Why civilians suffer more once a war is over | Margaret Bourdeaux

譯者: David Hsu 審譯者: Winston Szeto

So have you ever wondered what it would be like

請問你有曾想過，

生活在一個不受管制的地方 是怎樣感覺嗎？

to live in a place with no rules?

That sounds pretty cool.

聽來是蠻酷的。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

You wake up one morning, however,

可是，大早醒來後，

and you discover that the reason there are no rules

你發現沒有管制的原因

卻是因為已沒有政府了， 而且也沒有任何法律了，

is because there's no government, and there are no laws.

In fact, all social institutions have disappeared.

甚至一切社會體制都不存在了：

So there's no schools,

沒有學校，

there's no hospitals,

沒有醫院，

there's no police,

沒有警察，

there's no banks,

沒有銀行，

there's no athletic clubs,

沒有健身會所，

there's no utilities.

沒有水電等供應。

Well, I know a little bit about what this is like,

我倒是知道這是什麼的感覺。

because when I was a medical student in 1999,

因為在 1999 年， 我為醫學院學生時，

I worked in a refugee camp in the Balkans during the Kosovo War.

在科索沃戰爭中，曾在巴爾幹的 一個難民收留中心工作。

When the war was over,

當戰爭結束後，

I got permission -- unbelievably -- from my medical school

難以置信， 我居然獲得醫學院的允許，

to take some time off

拿到假期，

and follow some of the families that I had befriended in the camp

跟著我在營地結識的一些家庭，

back to their village in Kosovo,

回到他們在科索沃的家鄉。

and understand how they navigated life in this postwar setting.

去觀察他們在戰火後， 是如何作生活的安排。

Postwar Kosovo was a very interesting place

戰後的科索沃 是一個非常有趣的地方，

because NATO troops were there,

因為有北約部隊在那裡，

mostly to make sure the war didn't break out again.

目的是為了確保戰爭 不會再度爆發。

But other than that, it was actually a lawless place,

但除此之外，科索沃實際上已是 一個無法無天的地方，

and almost every social institution, both public and private,

而且幾乎所有的社會體制， 不論是公營或私營，

had been destroyed.

都已被毀掉了。

So I can tell you

所以我可以告訴你，

that when you go into one of these situations and settings,

當你置身在這種情況和環境中，

it is absolutely thrilling ...

它是會令你絕對毛骨悚然......

for about 30 minutes,

長達 30 分鐘左右，

because that's about how long it takes before you run into a situation

因為這就是發現自己 是何等的脆弱，所需要的時間。

where you realize how incredibly vulnerable you are.

For me, that moment came when I had to cross the first checkpoint,

個人來說，那一刻發生在當我要 通過第一個檢查站時，

and I realized as I drove up

當車子開近時，我就意識到

that I would be negotiating passage through this checkpoint

我必須跟一名全副武裝的人討價還價

with a heavily armed individual

才能通過這個檢查點；

who, if he decided to shoot me right then and there,

如他想在此時此地把我射殺的話，

actually wouldn't be doing anything illegal.

也是完全合法之事。

But the sense of vulnerability that I had was absolutely nothing

但當時我體會到的脆弱感， 是絲毫比不上

in comparison to the vulnerability of the families that I got to know

我將在未來一年認識的家庭

over that year.

所體會的脆弱感。

You see, life in a society where there are no social institutions

你要明白，生活在一個沒有 任何社會體制的社會裡，

is riddled with danger and uncertainty,

是充滿危險和不確定性的。

and simple questions like, "What are we going to eat tonight?"

甚至一個簡單的問題， 像「今晚我們要吃什麼呢？」

are very complicated to answer.

要回答也很複雜了。

Questions about security, when you don't have any security systems,

至於安全問題， 當你沒有任何保安系統時，

are terrifying.

是非常可怕的。

Is that altercation I had with the neighbor down the block

我與街頭那邊的鄰居吵得面紅耳赤，

going to turn into a violent episode that will end my life

會不會演變成暴力事件， 終結我的生命

or my family's life?

或我家人的生命呢？

Health concerns when there is no health system

沒有衛生系統時，健康問題

are also terrifying.

