Jason McCue: Terrorism is a failed brand

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Morton Bast

譯者: Yu-Sheng Lin 審譯者: Anny Chung

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

毫無疑問的，我們當然會與恐怖主義份子對話。

We are at war with a new form of terrorism.

我們所對抗的，是一種新型態的恐怖主義。

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

它仍然具有傳統恐怖主義的部份特性

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

但是也具有部分的21世紀的包裝方式

One of the big things about countering terrorism

打擊恐怖主義的最重要的事情之一

is, how do you perceive it?

就是，你如何看待它呢？

Because perception leads to your response to it.

因為看待它的方式，決定了你如何回應它。

So if you have a traditional perception of terrorism,

所以，若你用傳統的角度來看恐怖主義

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

它會是一種犯罪行為，一種戰爭

So how are you going to respond to it?

你會如何回應呢？

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

很自然的，你的回應會是以牙還牙

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

跟它作戰。但若你用比較進步的角度來看待

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

恐怖主義應該更像是一種因果關係

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

從這樣的角度，你所產生的回應方式

are much more asymmetrical.

就不會是那種一報還一報的

We live in a modern, global world.

我們生活在一個現代的、 全球化的世界。

Terrorists have actually adapted to it.

恐怖分子其實已經做了調適

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

我們也應該要做調適，而這意味著那些

who are working on counterterrorism responses

負責反恐對策工作的人

have to start, in effect, putting on

必須開始，如同戴上

their Google-tinted glasses, or whatever.

谷歌眼鏡之類的(以新的角度看事情的方式)

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

對我來說，我想要的是讓我們對於恐怖主義

terrorism as though it was a global brand,

採用全球品牌這樣的角度來看

say, Coca-Cola.

比如說，可口可樂。

Both are fairly bad for your health. (Laughter)

兩者都對你的健康不太好。（笑聲）

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

如果你用這種 品牌 的角度來看恐怖主義

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

你應該會發現到，這是一個相當有缺陷的產品。

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

我們已經說過，它對你的健康非常不好

it's bad for those who it affects,

對那些被它影響的人也不好

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

就算是對於自殺炸彈客，也是不好的

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

它並不如它的外包裝上說的那樣

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

你也不會真的上了天堂，還得到72個美女

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

這些都不會發生, 我認為不會

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

就算你贊助恐怖主義組織， 這也不會如同80年代時所宣稱的

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

終結資本主義。它是一派胡言。

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

於是你會發現，它有一個致命弱點(阿奇里斯踵)。

The brand has an Achilles' heel.

恐怖主義這個品牌有一個致命弱點。

We've mentioned the health,

我們前面提到過 健康，

but it needs consumers to buy into it.

恐怖主義需要有客戶來買單

The consumers it needs are the terrorist constituency.

有這樣的客戶的地方，可稱為恐怖主義的選區

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

這樣的選區裡的人喜歡並支持這個品牌、

facilitate them, and they're the people

協助這個品牌。這些人也就是

we've got to reach out to.

我們必須去接觸的目標族群。

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

我們必須在目標族群的面前與恐怖主義來較量

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

有兩種基本的進行方式可採用，若我們從品牌的思路來看

One is reducing their market. What I mean is,

一個是降低恐怖主義的市占率，我的意思是

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

這是我們的品牌在對抗它們的品牌，我們要競爭

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

就必須顯示我們的產品比較好。

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

如果我想要顯示我們的產品比較好，

I probably wouldn't do things like Guantanamo Bay.

我應該不會做出像 關塔那摩灣 那樣的事情 (美國海軍在該基地拘留審訊恐怖嫌疑份子)

We've talked there about curtailing the underlying need

我們所談的是 降低對產品本身的需求

for the product itself. You could be looking there at

你可以發現到，恐怖主義的壯大，

poverty, injustice, all those sorts of things

是因為 貧困、 不公正待遇，這些各種各樣的事件

which feed terrorism.

的發生而滋長的。

The other thing to do is to knock the product,

另一個進行方式是直接打擊對手的產品

attack the brand myth, as we've said.

