i måneskinnets skær.

What it would mean is that humans,

Det vil betyde, at mennesker

in order to survive in development,

for at udvikle sig,

quite Darwinian spirit here,

nu bliver det helt darwinistisk,

inherently must dance with the devil.

bliver nødt til at danse med djævelen.

A lot of people say that communism was defeated

Mange siger, at Rolling Stones besejrede kommunismen.

by the Rolling Stones. It's a good theory.

Det er en god teori.

Maybe the Rolling Stones has a place in this.

Måske Rolling Stones spiller en rolle her.

Thank you.

Tak.

(Music) (Applause)

(Musik) (Bifald)

Bruno Giussani: Thank you. (Applause)

Bruno Giussani: Tak. (Bifald)