也是非常可怕的。

I listened as many families had to sort through questions like,

我聽到很多家庭必須解決這類問題：

"My infant has a fever. What am I going to do?"

「我的嬰兒在發燒。我該怎麼辦？」

"My sister, who is pregnant, is bleeding. What should I do?

「我懷孕的姐姐正在出血， 我該怎麼辦？

Who should I turn to?"

我該去找誰呢？」

"Where are the doctors, where are the nurses?

「醫生在哪裡？護士在哪裡？」

If I could find one, are they trustworthy?

如果我能找到一位，會可靠嗎？

How will I pay them? In what currency will I pay them?"

我該怎麼付錢？ 我要用哪國貨幣支付？」

"If I need medications, where will I find them?

「如果我需要藥物， 我在哪裡可以找到？

If I take those medications, are they actually counterfeits?"

如果我服用了這些藥物， 它會是假冒的嗎？」

And on and on.

連綿不斷的問題。

So for life in these settings,

所以在這環境之下生活，

the dominant theme, the dominant feature of life,

生活的主要特徵，

is the incredible vulnerability that people have to manage

就是人民日以繼夜要懂得掌控

day in and day out,

這難以置信的脆弱感，

because of the lack of social systems.

起因就是缺乏社會制度。

And it actually turns out

原來，

that this feature of life is incredibly difficult to explain

這生活特徵是很難解釋的，

and be understood by people who are living outside of it.

難以得到身置其外的人理解的。

I discovered this when I left Kosovo.

當我離開科索沃時， 我才發現這一點。

I came back to Boston, I became a physician,

我回到了波士頓，我成了一名醫生，

I became a global public health policy researcher.

我成了一名 環球公共衞生政策研究員。

I joined the Harvard Medical School

我加入了哈佛醫學院

and Brigham and Women's Hospital Division of Global Health.

和布萊根婦女醫院的全球衞生部門。

And I, as a researcher,

我作為研究員，

really wanted to get started on this problem right away.

真的很想立即就研究這問題。

I was like, "How do we reduce the crushing vulnerability

我在想： 「對生活在這種匱乏環境的人，

of people living in these types of fragile settings?

我們如何能減少 這令人窒息的脆弱感？

Is there any way we can start to think about

我們可以開始思考用什麼方法

how to protect and quickly recover

去保護和迅速恢復

the institutions that are critical to survival,

這些對生存至關重要的體制，

like the health system?"

像醫療衞生系統？」

And I have to say, I had amazing colleagues.

我不得不說，我有了不起的同事，

But one interesting thing about it was,

但有一件有趣的事情是：

this was sort of an unusual question for them.

對他們來說， 這是一種不尋常的問題。

They were kind of like, "Oh, if you work in war,

他們的反應是： 「哦，你在戰場中工作，

doesn't that mean you work on refugee camps,

那是不是你是在難民營工作？

and you work on documenting mass atrocities?" --

在記錄戰爭暴行？」

which is, by the way, very, very, very important.

順帶一提，這些工作都是非常重要。

So it took me a while to explain why I was so passionate about this issue,

所以我必得花上一段時間來解釋 我為什麼對這個問題那麼熱衷，

until about six years ago.

直至大約六年前。

That's when this landmark study

當時這份重點研究被發表，

that looked at and described the public health consequences of war

內容是探討和描述戰爭對公共衞生

was published.

所帶來的後果。

They came to an incredible, provocative conclusion.

研究人員作出一個 意想不到的驚世結論：

These researchers concluded

這些研究人員的結論

that the vast majority of death and disability from war

就是絕大多數因戰爭 死亡和殘疾的事情

happens after the cessation of conflict.

是發生在衝突停止之後。

So the most dangerous time to be a person living in a conflict-affected state

所以活在受衝突影響的國家中 最危險的時候，

is after the cessation of hostilities;

是在敵對行動停止之後；

it's after the peace deal has been signed.

是在和平協議簽署之後；

It's when that political solution has been achieved.

是在政治解決方案已經實現之後。

That seems so puzzling, but of course it's not,

這表面看來令人費解，但當然不是，

because war kills people by robbing them of their clinics,

因為戰爭之所以殺人， 是因為它摧毀了診所，

of their hospitals,

摧毀了醫院，

of their supply chains.

