Jonas Gahr Støre: In defense of dialogue

翻译人员: Ya Wu 校对人员: Dennis Guo

Amongst all the troubling deficits we struggle with today --

当今我们与之斗争的所有不足中

we think of financial and economic primarily --

大家认为经济和金融缺陷是最紧要的

the ones that concern me most

但最使我担忧的

is the deficit of political dialogue --

是政治对话的不足 -

our ability to address modern conflicts

包括我们处理实际上的

as they are,

现代冲突的能力，

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

追溯到这些冲突问题本源的能力，

and to understand the key players

以及理解关键人物，

and to deal with them.

并与他们沟通的能力。

We who are diplomats,

作为外交家

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

我们专门处理国家之间的冲突和争议。

And I can tell you, our agenda is full.

我可以告诉大家，我们的日程非常紧张

There is trade, there is disarmament,

包括贸易，武装解除，

there is cross-border relations.

还有跨界关系。

But the picture is changing,

但是情况在发生变化，

and we are seeing that there are new key players

我们看到新的关键人物们

coming onto the scene.

正在参与进来。

We loosely call them "groups."

我们广泛地称他们为“团体”，

They may represent social, religious,

他们可能代表着社会、宗教、

political, economic, military realities.

政治、经济、军事实体。

And we struggle with how to deal with them.

我们在苦苦奋斗着学习怎样和他们打交道。

The rules of engagement:

交涉时特别要注意：

how to talk, when to talk,

怎样交谈，何时交谈

and how to deal with them.

和怎样应对他们。

Let me show you a slide here

让我在这里展示一张幻灯片

which illustrates the character of conflicts

它阐述了从1946年至今

since 1946 until today.

所发生的冲突的类型。

You see the green

你们看到的绿色部分

is a traditional interstate conflict,

是传统的国与国之间的冲突

the ones we used to read about.

我们以前读到的那种。

The red is modern conflict,

红色部分是现代冲突，

conflicts within states.

属于国家内部的冲突。

These are quite different,

它和传统的冲突有很大的不同

and they are outside the grasp

而且并非现代外交手段

of modern diplomacy.

所能掌控。

And the core of these key actors

其参与者中的核心

are groups

是团体

who represent different interests

这些团体代表着国内的

inside countries.

不同利益。

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

而且他们处理冲突的不同方式，会迅速影响到其他国家。

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

所以在某种程度上，这与每个人都息息相关。

Another acknowledgment we've seen during these years,

这些年来，我们所学到的另一个教训就是，

recent years,

近年来，

is that very few

很少有

of these domestic interstate, intrastate conflicts

国家内部的冲突

can be solved militarily.

能够通过军事解决。

They may have to be dealt with with military means,

军事手段有时是必须的，

but they cannot be solved by military means.

但却治标不治本。

They need political solutions.

它们需要政治方案的介入。

And we, therefore, have a problem,

所以这里我们有个难题，

because they escape traditional diplomacy.

那就是这些团体脱离了传统外交的范畴。

And we have among states

而且各个国家

a reluctance in dealing with them.

普遍不愿意和他们打交道。

Plus, during the last decade,

再加上，在过去的十年中，

we've been in the mode

我们一直处于紧张状态

where dealing with groups

在和一些概念上和政治上

was conceptually and politically dangerous.

的恐怖团体打交道。

After 9/11,

9·11后，

either you were with us or against us.

非友即敌。

It was black or white.

黑白分明。

And groups are very often

一些团体常常

immediately label terrorists.

被武断地贴上恐怖分子的标签。

And who would talk to terrorists?

而谁愿意和恐怖分子谈？

The West, as I would see it,

如我所知，西方国家

comes out of that decade weakened,

在近十年大大衰弱，

because we didn't understand the group.

有很大的原因是因为我们不了解这些团体。

So we've spent more time

我们花了大量时间

on focusing on why we should not talk to others

研究我们为什么不和他们对话

than finding out how we talk to others.

而不是怎样和他们对话。

Now I'm not naive.

当然，我也不天真。

You cannot talk to everybody all the time.

