In praise of conflict | Jonathan Marks

翻译人员: 小布 陈 校对人员: Lipeng Chen

Twenty years ago,

二十年前，

when I was a barrister and human rights lawyer

当我是一名律师， 一名人权律师的时候，

in full-time legal practice in London,

在伦敦一家公司全职工作，

and the highest court in the land

最高法院依然 在这栋大楼里召开，

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

有人可能说是历史的巧合。

in this building here,

I met a young man who had just quit his job

我遇到一位年轻人，

刚刚辞去他在英国外交部的工作。

in the British Foreign Office.

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

当我问他，“你为什么要辞职？”

he told me this story.

他跟我说了这个故事。

He had gone to his boss one morning and said,

一天早晨，他去找他的老板说，

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

“让我们为中国的人权问题 做点事情吧。”

And his boss had replied,

他老板回答，

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

“我们不能对中国侵犯人权问题 做任何事情，

because we have trade relations with China."

因为我们跟中国有贸易往来。”

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

所以我的这位朋友 就夹着尾巴离开了。

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

半年之后，他再去找他的老板，

and he said this time,

他对老板说，

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

让我们为缅甸的人权问题 做点事情吧，

as it was then called.

缅甸当时被叫做(Burma)这个名字。”

His boss once again paused

他的老板又一次停住，

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

说，“哦，我们不能对缅甸人权问题 做任何事情，

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

因为我们跟他们没有贸易关系。”

(Laughter)

（笑声）

This was the moment he knew he had to leave.

就是那一刻，他知道自己该辞职了。

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

这不仅仅是政府的虚伪促使了他，

It was the unwillingness of his government

而是他的政府不愿意与其他任何政府 在密切的商讨中

to engage in conflict with other governments,

出现意见不合，产生争执，

in tense discussions,

all the while, innocent people were being harmed.

因此同时，无辜的人受到伤害。

We are constantly told

我们一直被告知，

that conflict is bad

说冲突是不好的，

that compromise is good;

妥协是好的；

that conflict is bad

冲突是不好的，

but consensus is good;

但是共识是好的；

that conflict is bad

冲突是不好的，

and collaboration is good.

合作是好的。

But in my view,

但是在我看来，

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

这对整个世界太一概而论了。

We cannot know

我们并不能知道

whether conflict is bad

冲突是不是不好的，

unless we know who is fighting,

除非我们知道我们在与谁斗争，

why they are fighting

为什么他们要斗争，

and how they are fighting.

和他们怎么斗争的？

And compromises can be thoroughly rotten

如果妥协会伤害到 不在谈判桌上的人，

if they harm people who are not at the table,

那它就会彻底的腐败，

people who are vulnerable, disempowered,

那些脆弱的人们， 被剥夺选择权的人们，

people whom we have an obligation to protect.

那些我们有义务要保护的人们。

Now, you might be somewhat skeptical of a lawyer

现在你可能对这个律师 说着冲突的好处

arguing about the benefits of conflict

and creating problems for compromise,

和妥协的坏处有怀疑。

但是，我确实是一名合格的调解人，

but I did also qualify as a mediator,

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

这些天，我花时间来做 关于道德的免费演讲。

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

因此，我的银行经理提醒我， 我的经济状况在下滑。

But if you accept my argument,

但是如果你同意我的提议，

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

那它不仅仅可以改变 我们个人生活的方式，

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

这一点我想暂时留在一边，

but it will change the way we think about major problems

它还将改变我们对公共卫生和环境的 主要问题的思考方式。

of public health and the environment.

Let me explain.

让我来解释一下，

Every middle schooler in the United States,

美国的每一位中学生，

my 12-year-old daughter included,

包括我那12岁的女儿，

learns that there are three branches of government,

知道政府有三个分支，

the legislative, the executive and the judicial branch.

立法机关，行政机关和 司法机关。

James Madison wrote,

詹姆斯·麦迪逊写过，

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

“如果在我们的宪法中， 或者其他任何自由的宪法里，

有一条最受尊敬的原则的话，

and indeed in any free constitution,

than any other,

比其他任何一项原则都重要的，

it is that which separates

那就是

把立法、行政和司法分开的原则。”

the legislative, the executive and the judicial powers."

Now, the framers were not just concerned

现在，制宪者不仅仅是关心

about the concentration and exercise of power.

