Benjamin Barber: Why mayors should rule the world

翻译人员: Sophia Liu 校对人员: jihan jung

Democracy is in trouble, no question about that,

毫无疑问的是，民主正处于危难之中。

and it comes in part from a deep dilemma

这种危难部分来自于

in which it is embedded.

扎根于其中的两难境地。

It's increasingly irrelevant to the kinds of decisions

我们面临的抉择越来越与国与国之间的界线无关。

we face that have to do with global pandemics,

如我们所面临的的全球性流行病，

a cross-border problem;

不是境内境外的问题；

with HIV, a transnational problem;

如获得性免疫缺陷综合征（简称HIV），不是国家内部的问题；

with markets and immigration,

如市场与移民，

something that goes beyond national borders;

不是国家领土界线内的问题；

with terrorism, with war,

再如恐怖主义、战争，

all now cross-border problems.

这些都是超越了国家与界线的问题。

In fact, we live in a 21st-century world

实际上，我们共存在二十一世纪

of interdependence,

这是一个互相依赖的世界，

and brutal interdependent problems,

也是一个有着很多残酷的互相依赖问题的世界，

and when we look for solutions in politics and in democracy,

当我们去政界和民主中找答案时，

we are faced with political institutions

我们面对的是400年前

designed 400 years ago,

组织建立起来的政治机构，

autonomous, sovereign nation-states

与有着法律与领土界线的

with jurisdictions and territories

自治的主权国家，

separate from one another,

这些政治机构与国际彼此分离，

each claiming to be able to solve the problem

各自主张自己能够解决

of its own people.

自己人民的问题。

Twenty-first-century, transnational world

我们生活在的是二十一世纪，应是一个有着困难和挑战

of problems and challenges,

的无国界世界，

17th-century world of political institutions.

而它却笼罩在十七世纪的政治机构体制之下。

In that dilemma lies the central problem of democracy.

民主的核心问题正存在于这种两难境地中。

And like many others, I've been thinking about

我与其他人一样都在想一个问题，

what can one do about this, this asymmetry

那就是，我们可以如何处理

between 21st-century challenges

这横跨在二十一世纪众多挑战中的不平衡

and archaic and increasingly dysfunctional

我们应该如何处理这种古旧的政体和

political institutions like nation-states.

越发机能失调的政治机构（如单一民族国家）。

And my suggestion is

我的建议是，

that we change the subject,

我们应该改一改话题，

that we stop talking about nations,

不谈国家，

about bordered states,

不谈界线，

and we start talking about cities.

而开始把我们的话题转移到城市。

Because I think you will find, when we talk about cities,

因为，我想相信当我们开始谈到城市的时候，你就会发现

we are talking about the political institutions

我们谈到的是

in which civilization and culture were born.

孕育着文明与文化的政治机构；

We are talking about the cradle of democracy.

我们谈到的是民主的摇篮；

We are talking about the venues in which

我们谈到的是人民在公共场所集会，

those public spaces where we come together

谈论民主、创造民主，

to create democracy, and at the same time

而与此同时，

protest those who would take our freedom, take place.

也抗议那些剥夺我们自由的势力。

Think of some great names:

想想那些伟大的名字吧：

the Place de la Bastille,

巴士底广场（法国巴黎，巴士底狱所在地），

Zuccotti Park,

祖科蒂公园（美国纽约，占领华尔街集会所在地）

Tahrir Square,

塔利尔解放广场（埃及开罗，埃及七月革命所在地）

Taksim Square in today's headlines in Istanbul,

和在今日头条的塔克西姆广场（土耳其伊斯坦布尔，人民示威游行所在地）

or, yes,

或者，是的，

Tiananmen Square in Beijing.

中国北京的天安门广场。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

Those are the public spaces

在这些公共场所中，

where we announce ourselves as citizens,

我们宣告自己为公民，

as participants, as people with the right

为参与者，

to write our own narratives.

为有权利书写我们自己人生的人民。

Cities are not only the oldest of institutions,

城市不仅仅是最古老的机构，

they're the most enduring.

还是最经久不衰的机构。

If you think about it,

想想看，

Constantinople, Istanbul, much older than Turkey.

君士坦丁堡和伊斯坦布尔（城市）比土耳其（国家）持久；

Alexandria, much older than Egypt.