打破對手的品牌迷思，如同前面說過的。

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

比如說，殺死一個年幼的孩子，根本算不上英勇的行為。

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

也許我們需要專注於此，讓這樣的訊息傳回去

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

我們必須顯示恐怖主義這個產品的危險性。

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

我們的目標群眾，不只是恐怖主義的製造者，

as I've said, the terrorists.

如我前面說過的，目標不只是恐怖分子。

It's not just the marketeers of terrorism,

也不只是恐怖主義的宣傳人員

which is those who finance, those who facilitate it,

不只是這些資助並培養恐怖主義的人

but it's the consumers of terrorism.

而應該把目標擴及恐怖主義的消費者。

We've got to get in to those homelands.

我們必須去到那些消費者的家鄉。

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

那是他們招募的地方，也是他們得到權勢與力量的地方

That's where their consumers come from.

也就是他們的消費者所來自的地方。

And we have to get our messaging in there.

我們必須讓我們的訊息傳到那裏去。

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

所以從根本來說，我們必需在那些地區，

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

與恐怖分子、贊助者......等等，進行互動。

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

我們必須投入，我們必須去教育，

and we've got to have dialogue.

而且我們必須去對話。

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

現在，再花一點時間談品牌這回事

think about delivery mechanisms.

想想進行傳達的機制。

How are we going to do these attacks?

我們該如何進行這些攻擊？

Well, reducing the market is really one for governments

嗯，減少市占率是可行的方式之一。

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

政府和文明社會必須顯示我們是更好的選擇。

We've got to show our values.

我們必須顯示我們的價值觀。

We've got to practice what we preach.

我們必須身體力行。

But when it comes to knocking the brand,

當談論到打擊品牌這件事的時候

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

如果恐怖分子是可口可樂，而我們是百事可樂，

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

我不認為，身為百事可樂，我們說的任何關於可口可樂的話

anyone's going to believe us.

會有人來相信

So we've got to find a different mechanism,

所以我們必須找一個不同的機制，

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

我所看過的最好的機制中的一個

is the victims of terrorism.

就是恐怖主義的受害者。

They are somebody who can actually stand there and say,

如果有一個人可以真正站在那裡，說，

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

"本產品真的很爛。我用了它結果病了好些天

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

它燒傷了我的手，諸如此類的"。你會相信他們。

You can see their scars. You trust them.

你可以看到他們的傷疤。你會相信他們。

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

但不管是受害者，也不管是政府、

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

非政府組織、或甚是英國女王昨天在北愛爾蘭，

we have to interact and engage with those different

我們都是需要進行互動，並與這些不同層次的

layers of terrorism, and, in effect,

恐怖主義，建立有效的接觸

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

我們的確需要與魔鬼跳支小舞。

This is my favorite part of my speech.

這是我的演講裡我最喜歡的部分

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

我曾想要把你們大家都炸上天來表達我的立場

but — (Laughter) —

但是 — — （笑聲） — —

TED, for health and safety reasons, have told me

TED，基於健康和安全方面的考慮，已經告訴我

I've got to do a countdown, so

我必須要倒數計時

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

我感覺好像有點愛爾蘭或猶太人的恐怖分子的樣子，

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

有點像是健康和安全的恐怖分子，而且我 — — （笑聲） — —

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

我想要倒數 3、2、1，而且

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

這有點令人震驚，順便想想我要喊什麼樣的口號，

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

可能會是 "身體分開了，不是心臟病發。"

So 3, 2, 1. (Explosion sound)

所以 3、 2、 1。（爆炸聲)

Very good. (Laughter)

非常好。（笑聲）

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

現在，坐在 15J 的女士是藏身我們之中的一個自殺炸彈客。

We're all victims of terrorism.

我們都變成了恐怖主義的受害者。

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

這房間裡有625個人，每個人都會終身帶著傷疤

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

有一位父親和兒子坐在那邊的座位。

The son's dead. The father lives.