权利的集中和执行。

They also understood the perils of influence.

他们也理解影响力所带来的风险。

Judges cannot determine the constitutionality of laws

法官不能决定法律是否符合宪法，

if they participate in making those laws,

如果他们参与制定这些法律的话。

nor can they hold the other branches of government accountable

也不可以为其他政府部门负责，

if they collaborate with them

如果之间有合作关系，

or enter into close relationships with them.

或者是跟他们产生密切关系的话。

The Constitution is, as one famous scholar put it,

宪法是，用一位著名的学者的话说，

"an invitation to struggle."

“引发斗争的请柬。”

And we the people are served

这些政府分支，真正互相制衡时，

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

我们才是被服务的人。

Now, we recognize the importance of struggle

现在，我们了解了斗争的重要性，

not just in the public sector

不仅仅是在政府各分支之间的

between our branches of government.

公共事务上，

We also know it too in the private sector,

我们也知道在私营部门之间，

in relationships among corporations.

斗争也很重要。

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

让我们想象一下， 两个美国的航空公司联合起来，

that they will not drop the price

同意不把经济舱的票价 降到250美金以下。

of their economy class airfares below 250 dollars a ticket.

That is collaboration, some would say collusion,

这是合作，有人会说是勾结，

not competition,

不是竞争，

and we the people are harmed

我们是受害人。

because we pay more for our tickets.

因为我们要为此付更多的钱来买票。

Imagine similarly two airlines were to say,

想象一下类似的情况， 两家航空公司协议说，

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

“航空公司A要飞 洛杉矶到芝加哥的航线，”

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

航空公司B说， “那我们飞芝加哥到华盛顿的航线，

and we won't compete."

所以我们就不用竞争了。”

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

再说一次，这是合作或者勾结， 而不是竞争，

and we the people are harmed.

我们是受害人。

So we understand the importance of struggle

当谈到政府分支之间的关系时， 我们理解斗争的重要性，

when it comes to relationships between branches of government,

the public sector.

这是公共部门方面。

We also understand the importance of conflict

同样地，当谈到企业之间关系的时， 我们也理解冲突的重要性，

when it comes to relationships among corporations,

the private sector.

这是私营部门方面。

But where we have forgotten it

但是被我们忽视的是

is in the relationships between the public and the private.

公共部门和私营部门之间的关系。

And governments all over the world are collaborating with industry

全世界的政府与各个行业的公司 进行合作，

to solve problems of public health and the environment,

来解决公共卫生和环境问题，

often collaborating with the very corporations

常常，合作的对象正是那些制造了 或加剧了问题的公司,

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

这些问题正是政府想要解决的难题。

We are told that these relationships

我们被告知说，

这种关系是互赢的关系。

are a win-win.

But what if someone is losing out?

但是如果其中一方输掉了呢？

Let me give you some examples.

我来给你们举几个例子：

A United Nations agency decided to address a serious problem:

联合国机构打算要解决 一个严重的问题，

poor sanitation in schools in rural India.

即在印度乡村地区 学校里的卫生问题。

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

他们这么做不仅仅是要 与国家和当地的政府部门合作，

but also with a television company

也要与一家电视公司

and with a major multinational soda company.

和一家跨国企业汽水饮料公司合作。

In exchange for less than one million dollars,

为了换取不到一百万美金的利润，

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

这家公司得到了持续一个月的促销机会，

including a 12-hour telethon

包括十二小时的电视募捐，

all using the company's logo and color scheme.

全部都用着这个公司的标志和 颜色搭配。

This was an arrangement

这是安排好的协议。

which was totally understandable

从公司的角度出发，

from the corporation's point of view.

这可以理解。

It enhances the reputation of the company

这提高企业声誉，

and it creates brand loyalty for its products.

还使形成了产品忠诚度。

But in my view,

但是依我来看，

this is profoundly problematic for the intergovernmental agency,

对于一家跨政府机构来说， 这里面有很严重的问题。

an agency that has a mission to promote sustainable living.

这个机构旨在发展可持续生存，

By increasing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages

通过提高大家对甜味饮料的消费，

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

由当地紧缺的水资源供应， 由塑料瓶灌起来的，

in a country that is already grappling with obesity,

在这样一个已经被肥胖问题 困扰的国家，

this is neither sustainable from a public health

从公共卫生角度来看， 这不是个可持续战略，

nor an environmental point of view.