摧毀了供應鏈。

Their doctors are targeted, are killed; they're on the run.

醫生們被狙擊、殺害，以至逃命。

And more invisible and yet more deadly is the destruction

而且雖無形但更致命的，

就是衞生管治體制及其財政崩潰。

of the health governance institutions and their finances.

So this is really not surprising at all to me.

我對這些並不驚訝，

But what is surprising and somewhat dismaying,

但令我驚訝和有一點沮喪的是：

is how little impact this insight has had,

從這份研究得出的見解，

只能稍微改變 我們對人類苦難和戰爭的看法。

in terms of how we think about human suffering and war.

Let me give you a couple examples.

讓我給你幾個例子。

Last year, you may remember,

你可能會記得去年

Ebola hit the West African country of Liberia.

伊波拉病毒侵襲西非國家賴比瑞亞。

There was a lot of reporting about this group, Doctors Without Borders,

當時有很多關於 無國界醫生這個組織的報導，

sounding the alarm and calling for aid and assistance.

叫人提高警覺並呼籲作出援助。

But not a lot of that reporting answered the question:

但沒有很多報導解答到這個問題：

Why is Doctors Without Borders even in Liberia?

為什麼無國界醫生會在賴比瑞亞呢？

Doctors Without Borders is an amazing organization,

無國界醫生是一個令人敬佩的組織，

dedicated and designed to provide emergency care in war zones.

盡心盡力在戰區提供緊急護理。

Liberia's civil war had ended in 2003 --

賴比瑞亞的內戰在 2003 年已結束，

that was 11 years before Ebola even struck.

亦是伊波拉病毒爆發的 11 年前。

When Ebola struck Liberia,

當伊波拉病毒衝擊賴比瑞亞時，

there were less than 50 doctors in the entire country

在全國 450 萬人口之中， 醫生不到 50 名。

of 4.5 million people.

Doctors Without Borders is in Liberia

無國界醫生駐守在賴比瑞亞，

because Liberia still doesn't really have a functioning health system,

是因為賴比瑞亞依然沒有 一個能運作的醫療系統，

在 11 年後仍沒有。

11 years later.

When the earthquake hit Haiti in 2010,

在 2010 年，地震衝擊海地後，

the outpouring of international aid was phenomenal.

來自國際社會的援助排山倒海。

But did you know that only two percent of that funding

但你知不知道國際社會 捐款中只有 2%

went to rebuild Haitian public institutions,

用去重建海地的公共體制，

including its health sector?

包括衞生部門？

From that perspective,

從這個角度看，

Haitians continue to die from the earthquake even today.

海地人民可謂到了今天 還因地震而繼續死亡。

I recently met this gentleman.

我最近認識了這位先生，

This is Dr. Nezar Ismet.

他是尼薩‧伊斯密特醫生。

He's the Minister of Health in the northern autonomous region of Iraq,

他是伊拉克北部自治區庫爾德斯坦的

in Kurdistan.

衞生部長。

Here he is announcing that in the last nine months,

他正在宣佈在過去九個月中，

his country, his region, has increased from four million people

他所屬地區的人口從 400 萬

to five million people.

增加到 500 萬。

That's a 25 percent increase.

這是增加 25％ 之多。

Thousands of these new arrivals have experienced incredible trauma.

這些數以千計的新移民 經歷了難言的創傷。

His doctors are working 16-hour days without pay.

他轄下的醫生們 每天無薪的工作 16 小時。

His budget has not increased by 25 percent;

可是他的財政預算 並沒有增加 25 ％，

it has decreased by 20 percent,

而是減少了 20％。

as funding has flowed to security concerns and to short-term relief efforts.

因為撥款已調去應付保安問題 和短期救援工作。

When his health sector fails --

所以當他的衞生部門崩潰時—

and if history is any guide, it will --

如果歷史有任何預告能力， 它是一定會的——

how do you think that's going to influence

你覺得這會怎樣影響

the decision making of the five million people in his region

當地 500 萬居民的決定呢？

as they think about whether they should flee

他們正在考量是否應該逃跑，

that type of vulnerable living situation?

離開這危機重重的生活環境。

So as you can see, this is a frustrating topic for me,

所以你可以看到， 這是個令我沮喪的議題。

and I really try to understand:

我很用心去嘗試理解：

Why the reluctance to protect and support

大家為什麼不願意維護和支持

indigenous health systems and security systems?