兒子死了。父親活了下來。

The father will probably kick himself for years to come

父親在往後的歲月中會自責

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

為什麼他坐的不是他的兒子的位置

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

他可能會開始喝酒，他大概

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

會在三年內自殺。這是統計出來的數據。

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

在那裡，有一個很年輕貌美的女人

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

爆炸對她帶來的結果，會是我認為由自殺爆炸造成的

of psychological, physical injury I've ever seen

我所見過最糟糕的心理與

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

身體上的損傷: 所謂的霰彈片人。

What it means is, when she sat in a restaurant

這個意思是，當她坐在一家餐館

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

在未來的年頭，10 年，15 年，

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

或者她是在沙灘上，每隔一陣子她就會開始

rubbing her skin, and out of there will come

揉她的皮膚，然後就會掉出來

a piece of that shrapnel.

一片的霰彈片。

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

這對理智來說，是件很難接受的事情

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

有位女士在那邊，在這次爆炸事件中

in this bombing.

也失去了她的雙腿。

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

她將會發現，她會得到一筆少的可憐

of money off our government

的金錢，從我們的政府發給她的

for looking after what's happened to her.

來照顧她所遭遇的事件後的生活。

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

她有一個女兒原本打算去就讀一所最好的大學

universities. She's going to give up university

這個女兒打算放棄大學

to look after Mum.

來照顧媽媽。

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

我們都在這裡，而所有看到這個爆炸事件的人

are going to be traumatized by this event,

將會受到心理創傷

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

而你們這些遇難者，將會學到

some hard truths.

一些殘酷的真理。

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

也就是說，我們的社會，一開始會同情，但過了一陣子，

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

我們就會開始忽略。作為一個社會，我們做得不夠。

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

我們沒有照顧我們的受害者，我們也沒有賦予他們力量，

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

我將嘗試表現的是，實際上，

victims are the best weapon we have

受害者是我們擁有來對抗恐怖主義

against more terrorism.

的最佳武器。

How would the government at the turn of the millennium

在千禧年交替時的政府會如何面對恐怖攻擊？

approach today? Well, we all know.

嗯，我們都知道。

What they'd have done then is an invasion.

他們所做過的是侵略。

If the suicide bomber was from Wales,

如果自殺炸彈客是來自威爾斯，

good luck to Wales, I'd say.

我會說: 祝好運啊，威爾斯。

Knee-jerk legislation, emergency provision legislation --

訴諸直覺的立法，緊急條文的立法

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

這些都打擊了我們社會的根本基礎，我們都知道 — —

it's a mistake.

這樣做是錯的。

We're going to drive prejudice throughout Edinburgh,

我們將會驅動對威爾斯人的偏見，從愛丁堡，

throughout the U.K., for Welsh people.

到整個英國。

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

現今的做法，政府已從他們的錯誤中學習。

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

他們開始研究我在演講開頭所說的，

on these more asymmetrical approaches to it,

關於這些更加不對稱的做法，

more modernist views, cause and effect.

更多的現代主義者的觀點、 因果關係。

But mistakes of the past are inevitable.

但過去的錯誤是無法避免的。

It's human nature.

這是人類的天性。

The fear and the pressure to do something on them

做這些事情所要面對的壓力和恐懼

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

將會是巨大的。他們將會犯錯。

They're not just going to be smart.

他們不只是要變聰明。

There was a famous Irish terrorist who once summed up

有一個著名的愛爾蘭恐怖分子曾下了一個

the point very beautifully. He said,

十分漂亮的結論。他說，

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

"事情昰這樣的，對於英國政府來說，

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

必須要每次都幸運才行， 而對我們來說，只要幸運一次就夠了"。

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

所以我們需要做的是，我們要去影響它。

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

我們得開始想想，更積極地去預防。

We need to build an arsenal of noncombative weapons

我們需要建立一個非武力戰爭的武器庫

in this war on terrorism.