而从环保角度来看，也是不对的。

And in order to solve one public health problem,

为了解决一个公共卫生问题，

the agency is sowing the seeds

这个机构就为另一个问题 播下了种子。

of another.

This is just one example of dozens I discovered

我在为一本有关政府和企业之间关系 的书做研究，

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

这只是我发现的许多问题之一。

I could also have told you about the initiatives in parks

我还可以告诉你一个提案， 有关伦敦和整个英国的公园，

in London and throughout Britain,

involving the same company, promoting exercise,

他们涉及到同一家公司， 提倡大家锻炼，

or indeed of the British government creating voluntary pledges

其实是英国政府在与 企业的合作关系中

in partnership with industry

自愿提供了保证，

instead of regulating industry.

而不是监管企业。

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

这种合作和配合关系已经 在公共卫生问题中变成了一种模式，

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

再说一次，从企业角度来看， 这是合理的。

It allows them to frame public health problems and their solutions

这允许他们设计出 一种公共卫生问题的解决方法。

in ways that are least threatening to,

这种方法对他们威胁最少，

most consonant with their commercial interests.

却对他们的商业利益有最大帮助。

So obesity becomes a problem

所以，肥胖变成了一个

of individual decision-making,

由个人决定影响的问题，

of personal behavior,

受到个人行为影响的问题，

personal responsibility and lack of physical activity.

个人的责任感和 个人缺少锻炼而导致的问题。

It is not a problem,

照这样看来，这完全不会是个

when framed this way,

of a multinational food system involving major corporations.

牵涉到跨国食品企业链的问题。

And again, I don't blame industry.

再说一次，我并不责备企业。

Industry naturally engages in strategies of influence

企业天生要扩大影响力，

to promote its commercial interests.

来提升他们广告利益。

But governments have a responsibility

但是政府有责任来制定对策，

to develop counterstrategies

to protect us

来保护我们，

and the common good.

和公共利益。

The mistake that governments are making

政府犯的错误，

when they collaborate in this way

当他们用这种方式

with industry

与企业合作时，

is that they conflate

是他们混淆了了公共利益

the common good

with common ground.

和共同点。

When you collaborate with industry,

当你与企业合作的时候，

you necessarily put off the table

你有必要把那些企业可能不同意的 会促进公共利益的事

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

丢在一边。

Industry will not agree to increased regulation

企业不会同意加强监管，

unless it believes this will stave off even more regulation

除非他们认为这样能让他们 避开更多的监管，

or perhaps knock some competitors out of the market.

或者是可以淘汰掉市场上的 一些竞争者。

Nor can companies agree to do certain things,

公司也不会同意来做一些 特定的事情，

for example raise the prices of their unhealthy products,

比如说提高他们不健康产品的价格，

because that would violate competition law,

因为那样会破坏

我们已经建立的竞争法。

as we've established.

So our governments should not confound

所以我们的政府不应该

the common good and common ground,

把公共利益和共同点混在一起，

especially when common ground means reaching agreement with industry.

尤其是当共同点意味着 与企业达成一致时。

I want to give you another example,

我想再给你们举个例子，

moving from high-profile collaboration

从高利润公司

to something that is below ground

到一些底层的东西，

both literally and figuratively:

从字面上和比喻上说都对：

the hydraulic fracturing of natural gas.

天然气的水力压裂。

Imagine that you purchase a plot of land

想象一下如果你买了一块地，

not knowing the mineral rights have been sold.

不知道这块地的开采权 已经被出售了。

This is before the fracking boom.

这是发生在水力压裂爆发之前。

You build your dream home on that plot,

你在那块地上建了你梦想的房子，

and shortly afterwards,

不久之后，

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

你发现一家石油公司正在你的地上 建一个井场。

That was the plight of the Hallowich family.

这是Hallowich一家遇到的困境。

Within a very short period of time,

在很短的时间内，

they began to complain of headaches,

他们开始抱怨头痛，

of sore throats, of itchy eyes,

嗓子痛、眼睛痒，

in addition to the interference of the noise, vibration

此外还有噪音的干扰、震动，

and the bright lights from the flaring of natural gas.

和燃烧天然气时发出的强光。

They were very vocal in their criticisms,

他们开始直言不讳的抱怨，

and then they fell silent.

