Is the US Headed Towards Another Civil War? | Barbara F. Walter | TED

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Shelley Tsang 曾雯海

I'm going to talk about a threat

我今天要談一種大部分人 都不願去想的威脅。

that most people don't want to think about.

It's too frightening and it doesn't seem real.

它太駭人了，且不像是真的。

That threat is civil war.

那就是內戰。

Since 1946,

從 1946 年起，

over 250 civil wars have broken out

已經有超過兩百五十場內場爆發，

and that number continues to increase.

這個數字還在持續增加。

There are now almost 50 percent more civil wars than there were in 2001.

現在內戰的數量 比 2001 年多了近 50%。

I've been studying civil wars for over 30 years.

我研究內戰超過三十年。

I've interviewed members of Hamas in the West Bank,

我訪談過約旦河西岸的哈馬斯成員、

ex-Sinn Féin members in Northern Ireland,

北愛爾蘭的前新芬黨成員、

former members of the FARC in Colombia.

哥倫比亞革命軍的前成員。

I've stood on top of the Golan Heights and stared into Syria

我曾經站在戈蘭高地的頂端，

在敘利亞內戰最激烈的 時候遙望敘利亞。

at the top of the Syrian civil war.

I've driven across Zimbabwe

我曾經開車穿越辛巴威， 那時軍方正在計畫政變，

as the military was planning its coup against Robert Mugabe.

對抗羅勃‧穆加比。

I've been followed and interrogated by members of Myanmar's junta.

我曾經被緬甸軍政府的人 跟蹤和審問。

In 2017, I was asked to serve on a task force run by the CIA

2017 年，我被請去中情局 旗下的一個特別小組服務，

called the Political Instability Task Force.

叫做政治不穩定特別小組。

One of the goals of that task force was to come up with a model

那個特別小組的目標之一， 是要建立出一個模型

to help the US government predict

來協助美國政府預測

what countries around the world

世界上的哪些國家有可能 會發生種族衝突和內戰。

were likely to experience ethnic conflict and civil war.

It turns out that predicting civil war is possible.

結果發現，是有可能 做到預測內戰的。

Solid data exists on where and when these conflicts are likely to break out.

有可靠的資料

可以指出這類衝突可能 會在何時何地爆發。

It's just that most people don't know that.

只是大部分人都不知道而已。

The task force was comprised of two types of people,

特別小組的成員包括兩種人：

experts on civil war like myself and data analysts.

像我這種內戰專家以及資料分析師。

The experts came up with 38 different factors

專家提出了三十八個不同的因子，

that they thought could potentially lead a country towards civil war.

他們認為這些因子可能會 讓一個國家步向內戰。

And some of those factors seemed obvious, like whether a country was poor,

有些因子很明顯，

比如那個國家是否貧窮、 收入很不平等？

had lots of income inequality

or had a government that heavily discriminated

或者政府是否嚴重歧視

against one particular group.

某個特定的族群。

結果發現，只有兩個因子 非常能預測內戰，

It turns out that only two factors were highly predictive

且出乎專家的意料。

and they weren't the ones the experts expected.

The first was whether a country was an anocracy.

第一個是：那個國家 是否為無體制政體？

Anocracy is just a fancy term for partial democracy.

無體制政體只是 部分民主的花俏說法而已。

It's a government that's neither fully democratic nor fully autocratic.

這種政府既不是完全民主， 也不是完全專制。

It's something in between.

是介在兩者之間。

So think about Hungary today.

想想現今的匈牙利， 匈牙利會舉辦選舉。

Hungary holds elections.

Hungarians eagerly go out and vote.

匈牙利人會很熱切地去投票。

It's just that whoever wins those elections

只是不論最後誰贏得選舉，

can basically do whatever they want.

基本上都能為所欲為。

The second factor

第二個因子是這些 無體制政體中的公民是否

was whether citizens in these anocracies had formed political parties

有根據身分來成立黨派 而不是根據意識形態。

around identity rather than ideology.