來因應這場反恐戰爭。

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

但當然，這只是想法，這並不是政府能做得很好的事情。

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

我想回到剛剛的爆炸前，那個關於品牌的想法

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

那時我談到可口可樂和百事可樂，等等。

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

我們認為這就像是恐怖主義與民主的品牌戰爭。

They'll see it as freedom fighters and truth

他們(恐怖份子)則會把這看作自由戰士與真理

against injustice, imperialism, etc.

對抗不公正與帝國主義。

We do have to see this as a deadly battlefield.

我們必須把這看作是一個致命的戰場。

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

恐怖分子不只是想要我們的生命。

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

他們實際上想要的，是我們文化的靈魂，這就是為什麼

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

品牌比喻是一個非常有趣的方式來看待這問題。

If we look at al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was essentially

如果我們看看阿爾蓋達組織。阿爾蓋達基本上算是

a product on a shelf in a souk somewhere

在某處露天市場的貨架上的產品

which not many people had heard of.

並沒有很多人聽說過的產品

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

而9/11事件就像是產品發表。這是一個重大的行銷日子

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

這整個事件用21世紀的手法包裝。他們知道他們在做什麼。

They were effectively [doing] something in this brand image

他們有效地 [執行] 關於這個品牌形象的工作

of creating a brand which can be franchised around

創建了一個可以連鎖開業到全世界的品牌

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

只要有貧窮、 愚昧和不公正的現象就行得通。

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

我已經說過，我們要打進這個市場，

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

但我們要使用我們的頭腦，而不是我們的力量。

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

如果我們把這當成品牌來看，或以其他類似的方式來思考它

we will not resolve or counter terrorism.

我們就不會去解決或打擊恐怖主義。

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

我想做的是只簡短地舉出幾個例子

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

從我在一些區域的實務經驗，試著用不同的方式進行這些事情。

The first one has been dubbed "lawfare,"

第一個被命名為 "lawfare" (法律戰爭)

for want of a better word.

因為這樣名字比較響亮。

When we originally looked at bringing civil actions against terrorists,

當我們最初開始對恐怖分子提出民事訴訟的時候，

everyone thought we were a bit mad and mavericks

每個人都以為我們是有點瘋狂的初生之犢

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

和狂想家。現在它有一個標題。每個人都在這樣做。

There's a bomb, people start suing.

如果有一枚炸彈炸了，人們就會提出訴訟。

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

這類早期案例之一是奧馬爆炸事件 (1998.8.15發生在北愛爾蘭)。

A civil action was brought from 1998.

從 1998 年提出了民事訴訟。

In Omagh, bomb went off, Real IRA,

在奧馬，真愛爾蘭共和軍在一個和談過程之中

middle of a peace process.

引爆了炸彈。

That meant that the culprits couldn't really be prosecuted

這意味著匪徒不能真的因此而被起訴

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

基於許多考量，主要與和談過程有關

and what was going on, the greater good.

和當時正在進行的程續，公眾利益等

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

這也意味著，如果你可以這樣想像，

that the people who bombed your children

那個人炸死了你的孩子

and your husbands were walking around the supermarket

和你的丈夫，卻仍然可以走在你日常生活會去的

that you lived in.

那個市場。

Some of those victims said enough is enough.

有些受害者站出來說: 真的受夠了。

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

我們提出了私人訴訟，感謝上帝，10 年後，

we actually won it. There is a slight appeal on

我們實際上贏得了訴訟。仍有一小塊上訴

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

目前還在進行中，所以我要稍微謹慎一點，

but I'm fairly confident.

但我很有信心。

Why was it effective?

為什麼這樣做會有效？

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

這會有效，並不只是因為正義被伸張了

where there was a huge void.

其實這裡有一個巨大的空白。

It was because the Real IRA and other terrorist groups,

這是因為真愛爾蘭共和軍和其他恐怖團體，

their whole strength is from the fact that they are

他們整體實力是基於一個事實: 他們是

an underdog. When we put the victims as the underdog

弱者。而當我們把受害者作為弱者

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

就翻轉了局面，他們不知道該怎麼應付了。

They were embarrassed. Their recruitment went down.