在对话中你不能一直和人谈。

And there are times you should walk.

有时你应该起身离开。

And sometimes military intervention is necessary.

并有时军事干预是必要的。

I happen to believe that Libya was necessary

我认为对利比亚军事干预是必要的

and that military intervention in Afghanistan was also necessary.

而且对阿富汗的军事干预也是必要的。

And my country relies on its security

我的国家通过军事联盟

through military alliance, that's clear.

保障了安全，这显而易见。

But still we have a large deficit

但是我们在理解解决现代冲突方面

in dealing with and understanding modern conflict.

仍有很多不足。

Let us turn to Afghanistan.

让我们看看阿富汗。

10 years after that military intervention,

那次军事干预的十年后，

that country is far from secure.

这个国家依旧动荡不安。

The situation, to be honest, is very serious.

说实话，那里的情况非常严峻，

Now again, the military is necessary,

需要再一次的军事干预，

but the military is no problem-solver.

但是军事并不能解决问题。

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

2005年，当我以外交部长的身份去过阿富汗，

I met the commander of ISAF,

我见到了ISAF(国际安全援助部队)

the international troops.

的总指挥。

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

他告诉我,"军事手段可以克敌制胜，部长。“

We just have to persevere."

“我们只不过需要坚持一下。"

Now four COM ISAF's later,

现在，在更换了四位总指挥后，

we hear a different message:

我们听到了不同意见：

"This cannot be won militarily.

”单靠军事无法胜利。

We need military presence,

我们需要军事干预，

but we need to move to politics.

但也需求助于政治活动。

We can only solve this through a political solution.

我们只有通过政治方案才能彻底解决问题。

And it is not us who will solve it;

而且解铃还须系铃人；

Afghans have to solve it."

阿富汗人必须自己解决。“

But then they need a different political process

但是他们需要一个不同于2011,2002年

than the one they were given in 2001, 2002.

的政治进程。

They need an inclusive process

他们需要一个包容的进程

where the real fabric of this very complicated society

一个能使这个复杂社会的基层群众

can deal with their issues.

解决他们的问题的进程。

Everybody seems to agree with that.

每个人都好像同意这个观点。

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

三、四、五年前，这个观点还非常有争议。

Now everybody agrees.

现在每个人都同意了。

But now, as we prepare to talk,

但是现在，当我们准备对话时，

we understand how little we know.

我们发现自己所知甚少。

Because we didn't talk.

因为我们太久不对话了。

We didn't grasp what was going on.

我们之前没有意识到它的重要性。

The International Committee of the Red Cross, the ICRC,

国际红十字会（ICRC）

is talking to everyone,

与每个人都对话，

and it is doing so because it is neutral.

它这样做是因为它是中立机构。

And that's one reason why

这也是为什么

that organization probably

红十字会可能是

is the best informed key player

国际冲突中

to understand modern conflict --

最消息灵通的角色

because they talk.

因为他们敢于去对话。

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

我的观点是中立并非对话的必要条件。

And you don't have to agree

并且，当你坐下来对话时

when you sit down with the other side.

你不必同意对方的观点。

And you can always walk.

你随时可以走开。

But if you don't talk,

但如果你不谈

you can't engage the other side.

你将无法与对方交流。

And the other side which you're going to engage

而你准备与之交流的对方

is the one with whom you profoundly disagree.

却恰恰有着你最不认同的观点。

Prime Minister Rabin said when he engaged the Oslo process,

以色利前总理拉宾在参与奥斯陆协议时，曾说过，

"You don't make peace with your friends,

“你无法与朋友共创和平，

you make peace with your enemies."

只能与敌人握手言和。“

It's hard, but it is necessary.

这很艰难，但却非常必要。

Let me go one step further.

让我们再进一步看。

This is Tahrir Square.

这是里尔广场。

There's a revolution going on.

这里正在进行一场革命。

The Arab Spring is heading into fall

阿拉伯之春进入秋季

and is moving into winter.

并走向寒冬。

It will last for a long, long time.