So rather than joining a party because you were liberal or conservative,

所以加入黨派的理由不是 因為你是自由派或保守派、

capitalist or communist,

資本主義者或共產主義者，

you joined a party because you were Black or white,

你加入黨派是因為你是黑人或白人、

Christian or Muslim,

基督教徒或回教徒、

Serb or Croat.

塞爾維亞人或克羅埃西亞人。

If a country had these two features,

如果一個國家有這兩種特徵，

the task force considered it at high risk of political violence

特別小組就會認為它有 很高的政治暴力風險，

and put it on a watchlist.

會把它列入監控名單。

It was actually called The Watchlist

這份名單真的叫「監控名單」，

and it was sent to the White House.

它會被呈交給白宮。

So here I was,

所以每年我都要去維吉尼亞州

sitting in a hotel conference room in suburban Virginia four times a year

近郊飯店裡的會議室四次，

with a room full of really smart people.

會議室中滿是很聰明的人。

And we talked about countries in Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia,

我們會談在非洲、 中東、中亞的國家，

但我們從來沒有談過美國。

but we never, ever talked about the United States.

That's because the CIA is legally not allowed

那是因為法律不允許中情局

to monitor the United States or its citizens.

去監視美國或其公民。

And that's exactly the way it should be.

這也是應該的。

But I was a private citizen and I had this information

但我是個一般公民，

而我有這些資訊，

and I could see that both of these factors were emerging in my own country

我可以看到，上述這兩個因子 都開始在我自己的國家浮現。

and they were emerging at a surprisingly fast rate.

且浮現的速度快得驚人。

The US's democracy has been downgraded three times since 2016.

從 2016 年起，美國民主 就走了三次下坡，

2016, it was downgraded because international election monitors

2016 年走下坡是因為 國際選舉監察員

had considered the 2016 election free, but not entirely fair.

認為 2016 年大選是自由的，

但並非完全公平。

America's own intelligence agencies had found

美國自己的情報機構 發現事實上俄羅斯人

that the Russians had, in fact, meddled in that election.

有介入該選舉。

It was downgraded again in 2019

2019 年再次走下坡， 因為白宮拒絕遵從

when the White House refused to comply with requests by Congress for information.

國會索求提供資訊的要求。

And it was downgraded a final time

最後一次走下坡是在 2020 年底，

at the end of 2020

when President Trump refused to accept his loss in the 2020 election,

川普總統拒絕接受 他輸掉了 2020 年的大選，

and actively attempted to overturn the results.

且主動出擊打算要推翻選舉結果。

Between December of 2020 and early 2021,

在 2020 年十二月 到 2021 年初之間，

the United States was officially classified as an anocracy.

美國被正式分類為無體制政體。

If the task force had been allowed to monitor and study the United States,

如果特別小組能得到允許

去監視和研究美國，

it likely would have considered it at high risk of political instability

它很有可能會認為 美國在 2020 年十二月

and political violence in December of 2020,

有很高的風險會發生 政治不穩定和政治暴力，

just a few weeks before the January 6 insurrection.

這時間點就在一月六日 襲擊國會山莊事件前幾週。

And it likely would have put the United States on the watchlist.

且特別小組很可能 會把美國列入監控名單。

We also know who tends to start civil wars.

我們也知道誰比較有可能發起內戰。

And again, it's not the people most of us think.

同樣的，也出乎 大部分人的意料之外。

It is not the poorest people in society.

並不是社會中最貧窮的人。

It is not the people who are most oppressed by their government.

並不是被政府最嚴厲壓迫的人。

The people who tend to start civil wars, especially ethnically-based civil wars,

有可能會發起內戰的人， 特別是以種族為基礎的內戰，

are the groups that had once been politically dominant but are in decline.

是曾經在政治上有過主導權 但一直在衰落的族群。

If you think back to the former Yugoslavia.

回想一下先前的南斯拉夫。

Serbs had enjoyed most of the positions in government and the military

在冷戰的數十年期間， 政府和軍方的職務

throughout the Cold War for decades, for decades.

大部分都是由塞爾維亞人擔任。

But they were the ones who stood to lose the most

但當南斯拉夫民主化時，

as Yugoslavia democratized.