他們都感到尷尬。他們能招募的人員變少了。

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

爆炸案實際上停止了 — — 這是事實 — — 就因為這樣的行動。

We became, or those victims became, more importantly,

更重要的是，我們，或者該說是這些受害者，變成了

a ghost that haunted the terrorist organization.

糾纏著恐怖組織的鬼魂。

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

還有其他的例子。我們有一個叫做阿爾莫格的案子

which is to do with a bank that was,

是關於一家銀行，

allegedly, from our point of view,

據說呢，從我們的觀點來看，

giving rewards to suicide bombers.

這家銀行對自殺炸彈客給予獎勵。

Just by bringing the very action,

僅僅是靠著這相同的訴訟

that bank has stopped doing it, and indeed,

該銀行已停止這樣做了，而事實上，

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

世界上各地的強權，先前因為政治上的原因

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

不能真正地去處理這個問題，

because there was lots of competing interests,

因為裡面有許多互相競爭的利益

have actually closed down those loopholes in the banking system.

現在已經實際上關閉了這些在銀行體系裡的漏洞。

There's another case called the McDonald case,

還有一個案例，叫做麥當勞案，

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

案例中有一些 臨時愛爾蘭共和軍爆炸事件的受害者

which were supplied by Gaddafi, sued,

對提供炸藥的格達費(利比亞軍事強人)提出訴訟，

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

這樣的行動已導致一些不可思議的事情在新的利比亞發生。

New Libya has been compassionate towards those victims,

新的利比亞一直同情那些受害者

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

並開始接受這件事 — — 因此開始了全新的對話。

But the problem is, we need more and more support

但問題是，我們需要更多的支援

for these ideas and cases.

支援這些想法和案件。

Civil affairs and civil society initiatives.

例如民政部門和民間社會的倡議。

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

一個好例子是索馬利亞。有一場對抗海盜的戰爭。

If anyone thinks you can have a war on piracy

如果有人以為對抗海盜的戰爭

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

可以像對抗恐怖主義那樣並且取勝，那你就錯了。

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

我們試圖做的是，把海盜變成漁夫。

They used to be fisherman, of course,

當然了，他們以前就是漁夫，

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

但我們偷了他們的魚，又把有毒廢物倒到他們的海域

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

所以我們想要做的是，建立一個

security and employment by bringing a coastguard

保全與就業的機制，帶進一個海岸警衛隊

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

連同捕魚行業一起，我可以向你保證，

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

只要這些做起來，像al Shabaab 這類的組織， (索馬利亞的回教軍事組織，蓋達的分支)

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

將不會再有辦法拿貧窮和不公正，來獵捕這些人。

These initiatives cost less than a missile,

這些計畫的成本遠低於一枚導彈

and certainly less than any soldier's life,

肯定也比士兵的生命更便宜。

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

但更重要的是，這種做法將戰爭帶到他們自己的家園，

and not onto our shore,

而不是帶到我們的海岸，

and we're looking at the causes.

而且我們是針對事情的源頭在處理。

The last one I wanted to talk about was dialogue.

最後我想談一談的是對話。

The advantages of dialogue are obvious.

對話的好處是顯而易見的。

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

對話讓雙方自我學習，建立更好的相互了解

reveals the strengths and weaknesses,

互相揭示長處和短處，

and yes, like some of the speakers before,

就如同先前幾位演講者說的，沒錯，

the shared vulnerability does lead to trust, and

分享出來的弱點的確會建立信任

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

這樣的程序，會變成正規化的一部份

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

但這條路並不容易。在爆炸案之後

the victims are not into this.

受害者不會接受這樣的方式。

There's practical problems.