这将持续很长很长一段时间。

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

又有谁能预知结果。

That's not the point.

这不是重点。

The point is that we are probably seeing,

重点是我们可能在见证，

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

阿拉伯世界在有史以来

a revolution bottom-up --

第一次爆发由下而上的革命；

people's revolution.

人民的革命。

Social groups are taking to the streets.

社会团体纷纷走上街头。

And we find out in the West

然而西方国家却发现

that we know very little about what's happening.

我们对这些知之甚少。

Because we never talk to the people in these countries.

因为我们从不与这些国家的人民们对话。

Most governments followed

大多数西方政府服从

the dictate of the authoritarian leaders

权威领导的指示，

to stay away from these different groups,

把这些不同的团体当做恐怖分子，

because they were terrorists.

和他们保持距离。

So now that they are emerging in the street

所以现在当他们走上街头时

and we salute the democratic revolution,

我们除了向民主革命致敬外爱莫能助，

we find out how little we know.

因为我们所知甚少。

Right now, the discussion goes,

现在，讨论变成了，

"Should we talk to the Muslim Brotherhood?

“我们真的应该与穆斯林兄弟会对话吗？

Should we talk to Hamas?

与哈马斯对话？

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

如果对话，我们可能使其合法化。“

I think that is wrong.

我认为这是错误观点

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

如果你以正确的方式对话，你将明白

that talking is not agreeing.

对话并不等同于赞成。

And how can we tell the Muslim Brotherhood,

穆斯林兄弟会可能是多数派

as we should,

如果我们不和他们谈判

that they must respect minority rights,

就是不尊重多数人的权利，

if we don't accept majority rights?

那我们有义务，但又有什么脸面去告诉穆斯林兄弟会，

Because they may turn out to be a majority.

他们必须尊重少数人的权利？

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

我们又怎能只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯，

if we at the same time preach democracy

一边宣扬民主，

and at the same time

一边

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

不愿和有代表性的团体打交道？

How will we ever be interlocutors?

我们又怎能做好对话者？

Now my diplomats are instructed

现在我的外交官们被指示

to talk to all these groups.

必须与这些团体对话。

But talking can be done in different ways.

但是对话可以采取不同的形式。

We make a distinction between talking from a diplomatic level

我们把对话区分为外交层面的

and talking at the political level.

和政治层面的

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

对话既可以伴随着援助，也可以无援助

Talking can be accompanied with inclusion or not inclusion.

对话可以达成协议，也可以不达成协议

There's a big array

处理对话

of the ways of dealing with this.

有很多种方式。

So if we refuse

但如果我们拒绝

to talk to these new groups

与即将登上舞台的新兴团体

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

展开对话，

we will further radicalization,

我们将日趋偏激，

I believe.

我认为如此。

We will make the road from violent activities into politics

我们将使暴力运动一发不可收拾

harder to travel.

政治公平更难践行

And if we cannot demonstrate to these groups

我们将很难向这些团体展示

that if you move towards democracy,

如果你们为民主而努力，

if you move towards taking part

共同参与

in civilized and normal standards among states,

建立文明的合理的国家制度，

there are some rewards on the other side.

你们将另有收获。

The paradox here

然而

is that the last decade probably was a lost decade

过去的十年，我们在这一方面

for making progress on this.

做得十分失败

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

可是，这失败的十年之前的十年里，世界因为一个原因

and for one reason primarily.

而充满了希望

And the reason is what happened in South Africa:

这个原因发生于南非：

Nelson Mandela.

纳尔逊·曼德拉身上。

When Mandela came out of prison

当曼德拉在被关押27年后

after 27 years of captivity,

出狱时，

if he had told his people,

如果他告诉人们，

"It's time to take up the arms,

“是时候拿起武器了，

it's time to fight,"

是时候起来反抗了。”

he would have been followed.

那将振臂一呼，应者云集。

And I think the international community

我想国际社会也会说

would have said, "Fair enough.

“很公平，

It's their right to fight."