亚历山大港，比埃及更不朽；

Rome, far older than Italy.

罗马，远比意大利经久不衰。

Cities endure the ages.

城市，经得起岁月的考验。

They are the places where we are born,

城市是我们出生、

grow up, are educated, work, marry,

成长、受教育、工作以及结婚的地方；

pray, play, get old, and in time, die.

也是我们祈祷、玩耍、老去以及死亡的地方。

They are home.

城市是我们的家。

Very different than nation-states,

他们不同于抽象意义上的

which are abstractions.

民族与国家。

We pay taxes, we vote occasionally,

我们也许会纳税，也许会偶尔投票选举，

we watch the men and women we choose rule

也许会看着那些由我们选举出来的男人和女人们

rule more or less without us.

或多或少不考虑我们的统治着这个国家。

Not so in those homes known as our towns

他们都不如我们誉为家的小镇，

and cities where we live.

和我们生活的城市。

Moreover, today, more than half of the world's population

除此以外，超过世界人口的一半以上

live in cities.

都居住生活在城市。

In the developed world, it's about 78 percent.

在发达国家中，这种比例达到了78%。

More than three out of four people

超过了四分之三的人口

live in urban institutions, urban places,

居住在城市的机构、场所，

in cities today.

城市的各个地方。

So cities are where the action is.

所以，城市，才应该是我们采取行动的所在地。

Cities are us. Aristotle said in the ancient world,

城市就是我们。

man is a political animal.

亚里士多德曾说过，“在古代，人们就是政治性动物。”

I say we are an urban animal.

而我说，我们是城市性动物。

We are an urban species, at home in our cities.

我们是以城市为栖息地的物种。

So to come back to the dilemma,

让我们再回到一开始我们所说到的窘境，

if the dilemma is we have old-fashioned

如果这种窘境是因为我们现在所拥有的古旧的

political nation-states unable to govern the world,

政治体系（民族、国家）无法统治这个世界，

respond to the global challenges that we face

也无法回应我们面临的全球性挑战，

like climate change,

如气候变化的问题，

then maybe it's time for mayors to rule the world,

也许是时候让市长们统治这个世界的时候了，

for mayors and the citizens and the peoples they represent

是时候让市长们，市民的忠实喉舌，

to engage in global governance.

去参与到全球问题的管理中来。

When I say if mayors ruled the world,

当我说，“如果市长们可以统治这个世界”，

when I first came up with that phrase,

当我第一次想到这个说法的时候，

it occurred to me that actually, they already do.

我突然认识到，他们其实已经这样做了。

There are scores of international, inter-city,

现如今在城市中已经有许多的跨国、跨市、

cross-border institutions, networks of cities

跨境、连接众多城市的组织

in which cities are already, quite quietly,

已经在悄无声息中，

below the horizon, working together

合作无间，

to deal with climate change, to deal with security,

共同对抗气候变化、安全问题、

to deal with immigration,

处理移民问题，

to deal with all of those tough,

和那些纵使艰难，

interdependent problems that we face.

但仍需要面对的共存性问题。

They have strange names:

这些组织有着一些奇怪的名字：

UCLG,

UCLG (United Cities And Local Governments)

United Cities and Local Governments;

城市和地方政府联合；

ICLEI,

ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Issues.)

the International Council for Local Environmental Issues.

国际地方环境理事会，

And the list goes on:

这样的例子不胜枚举：

Citynet in Asia; City Protocol, a new organization

亚洲城市组织 Citynet in Asia；

out of Barcelona that is using the web

城市协议组织 City Protocol（一个在巴塞罗那新成立的组织，

to share best practices among countries.

它通过运用网络共享城市中成功的案例）

And then all the things we know a little better,

还有一些我们更熟悉的组织，

the U.S. Conference of Mayors,

美国市长会 U.S. Conference of Mayors

the Mexican Conference of Mayors,

墨西哥市长会 Mexican Conference of Mayors

the European Conference of Mayors.

欧洲市长会 European Conference of Mayors

Mayors are where this is happening.

正因为市长们，这些组织们才得以成立。

And so the question is,

所以，问题来了，

how can we create a world

我们如何建立一个

in which mayors and the citizens they represent

市长们和他们所代表的的市民们

play a more prominent role?