存在一些現實的問題。

It's politically risky for the protagonists

對故事的主角和參與者來說,

and for the interlocutors. On one occasion

政治風險很高。有一個場合中

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

我正在進行對話，每次我談了一個他們不喜歡的論點，

they actually threw stones at me,

他們真的向我丟石頭，

and when I did a point they liked,

而當我談了他們喜歡的論點的時候

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

他們開始對空開槍，這都同樣的不是好事。（笑聲）

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

不管論點是什麼，這樣做會觸及問題的核心

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

你願意去做，你願意去跟他們談。

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

現在，我只想用這些話來結束。如果我們遵循理性

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

我們會意識到，我認為我們都會希望對於

have a perception of terrorism which is not just a pure

恐怖主義的看法不再只是單純的

military perception of it.

軍事上的認知。

We need to foster more

我們需要培養更多

modern and asymmetrical responses to it.

現代和不對稱的應對方式。

This isn't about being soft on terrorism.

這不是對恐怖主義手軟。

It's about fighting them on contemporary battlefields.

這是與恐怖主義在現代戰場上的對抗。

We must foster innovation, as I've said.

正如我已經說過，我們必須促進創新。

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

各國政府都願意接受。它不會來自那些滿是灰塵的走廊。

The private sector has a role.

私營部門也有角色。

The role we could do right now is going away

現在我們能做的是走出來

and looking at how we can support victims around the world

看著我們如何支援世界各地的受害者

to bring initiatives.

來提出行動方案。

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

如果我能給你們留下了一些大問題，

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

可以改變你對這件事的認知，沒有人知道

thoughts and responses will come out of it,

會帶出什麼樣的想法與回應

but did myself and my terrorist group actually need

但我自己跟我的恐怖組織，難道真的需要

to blow you up to make our point?

把你們炸上天來傳達這些觀點嗎？

We have to ask ourselves these questions, however unpalatable.

我們要問自己這些問題，不論這是多麼的令人不快。

Have we been ignoring an injustice or a humanitarian

我們是不是一直忽視某些不公正的現象，忽視了

struggle somewhere in the world?

在世界某個地方發生的人道主義的掙扎呢？

What if, actually, engagement on poverty and injustice

如果說，實際上，對貧窮和不公正的參與

is exactly what the terrorists wanted us to do?

正是恐怖分子想要我們做的呢？

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

如果這些炸彈，只是要喚醒我們的注意呢？

What happens if that bomb went off

如果炸彈爆炸了，會發生什麼呢？

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

只因為我們沒有任何想法和做為能夠到位

to allow dialogue to deal with these things and interaction?

讓對話來處理這些事情和互動呢？

What is definitely uncontroversial

有一點是絕對沒有爭議的

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

就是，如我已經說過的，我們必須停止只做應變，

and more proactive, and I just want to leave you

而更要積極主動預防，我只想留給大家

with one idea, which is that

一個想法，就是

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

這是一個挑釁性的問題，可以讓你想想，

and the answer will require sympathy with the devil.

而解答將會需要對邪惡的同情心

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

這是一個已經有許多偉大的思想家與作家想過的問題

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

一個社會是不是真的需要遭遇危機才會改變？

What if society actually needs terrorism

會不會這個社會實際上是需要恐怖主義

to change and adapt for the better?

才能改變和調整得更好呢？

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

這就是那些布爾加科夫的主題，這就是耶穌和魔鬼

and the Devil hand in hand in Gethsemane

手牽手走在月光下，在客西馬尼園的圖片。

walking into the moonlight.

(克西馬尼園是耶穌與門徒在最後的晚餐後，前往禱告的地方)

What it would mean is that humans,

這所代表的是，人類

in order to survive in development,

為了求生存發展，

quite Darwinian spirit here,

相當達爾文主義的論點

inherently must dance with the devil.

本來就必須與魔鬼共舞。

A lot of people say that communism was defeated

很多人說共產主義是被

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

滾石樂團打敗的。這是一個好的理論。

Maybe the Rolling Stones has a place in this.

也許滾石樂團在這場戰爭裡是有重要角色的。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Music) (Applause)

（音樂）（掌聲）

Bruno Giussani: Thank you. (Applause)

布魯諾 · 吉桑尼： 謝謝你。（掌聲）