他們是損失最大的人。

The Serbs started that war.

那場戰爭是塞爾維亞人發起的。

Iraq's Sunnis similarly enjoyed most of the key positions

伊拉克的遜尼派也類似，

在海山當權時，他們佔有

in the military and in government under Saddam Hussein.

政府和軍方大部分重要的職位。

But when the United States toppled Saddam Hussein,

但當美國推翻海山，

they also threw the Sunnis out of their positions.

也讓遜尼派失去了他們的職位。

It was the Sunnis who started that war.

那場戰爭是遜尼派發起的。

In the United States, the rise of militias

在美國，

民兵的崛起

has been driven primarily by white men

主要都是由白種男性推動的，

who see America's identity changing in ways

他們認為美國的身分的改變方式

會直接威脅到他們的地位。

that directly threatens their status.

They were the ones who marched on the capital on January 6.

他們就是一月六日 襲擊國會大廈的人。

So why is this happening now?

為什麼現在會發生這種現象？

It's happening now because of demographic change.

現在會發生這種現象 是因為人口結構改變，

The United States is in the midst of a major transition

美國現在正值一場重大的轉變，

從人口以白人為主的國家

from a country whose population is majority white

to a country whose population will be majority non-white.

變成人口將以非白人為主的國家。

美國會是第一個經歷 這種狀況的國家，

The United States will be the first country to go through this,

but others are going to follow.

但其他國家會跟進。

Canada is likely to be next,

下一個可能是加拿大。

followed by New Zealand and then the UK,

隨後是紐西蘭，然後是英國，

and eventually all the English-speaking countries of the world.

最終，是世界上所有說英語的國家。

This is likely to be especially true

有個條件更會讓它有機會成真：

if climate change causes citizens from the global South

如果氣候變遷造成越來越多

to increasingly move north.

全球南方的公民北移。

這些國家將會以美國為榜樣，

These countries are going to be looking to the United States

to see how we manage this demographic shift.

參考我們如何處理這種人口轉變。

Americans can allow this transition to tear us apart.

美國人可以讓我們被這種轉變分裂。

Or we could use it to come together

或者我們可以運用它來讓我們團結，

to show the world how to manage this change

向全世界展示如何處理這種改變，

and in the process create a truly multiethnic, multi-religious democracy.

並在過程中創造出真正多種族、

多宗教的民主。

So how do you do this?

你要怎麼做到它？

The first thing we have to do

我們的首要任務是去處理 內戰的兩大風險因子：

is address the two big risk factors of civil war.

Anocracy and identity politics.

無體制政體和身分政治。

To address anocracy, we have to improve the rule of law.

要處理無體制政體， 我們就得改善法治。

We have to ensure equal access to every citizen to the vote.

我們必須要確保

每位公民都能有公平的投票權。

我們得減少腐敗，且我們得改善

We have to reduce corruption

and we have to improve the quality of government services.

政府服務的品質。

But reforming a government takes time.

但改革政府要花時間。

Those are not easy things to do and it often seems impossible.

要做這些事都不容易，

且常常讓人覺得不可能做到， 那正是美國現今的狀況，

That's exactly where the United States is today,

almost paralyzed.

幾乎是癱瘓了。

This is where business can come in.

這就是企業可以介入的地方。

Thirty years ago,

三十年前，

most of us thought that South Africa was barreling towards civil war.

我們大部分人認為南非 正在快速朝內戰前進。

Black South Africans were increasingly protesting

南非黑人的抗爭越演越烈，

the brutality of the white apartheid regime,

抗議白人種族隔離政權的殘暴，

and the government responded with more brutality.

而政府的回應就是變得更加殘暴。

But then something happened.

但接著發生了一件事。

The business community stepped in and demanded real democracy.

企業界介入，

要求真正的民主。

They did this because they had been suffering

他們這麼做是因為 他們一直身受其害，

under years of crushing economic sanctions

多年來為嚴厲的經濟制裁所苦，

and eventually they had to choose between apartheid and profits,

最終，他們得在種族隔離 和利益之間做出選擇，

and they chose profits.