可以更扮演更重要角色的世界？

Well, to understand that,

要回答这个问题，

we need to understand why cities are special,

我们首先要了解城市是如此特别的原因，

why mayors are so different

了解为何市长与总理和总统们相比

than prime ministers and presidents,

与众不同的原因。

because my premise is that a mayor and a prime minister

那是因为我的首要前提是市长和总理

are at the opposite ends of a political spectrum.

处在一个政治谱系中相反的两端

To be a prime minister or a president,

要成为一名总理或是总统，

you have to have an ideology,

你必须要有思想意识，

you have to have a meta-narrative,

你必须要元叙述（即对历史的意义、经历和知识的叙述）

you have to have a theory of how things work,

你还必须要有上任后如何使国家运作的理论基础，

you have to belong to a party.

您必须要从属于一个政党。

Independents, on the whole,

如若你是无党派人士，自由、独立的个体，

don't get elected to office.

那么你就无法被选举。

But mayors are just the opposite.

但，市长们则相反。

Mayors are pragmatists, they're problem-solvers.

市长是实用主义者，他们能够解决问题。

Their job is to get things done, and if they don't,

他们的责任就在于完成任务，

they're out of a job.

他们一旦失败就会失业。

Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia said,

费城纳特市的市长曾经说过，

we could never get away here in Philadelphia

“在费城，我们不能眼看着华盛顿的

with the stuff that goes on in Washington,

麻痹无能、不作为

the paralysis, the non-action, the inaction.

和迟钝。

Why? Because potholes have to get filled,

为什么？因为漏洞需要被填补，

because the trains have to run,

只有这样火车才能够正常运行，

because kids have to be able to get to school.

只有这样孩子们才能够享受教育。”

And that's what we have to do,

而那就是我们要做的，

and to do that is about pragmatism

去做那些实质性的事，

in that deep, American sense,

从美国人的思维来说，

reaching outcomes.

那就是去做那些能够达到成果的事。

Washington, Beijing, Paris, as world capitals,

华盛顿，北京，巴黎，世界的首都都一样，

are anything but pragmatic,

一点都不务实。

but real city mayors have to be pragmatists.

但是市长们却不得不务实，

They have to get things done,

他们必须确保使事物运转，

they have to put ideology and religion and ethnicity aside

他们必须摒弃意识形态、宗教和民族差异

and draw their cities together.

把他们的城市联系起来。

We saw this a couple of decades ago

我们在在几世纪之前目睹了这一切的发生。

when Teddy Kollek, the great mayor of Jerusalem

当耶路撒冷的市长，特迪·科勒克 (Teddy Kollek)

in the '80s and the '90s,

在八十和九十年代，

was besieged one day in his office

被来自于不同背景的宗教领袖

by religious leaders from all of the backgrounds,

包围在办公室里，

Christian prelates, rabbis, imams.

基督教主教、犹太教和伊斯兰教领袖

They were arguing with one another

对圣地麦加的朝圣问题

about access to the holy sites.

争论不休。

And the squabble went on and on,

市长科勒克聆听着这些领袖们的争论，

and Kollek listened and listened,

最后说，

and he finally said, "Gentlemen,

“先生们，

spare me your sermons,

把你们的步道放一放，

and I will fix your sewers."

我去给你们修下水道。”

(Laughter)

（笑声）

That's what mayors do.

这就是市长们的工作。

They fix sewers, they get the trains running.

他们修理下水道，他们使火车运行。

There isn't a left or a right way of doing.

这不是一个左翼，也不是一个右翼的处理方式。

Boris Johnson in London calls himself an anarcho-Tory.

伦敦市长鲍里斯·约翰逊 （Boris Johnson）称他自己为无政府主义者 - 托利（党）

Strange term, but in some ways, he is.

一个非常奇怪的名字，但他却是这样。

He's a libertarian. He's an anarchist.

他是一个自由主义者。他是一个无政府主义者。

He rides to work on a bike,

他每天骑自行车上班，

but at the same time, he's in some ways a conservative.

但与此同时，他又在某方面又有一些保守。

Bloomberg in New York was a Democrat,

纽约市市长迈克尔·布隆伯格 (Michael Bloomberg) 起先是一个民主党成员，

then he was a Republican,

and finally he was an Independent, and said

后来他又是一个共和党成员，

但最后他退出两个党派然后说，

the party label just gets in the way.