然后他们就沉默了。

多亏了匹兹堡邮报和另外一个报纸， 这张图片就是出现在匹兹堡邮报，

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

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

我们发现了他们为啥沉默。

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

报社去法院问， “Hallowiches一家人怎么了？”

And it turned out the Hallowiches had made a secret settlement

结果发现Hallowiches一家人跟 石油开采公司，

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

签了一个保密协议， “要么接受、要么放弃”的协议。

The gas company said,

石油公司说，

you can have a six-figure sum

你们可以接受一笔六位数的款项，

to move elsewhere and start your lives again,

然后搬到别的地方开始新的生活，

but in return

但是反过来，

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

你们必须保证不透露 你与我们公司之间的事情，

not to speak of your experience with fracking,

对水力压裂进行保密。

not to speak about the health consequences

对此产生的健康危害进行保密，

that might have been revealed by a medical examination.

这种健康问题 可能会在体检中检查出来。

Now, I do not blame the Hallowiches for accepting

我不是谴责Hallowiches一家人接受

a take-it-or-leave-it settlement

这个“要么接受要么放弃”的协议，

and starting their lives elsewhere.

然后开始他们的新生活。

And one can understand

而且我们能理解

why the company would wish to silence a squeaky wheel.

为什么公司希望达成一个静默协议。

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

我想指出的是立法和监管系统，

a system in which there are networks of agreements

允许这样一系统“静默”协议的存在，

just like this one

就跟这个一样，

which serve to silence people and seal off data points

用来让人们对此避而不谈，

并对公共卫生专家和 流行病专家们封锁了数据。

from public health experts and epidemiologists,

a system in which regulators

这个系统的监管者，

will even refrain from issuing a violation notice

甚至在一次污染事件中， 避免开出违规通知。

in the event of pollution

if the landowner and the gas company

如果土地所有人和石油公司

agree to settle.

同意一致的话。

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

这个体系不仅仅是从公共卫生的 角度来看是不好的，

it exposes hazards to local families

它对当地的家庭来说也是一种危害，

who remain in the dark.

而这些家庭还是全然不知。

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

现在我已经给了你们两个例子， 他们不仅仅是独立的案例。

They are examples of a systemic problem.

他们是这些系统性问题中的案例。

I could share some counterexamples,

我可以再分享一些反例，

the case for example of the public official

例如，

政府人员起诉药品公司，

who sues the pharmaceutical company

for concealing the fact

因为药片公司掩盖了

that its antidepressant increases suicidal thoughts in adolescents.

抗抑郁药物提高了 青少年自杀倾向的事实。

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

我能告诉你关于监管部门 跟踪调查食品公司，

for exaggerating the purported health benefits of its yogurt.

因为食品公司夸大了 酸奶对健康的好处。

And I can tell you about the legislator

我能告诉你，

who despite heavy lobbying directed at both sides of the aisle

立法机构不管对双方的重金游说

pushes for environmental protections.

去推动环境保护。

These are isolated examples,

这些都是独立的案例。

but they are beacons of light in the darkness,

但他们是黑暗中的一点光明的信号，

and they can show us the way.

他们能为我们指明道路。

I began by suggesting that sometimes we need to engage in conflict.

我开始就建议，有时， 我们需要一些斗争，

Governments should tussle with,

政府应该参与斗争，

struggle with, at times engage in direct conflict with corporations.

同时与企业发生直接冲突。

This is not because governments are inherently good

这不是因为政府天生的就是好人，

and corporations are inherently evil.

企业天生就是恶魔。

Each is capable of good or ill.

双方都有可能是好或是坏。

But corporations understandably act to promote their commercial interests,

但是，可以理解， 公司会为促进他们的商业利润行动。

and they do so either sometimes undermining or promoting the common good.

他们这样做要么有时会破坏， 要么会促进共同利益。

But it is the responsibility of governments

但是，是政府的责任

to protect and promote the common good.

来保护或者促进公共利益。

And we should insist

我们应该坚持

that they fight to do so.

政府应该为此做斗争。

This is because governments

因为政府

are the guardians

是公共卫生的守护人；

of public health;

governments are the guardians

政府是环境的守护人。

of the environment;

and it is governments

政府是我们公共利益最本质部分的 守护人。

that are guardians

of these essential parts of our common good.

Thank you.

谢谢。

(Applause)