他们有反抗的权利。”

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

如你所知，曼德拉并没有那么做。

In his memoirs, "Long Road to Freedom,"

在他的回忆录《漫漫自由路》里

he wrote that he survived

他写道他之所以

during those years of captivity

能够在多年监禁中存活下来

because he always decided to look upon his oppressor

是因为他一直把他的压迫者也看作

as also being a human being,

同是人类的一份子。

also being a human being.

同是人类的一份子。

So he engaged a political process of dialogue,

然后他促成了政治对话

not as a strategy of the weak,

这并非软弱

but as a strategy of the strong.

而是另一种勇敢

And he engaged talking profoundly

他进行了深刻的对话

by settling some of the most tricky issues

通过与参与者

through a truth and reconciliation process

真诚而和谐的对话

where people came and talked.

解决了最棘手的问题

Now South African friends will know

南非朋友们应该知道

that was very painful.

这有多么艰难

So what can we learn from all of this?

那么，我们可以从中学到什么？

Dialogue is not easy --

对话并不简单

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

个体之间，团体之间，政府之间的对话都很难

but it is very necessary.

但却十分必要

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

如果我们想通过政治手段解决冲突，

if we're going to understand these new groups

如果我们想了解这些新团体

which are coming from bottom-up,

这些自下而上的团体，

supported by technology, which is available to all,

拜科技所赐，这并非难事，

we diplomats cannot be sitting back in the banquets

我们外交家不能流连于高级宴会中

believing that we are doing interstate relations.

自欺欺人地以为自己在处理国际关系。

We have to connect

我们必须接触

with these profound changes.

这些深刻的变化。

And what is dialogue really about?

对话的本质究竟是什么？

When I enter into dialogue,

当我进行对话时，

I really hope that the other side

我由衷希望对方

would pick up my points of view,

能够认同我的观点，

that I would impress upon them

我要用自己的观点和价值观

my opinions and my values.

打动他们

I cannot do that

除非我对对方的观点表现出

unless I send the signals that I will be open

倾听的态度

to listen to the other side's signals.

否则，我将无法达成目的。

We need a lot more training on how to do that

我们需要大量的训练和实践

and a lot more practice

来学习怎样达成上述目标

on how that can take problem-solving forward.

和怎样促成问题的解决。

We know from our personal experiences

从个人经历出发

that it's easy sometimes

我们知道谈判中

just to walk,

有时需要起身离开，

and sometimes you may need to fight.

有时需要据理力争。

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

我不会一概地否定这些策略。

Sometimes you have to.

有时你必须如此。

But that strategy seldom takes you very far.

但这些策略帮助不大。

The alternative is a strategy

真正有用的策略是

of engagement and principled dialogue.

使对话更加有原则有保障。

And I believe we need to strengthen this approach

我认为在现代外交中

in modern diplomacy,

要加强这一方面，

not only between states,

无论是国家之间，

but also within states.

还是在国家内部。

We are seeing some new signs.

我们看到了许多新的迹象。

We could never have done

如果文明社会

the convention against anti-personnel landmines

不采取新的外交手段

and the convention that is banning cluster munitions

我们永远都

unless we had done diplomacy differently,

无法看到反地雷运动

by engaging with civil society.

无法达成《集束弹药公约》

All of a sudden,

突然之间，

NGOs were not only standing in the streets, crying their slogans,

非政府组织不再仅仅站在街头，高呼口号，

but they were taking [them] into the negotiations,

而是投入到沟通交流中，

partly because they represented the victims of these weapons.

因为他们代表了这些武器的受害者。

And they brought their knowledge.

而且他们利用了自己的知识。

And there was an interaction

在外交和底层力量之间

between diplomacy and the power coming bottom-up.

有一个互动。

This is perhaps a first element

这也许是变革发生的

of a change.

第一要素。

In the future, I believe,

我认为，在未来

we should draw examples from these different illustrations,

我们将从这些例子中学到更多，

not to have diplomacy

拥有不再脱离人民和社会的

which is disconnected from people and civil society.