“党派的标签妨碍我做事。”

Luzhkov, 20 years mayor in Moscow,

卢日科夫（Yori Luzhkov）在莫斯科担任了二十年的市长，

though he helped found a party, United Party with Putin,

尽管他帮助普金共同建立了联合党

in fact refused to be defined by the party

但他实际上拒绝被定义为政党人士

and finally, in fact, lost his job not under Brezhnev,

最后，他不是在勃列日涅夫手下

not under Gorbachev, but under Putin,

也不是在戈尔巴乔夫手下，

who wanted a more faithful party follower.

而是渴望更忠诚的政党追随者的普金手下丢掉了工作。

So mayors are pragmatists and problem-solvers.

所以，我再次强调，市长是实用主义者，他们能够解决问题。

They get things done.

他们能够使事物运转。

But the second thing about mayors

另外一件我想说的关于市长的事是，

is they are also what I like to call homeboys,

我喜欢把他们叫做“哥们儿”

or to include the women mayors, homies.

不过如果要把女市长们也列入其中的话，就叫他们“死党”吧。

They're from the neighborhood.

他们从我们的街坊邻里中被选举出来，

They're part of the neighborhood. They're known.

是社区的一部分，而且他们也知道这一点。

Ed Koch used to wander around New York City

纽约市长埃德•科克（Ed Koch）层漫步于纽约街头，

saying, "How am I doing?"

采访路人问，“我任职期间做的怎么样？”

Imagine David Cameron

想想戴维·卡梅伦（David Cameron），

wandering around the United Kingdom

如果他漫步于大不列颠王国的街头，随口就问，“我做的如何？”

asking, "How am I doing?" He wouldn't like the answer.

他应该不会喜欢那个答案。

Or Putin. Or any national leader.

或者普金，或者任何国家领导人。

He could ask that because he knew New Yorkers

埃德•科克 之所以能够这么问是因为他了解纽约人，

and they knew him.

纽约人也了解他。

Mayors are usually from the places they govern.

市长通常从他所管辖的区域中选举出来，

It's pretty hard to be a carpetbagger and be a mayor.

非本地的参政者通常没有办法被选举为市长。

You can run for the Senate out of a different state,

你可以在不同的州为议员拉选票，

but it's hard to do that as a mayor.

但却无法作为市长这么做。

And as a result, mayors and city councillors

所以，市长、市议员

and local authorities

和地方当局

have a much higher trust level,

在民众中有更高的信任度。

and this is the third feature about mayors,

而这也是关于市长的第三个特点，

than national governing officials.

那就是比国家领导人更具有民心。

In the United States, we know the pathetic figures:

在美国，我们知道一个可悲的数据：

18 percent of Americans approve of Congress

只有18%的美国民众

and what they do.

赞成国会和国会的所作所为。

And even with a relatively popular president like Obama,

而甚至是稍微更受青睐的总统奥巴马，

the figures for the Presidency run about 40, 45,

也不过在总统大选中获得的支持率得到40%或45%，

sometimes 50 percent at best.

最多50%。

The Supreme Court has fallen way down from what it used to be.

最高法院的支持率也比以往大大下滑。

But when you ask, "Do you trust your city councillor,

但如果你问民众，“你是否信任你们市议员，

do you trust your mayor?"

你是否相信你们市长？”

the rates shoot up to 70, 75, even 80 percent,

支持率飙升至70%，75%，甚至是80%。

because they're from the neighborhood,

因为他们从街坊邻里中被选举出来，

because the people they work with are their neighbors,

因为他们的同僚们也是他们的邻居，

because, like Mayor Booker in Newark,

因为，就像纽瓦克的市长布克（Cory Booker）

a mayor is likely to get out of his car on the way to work

是一个不坐豪华车去上班的市长，

and go in and pull people out of a burning building --

是一个冲进火场并把人火场里救出来的市长

that happened to Mayor Booker --

（这是真实发生在市长布克身上的事情）

or intervene in a mugging in the street as he goes to work

或者在他上班的途中看见行凶抢劫毫不犹豫的上前见义勇为

because he sees it.

就只因为他看见了，他就不会坐视不管。

No head of state would be permitted

没有任何一个国家领导人

by their security details to do it,

会被安全条例所允许去做这件事，

nor be in a position to do it.