本土的衞生和保安系統呢？

I usually tier two concerns, two arguments.

我常聽到兩個關注點或論點。

The first concern is about corruption,

第一個關注點是貪污：

and the concern that people in these settings are corrupt

在這些系統工作的人都是腐敗的，

and they are untrustworthy.

都是不可信的。

And I will admit that I have met unsavory characters

我承認我是有見過品德不良的人物，

working in health sectors in these situations.

在這種情況下之衞生部門工作。

But I will tell you that the opposite is absolutely true

但我也可告訴你， 相反的也是絕對有的，

in every case I have worked on,

在我有參與的每一個案件中都有——

from Afghanistan to Libya, to Kosovo, to Haiti, to Liberia --

從阿富汗到利比亞、到科索沃、 到海地、到賴比瑞亞——

I have met inspiring people,

我都遇到鼓舞人心的人，

who, when the chips were down for their country,

他們都在國家存亡的一刻，

they risked everything to save their health institutions.

冒著一切風險來 挽救他們的衞生體制。

The trick for the outsider who wants to help

所以，對真心想幫忙的局外人來說，

is identifying who those individuals are,

難題是如何識別這些人，

and building a pathway for them to lead.

並建立渠道讓他們走上領導位置。

That is exactly what happened in Afghanistan.

這也正是在阿富汗能做到的。

One of the unsung and untold success stories

我們在阿富汗國家建設上付出的努力

of our nation-building effort in Afghanistan

其中一個無聲無聞的成功故事，

involved the World Bank in 2002 investing heavily

就是世界銀行在 2002 年 投放大量資金

in identifying, training and promoting Afghani health sector leaders.

去發掘、培訓和提拔 阿富汗的衞生部門領袖。

These health sector leaders have pulled off an incredible feat

這些衞生部門領袖在阿富汗

排除萬難完成壯舉。

in Afghanistan.

They have aggressively increased access to health care

他們積極增加醫療服務

讓大部分人口可以使用。

for the majority of the population.

They are rapidly improving the health status

他們正在迅速改善

阿富汗人口的健康狀況，

of the Afghan population,

which used to be the worst in the world.

而它曾經是世界上最糟糕的。

In fact, the Afghan Ministry of Health does things

事實上，阿富汗衞生部所做的事

that I wish we would do in America.

是我希望我們也能在美國做到的。

They use things like data to make policy.

他們用數據資料來製定政策。

It's incredible.

簡直不可思議。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

The other concern I hear a lot about is:

我經常聽到的另外一個關注點是：

"We just can't afford it, we just don't have the money.

「我們負擔不起，我們真的沒錢。

It's just unsustainable."

這是不可能持續的。」

I would submit to you that the current situation

但讓我告訴你：我們現有的情況

and the current system we have

和我們現有的制度

is the most expensive, inefficient system we could possibly conceive of.

是我們可以想像 最昂貴、效率最低的制度。

The current situation is that when governments like the US --

目前的情況是美國等多國政府——

or, let's say, the collection of governments

或者說組成歐盟委員會的

that make up the European Commission --

一眾成員國政府——

every year, they spend 15 billion dollars

每年就要花費 150 億美元

on just humanitarian and emergency and disaster relief worldwide.

在全球的人道、緊急和災難救援上。

That's nothing about foreign aid, that's just disaster relief.

這數字不包括外援，只是賑災而已。

Ninety-five percent of it goes to international relief agencies,

這費用 95% 給了國際救援機構，

that then have to import resources into these areas,

然後他們必須把資源引進這些地區，

and knit together some type of temporary health system, let's say,

並且拼湊一個臨時衞生系統，

which they then dismantle and send away when they run out of money.

錢用光後就要把它瓦解， 把人員遣散。

So our job, it turns out, is very clear.

所以我們的工作原來是非常清楚的。

We, as the global health community policy experts,

我們作為全球衞生政策專家，

our first job is to become experts in how to monitor

首要工作就是要專注監控

在政局不定環境下，衞生部門的

the strengths and vulnerabilities of health systems

in threatened situations.