崭新外交。

And we have to go also

在面对当今时代

beyond traditional diplomacy

人类生死攸关的议题

to the survival issue of our times,

——气候变化时，

climate change.

我们也要超越传统外交。

How are we going to solve climate change through negotiations,

如果我们相互推

unless we are able to make civil society and people,

而不承担自己应尽的义务，

not part of the problem, but part of the solution?

又怎能通过交流解决气候问题？

It is going to demand an inclusive process of diplomacy

在进行新的，更艰难的气候谈判时

very different from the one we are practicing today

我们需要不同于现在践行的

as we are heading to new rounds of difficult climate negotiations,

更加包容的外交程序

but when we move toward something

此时我们需要动员

which has to be much more

更广泛的力量

along a broad mobilization.

去达成某个目标。

It's crucial to understand, I believe,

我认为，理解至关重要。

because of technology and because of globalization,

因为科技，因为全球化

societies from bottom-up.

和由下而上的社会团体的力量。

We as diplomats

作为外交家

need to know the social capital

我们需要了解社会团体

of communities.

的社会资本。

What is it that makes people trust each other,

究竟是什么让国与国之间，

not only between states,

以及国内的人们之间，

but also within states?

彼此信任？

What is the legitimacy of diplomacy,

如果外交家设计的解决方案

of the the solution we devise as diplomats

不能被更广泛的社会力量

if they cannot be reflected and understood

也就是我们泛称的”组织“

by also these broader forces of societies

所理解和认同，

that we now very loosely call groups?

我们又怎能使外交更加合理？

The good thing is that we are not powerless.

好在我们并非无能为力。

We have never had

我们有着前所未有的

as many means of communication,

交流方式、

means of being connected, means of reaching out,

联系手段、沟通途径、

means of including.

和包容方式。

The diplomatic toolbox

"外交工具箱"中

is actually full of different tools we can use

放满了可用的工具

to strengthen our communication.

来加强我们的交流。

But the problem is that we are coming out of a decade

但问题在于，9·11后近十年来

where we had a fear of touching it.

我们对沟通充满恐惧

Now, I hope, in the coming years,

现在，我希望接下来的日子里

that we are able to demonstrate through some concrete examples

我们能通过实际行动显示

that fear is receding

恐惧已离我们而去

and that we can take courage

而我们能够从各个国家

from that alliance

从文明社会

with civil society

的联盟中

in different countries

汲取勇气

to support their problem-solving,

来支持各国解决冲突

among the Afghans,

让阿富汗人内部，

inside the Palestinian population,

巴勒斯坦人内部，

between the peoples of Palestine and Israel.

和以色列与巴勒斯坦之间，都能化干戈为玉帛。

And as we try to understand this broad movement

当我们试图理解阿拉伯世界

across the Arab world,

的大变迁时，

we are not powerless.

我们并非无能为力。

We need to improve the necessary skills,

我们需要改善交流技巧，

and we need the courage to use them.

更需要对话的勇气。

In my country,

在我的国家，

I have seen how the council of Islamist groups

我曾见过伊斯兰教团体

and Christian groups

和基督教团体

came together, not as a government initiative,

走到一起，并非政府促成，

but they came together on their own initiative

而是出于自发行为，

to establish contact and dialogue

在稍有摩擦时，

in times where things were pretty low-key tension.

他们就主动通过对话达成一致。

And when tension increased,

当冲突升级时，

they already had that dialogue,

他们已有之前的对话，

and that was a strength to deal with different issues.

这成为了重要的协调力量。

Our modern Western societies

我们现代的西方社会

are more complex than before,

因为移民热潮

in this time of migration.

而变得更加复杂多元

How are we going to settle and build a bigger "We"

如果不改善交流技巧我们又怎能

to deal with our issues

建立一个和谐包容的“大家庭”

if we don't improve our skills of communication?

去解决争议？

So there are many reasons,

以上是我们进行对话的原因

and for all of these reasons,

也正是这些原因

this is time and this is why we must talk.

使对话毋庸置疑，刻不容缓。

Thank you for your attention.

谢谢大家的关注

(Applause)

掌声