也不会去做这件事。

That's the difference, and the difference

这就是他们之间存在的区别。

has to do with the character of cities themselves,

而这种区别与城市的特性本身相关，

because cities are profoundly multicultural,

因为城市是融合多种文化的，

open, participatory, democratic,

开放的、供人分享的、民主的、

able to work with one another.

合作无间的。

When states face each other,

而国家间的交流，

China and the U.S., they face each other like this.

如中美两国，他们的交流模式是一种模式 ，

When cities interact, they interact like this.

而城市间的交流是另外一种模式。

China and the U.S., despite the recent

中美两国，且不论最近在加州召开的高层会议，

meta-meeting in California,

两国之间被各种

are locked in all kinds of anger, resentment, and rivalry

愤怒、不满以及竞争所禁锢。

for number one.

两个国家都想要争第一。

We heard more about who will be number one.

我们对于谁可能坐上第一的宝座的争论听得很多了。

Cities don't worry about number one.

但城市之间从来不用担心谁会第一的问题。

They have to work together, and they do work together.

城市之间必须彼此合作，而它们真的在这么做，

They work together in climate change, for example.

她们合作对抗气候变化问题，

Organizations like the C40, like ICLEI, which I mentioned,

如C40，ICLEI这些我刚才提到的组织，

have been working together

都在互相合作，

many, many years before Copenhagen.

而这些是很早就在哥本哈根气候大会之前发生的事。

In Copenhagen, four or five years ago,

四五年前，

184 nations came together to explain to one another

184个国家聚集在哥本哈根

why their sovereignty didn't permit them

为自己辩解为什么他们的国家不允许他们

to deal with the grave, grave crisis of climate change,

处理这一场日渐严峻的气候变化危机。

but the mayor of Copenhagen had invited

但是哥本哈根市长却邀请到了

200 mayors to attend.

200位来自世界各地的市长参与会议。

They came, they stayed, and they found ways

他们参加会议，共同商讨并最终找到

and are still finding ways to work together,

并仍在寻找方法使城市间、

city-to-city, and through inter-city organizations.

通过城际组织共同合作的道路。

Eighty percent of carbon emissions come from cities,

80%的碳排放来自于城市，

which means cities are in a position

而这意味着城市正处于一个

to solve the carbon problem, or most of it,

解决碳排放问题的关键位置。

whether or not the states of which they are a part

无论这些城市是否来自于同一个国家，

make agreements with one another.

他们达成协议。

And they are doing it.

并且履行承诺。

Los Angeles cleaned up its port,

洛杉矶清理了它的港口

which was 40 percent of carbon emissions,

也就是说原40%的碳排放量

and as a result got rid of about 20 percent of carbon.

被减少为20%的碳排放量。

New York has a program to upgrade its old buildings,

纽约同样有着一个翻新旧建筑物的项目，

make them better insulated in the winter,

使这些建筑可以在冬天隔绝冷风，

to not leak energy in the summer,

而减少夏天泄露室内的冷气的现象，

not leak air conditioning. That's having an impact.

从而减少用电，减少碳排放量。

Bogota, where Mayor Mockus,

哥伦比亚首都波哥大，前市长莫库斯 Antanas Mockus

when he was mayor, he introduced a transportation system

引进了一种可以节省能源、

that saved energy, that allowed surface buses

又让地面交通如地铁般高效的

to run in effect like subways,

通达地点多的

express buses with corridors.

公共交通系统。

It helped unemployment, because people could get across town,

它帮助减少失业率因为人们能够在城市中自由穿行，

and it had a profound impact on climate as well as

并且对当地气候

many other things there.

有了显著的改善。

Singapore, as it developed its high-rises

再如新加坡，一个拥有众多发达的高楼大厦

and its remarkable public housing,

和卓越的公共住房体系的国家，

also developed an island of parks,

也同样发展了公园岛屿政策，

and if you go there, you'll see how much of it

如果你有机会去到新加坡，你就可以看到

is green land and park land.

新加坡遍地是绿地和公园。

Cities are doing this, but not just one by one.

城市们正在实践，但并不是一个接着一个的，

They are doing it together.

而是合力共赢。

They are sharing what they do,

它们彼此分享经验，

and they are making a difference by shared best practices.