各個強項和弱項。

And that's when we see doctors fleeing,

當我們看到醫生逃跑時，

when we see health resources drying up,

當我們看到衞生資源枯竭時，

when we see institutions crumbling --

當我們看到體制崩潰時，

that's the emergency.

這就是緊急情況。

That's when we need to sound the alarm and wave our arms.

這就是我們需要發出警報 並揮手求救之時。

OK?

行嗎？

Not now.

還等什麼？

Everyone can see that's an emergency, they don't need us to tell them that.

大家都可以看到這是緊急情況， 他們不需要我們告訴他們吧。

Number two:

第二點：

places like where I work at Harvard need to take their cue

我在哈佛任職的機構和類似機構

需要從世界銀行 在阿富汗的經驗中學習，

from the World Bank experience in Afghanistan,

and we need to -- and we will --

我們需要並將會

build robust platforms to support health sector leaders like these.

建立一個強大的平台來支援 這些衞生部門領袖。

These people risk their lives.

這些人都是冒著生命危險，

I think we can match their courage with some support.

我們應該以行動來支持他們的勇氣。

Number three:

第三點：

we need to reach out and make new partnerships.

我們需要積極溝通， 並建立新的伙伴關係。

At our global health center,

在我們的環球衞生中心，

we have launched a new initiative with NATO and other security policy makers

我們與北約和其它安全決策者 發起了一個新舉措，

to explore with them what they can do to protect health system institutions

與他們探討如何

在部署期間維護當地的衞生系統。

during deployments.

We want them to see

我們希望他們明白，

that protecting health systems and other critical social institutions

維護當地衞生系統和 其它關鍵社會體制

is an integral part of their mission.

是他們任務的重要一環。

It's not just about avoiding collateral damage;

這不僅是為了避免附帶損害，

更是為了締造和平。

it's about winning the peace.

But the most important partner we need to engage is you,

但我們最需要的合作夥伴還是你們：

the American public, and indeed, the world public.

美國大眾，以至世界大眾。

Because unless you understand the value of social institutions,

除非你們能明白 社會體制的寶貴價值，

like health systems in these fragile settings,

就像政局不穩環境下的衞生體制，

you won't support efforts to save them.

否則你們是不會支持維護它們的。

You won't click on that article

你不會點擊那篇文章，

that talks about "Hey, all those doctors are on the run in country X.

它在談論，「嘿，所有這些醫生 正從某國逃命。

I wonder what that means.

我想知道這意味什麼：

I wonder what that means

究竟該國衞生系統

for that health system's ability to, let's say, detect influenza."

有沒有能力檢測流行性感冒爆發？」

"Hmm, it's probably not good." That's what I'd tell you.

「嗯，情況應該好不了那裡。」 我會這樣回答你。

Up on the screen,

在螢幕上，

I've put up my three favorite American institution defenders and builders.

是我最喜歡的三位捍衞和建設 社會體制的美國人。

Over here is George C. Marshall,

在這邊是喬治·卡特萊特·馬歇爾，

he was the guy that proposed the Marshall Plan

他就是提出馬歇爾計劃的人，

to save all of Europe's economic institutions after World War II.

來拯救第二次世界大戰後 所有在歐洲的經濟制度。

And this Eleanor Roosevelt.

這是愛蓮娜·羅斯福。

Her work on human rights really serves as the foundation

她的人權工作真正為

我們所有國際人權組織奠定基礎。

for all of our international human rights organizations.

Then my big favorite is Ben Franklin,

這是我最喜歡的班傑明·富蘭克林，

who did many things in terms of creating institutions,

他在創造制度方面做了很多貢獻，

but was the midwife of our constitution.

也是我們憲法得以誕生的助產士。

And I would say to you

我可以這麼說，

that these are folks who, when our country was threatened,

這些人在我們國家受到威脅之時，

or our world was threatened,

或是我們世界受到威脅之時，

they didn't retreat.

並沒有退縮。

They didn't talk about building walls.

他們並沒有談論建圍牆，

They talked about building institutions to protect human security,

他們談論的是建設制度 來保障人類安全，

for their generation and also for ours.

裨益他們那一代以至我們這一代。

And I think our generation should do the same.

所以我們這一代也應該 做同樣的事情。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）