而且他们通过分享让世界变得不同。

Bike shares, many of you have heard of it,

公用自行车，你们可能听说过，

started 20 or 30 years ago in Latin America.

大约二十至三十年前在拉丁美洲起源。

Now it's in hundreds of cities around the world.

而现如今已再全世界的数以千计的城市里有了这个项目。

Pedestrian zones, congestion fees,

行人专用区、交通拥挤费、

emission limits in cities like California cities have,

以及像加州城市有的碳排放限制条款，

there's lots and lots that cities can do

有很多是城市可以做的，

even when opaque, stubborn nations refuse to act.

而不透明、固执的国家体制不愿意去做的。

So what's the bottom line here?

那，我们的底线是什么？

The bottom line is, we still live politically

底线就是，我们依旧生活在政治性界线之下、

in a world of borders, a world of boundaries,

生活在领土界线之下、

a world of walls,

生活在高墙之下、

a world where states refuse to act together.

生活在国家拒绝共同合作努力的现实之下；

Yet we know that the reality we experience

但是我们却知道我们所经历的现实是

day to day is a world without borders,

世界正一天一天的变成一个没有界线的世界，

a world of diseases without borders

因为世界性流行病跨越了国界，

and doctors without borders,

所以医生们跨越了国界，

maladies sans frontières, Médecins Sans Frontières,

卫生组织跨越了国界；

of economics and technology without borders,

经济和技术跨越了国界；

of education without borders,

教育跨越了国界；

of terrorism and war without borders.

恐怖主义和战争跨越了国界；

That is the real world, and unless we find a way

而这就是真实的世界，

to globalize democracy or democratize globalization,

除非我们找到了一个方法去使民主全球化，

we will increasingly not only risk

我们将会不仅冒着无法解决国际问题的危险，

the failure to address all of these transnational problems,

并且冒着失去

but we will risk losing democracy itself,

民主的危险，

locked up in the old nation-state box,

被锁在一个旧的民族国家的牢笼里

unable to address global problems democratically.

无法民主地处理这些全球性的大问题，

So where does that leave us?

那我们处于一个何等的境地？

I'll tell you. The road to global democracy

让我来告诉你。通往全球民主之路，

doesn't run through states.

不会通过国家

It runs through cities.

而是通过城市。

Democracy was born in the ancient polis.

民主起源于古代城邦，

I believe it can be reborn in the global cosmopolis.

我相信它也可以在全球大都市中重生。

In that journey from polis to cosmopolis,

从古代城邦到现代大都市的旅程中，

we can rediscover the power

我们重新发现了全球层次的

of democracy on a global level.

民主的力量。

We can create not a League of Nations, which failed,

我们要创造的不是国家的联盟，因为它注定会失败。

but a League of Cities,

我们要创造的而是城市间的联盟，

not a United or a dis-United Nations,

不是联合或对抗的国家组合，

but United Cities of the World.

而是联合起来的全球的城市。

We can create a global parliament of mayors.

我们可以创立全球市长议会。

That's an idea. It's in my conception of the coming world,

这是一个新的议题，是我理想中的未来社会，

but it's also on the table in City Halls

也是在市政会议厅上迫在眉睫的议题，

in Seoul, Korea, in Amsterdam,

在韩国首尔、阿姆斯特丹、

in Hamburg, and in New York.

汉堡、纽约，

Mayors are considering that idea of how you can actually

市长们正正在考虑如何真正的组成一个

constitute a global parliament of mayors,

国际市长议会。

and I love that idea, because a parliament of mayors

我钟意这个创意，因为市长议会

is a parliament of citizens

也是市民议会，

and a parliament of citizens is a parliament of us,

市民议会就是我们的议会，

of you and of me.

是你，也是我的议会。

If ever there were citizens without borders,

如果有一个地方的市民是无国界的，

I think it's the citizens of TED

我想，那就是TED的市民，

who show the promise to be those citizens without borders.

是发誓成为无国界市民的TED人。

I am ready to reach out and embrace

我已经张开双臂去拥抱

a new global democracy,

一个全新的全球性民主，

to take back our democracy.

去拿回属于我们的民主。

And the only question is,

唯一的问题是，

are you?

你准备好了吗？

Thank you so much, my fellow citizens.

谢谢，各位市民的聆听与关注。

(Applause)

（掌声）

Thank you. (Applause)

谢谢。 （掌声）