而他們選了利益。

And when they went to the government and said, "We will no longer support you,"

當他們去對政府說 「我們不會再支持你了」，

the apartheid regime knew it could not survive

這個種族隔離政權知道 它撐不過這一次，

and reform happened quickly.

很快就做了改革。

The business community can also help address identity politics

企業界也可以協助 處理身分政治問題，

by investing in those communities that have been left behind

可以做的是去投資那些 被全球化和自由貿易協定

by globalization and by free-trade agreements like NAFTA.

（如北美自由貿易協定） 給拋棄的族群。

In the United States,

在美國，受到特別多負面 影響的族群是勞動階級。

it was the working class that disproportionately suffered.

Those are the communities that are the most angry

那些是現今最憤怒 且最怨念最大的族群。

and the most resentful today.

Businesses can invest in better health care,

企業可以投資協助 改善健康照護、教育，

better education and a higher minimum wage

以及提升最低工資。

so that they create a group of people

這樣他們便能創造出

一群對未來抱持希望的人，

who are hopeful about the future

and less vulnerable to the calls by extremists to burn the system down.

且他們比較不容易被 極端主義者教唆去顛覆體制。

But there's perhaps an easier solution, at least in the short term.

但也許還有更簡單的解決方案， 至少在短期是有的。

At least in the short term.

至少在短期是有的。

And that is to regulate social media,

那就是去管制社群媒體，

especially the algorithms that push out the most incendiary and divisive material.

特別是針對某些演算法，

它們會推送最能煽風點火 且會造成分裂的素材。

I'm not saying that we should censor free speech.

我並不是說我們應該要 審查言論自由。

Let people put whatever they want on social media,

讓大家在社群媒體上 放任何他們想放的內容，

but do not allow the algorithms

但不要允許演算法去放大

to amplify the messages by bullies and hatemongers

惡霸和煽動仇恨者的訊息，

and conspiracy theorists and enemies of democracy.

以及陰謀論者和民主公敵的訊息。

If we take away their bullhorn, their influence will decline.

如果我們奪走他們的擴音器，

他們的影響力就會下降。

I've interviewed a lot of people who have lived through a civil war

我訪問過許多經歷過內戰的 倖存者，他們說的都一樣：

and they all say the same thing.

"I didn't see it coming."

「我沒料到會發生。」

"I didn't see it coming."

「我沒料到會發生。」

Berina Kovac was a young mother

柏莉娜‧柯瓦是位年輕的母親，

living in Sarajevo at the beginning of the Bosnian civil war.

波士尼亞內戰開始時 她住在塞拉耶佛。

She told me that in the months and weeks leading up to that war,

她告訴我，在那場戰爭 爆發前幾個月甚至幾週，

life seemed normal.

生活都很正常，她還去工作。

She went to work.

She took weekend holidays with her husband.

她週末放假的時候還和丈夫出去玩。

They went to the weddings of their friends.

他們還去參加了朋友的婚禮。

But then one night in March of 1992,

但 1992 年三月的某一天， 她和剛出生的兒子在家中時，

when she was at home with her newborn son,

the lights suddenly went out.

燈光突然熄滅。

And then she said,

接著她說，

you started to hear machine guns.

你開始聽到機關槍的聲音。

It doesn't have to be this way.

不需要這樣子的。

We know an enormous amount about why these terrible wars start.

對於這些可怕的戰爭為什麼 爆發，我們知道得非常多。

We know that the people intent on violence have a playbook.

我們知道這些堅決使用暴力的人

是有劇本的。

We know what that playbook is.

我們知道那劇本是什麼。

But there's no reason why we,

但沒有理由我們

the democracy-loving people of this world,

這些世界上熱愛民主的人

can't create our own playbook to prevent civil war.

不能創造我們自己的 劇本來預防內戰。

But to do that,

但要做到那一點，

we have to be brave enough to fight for real democracy,

我們必須要夠勇敢，

為真正的民主而戰，

strong democracy,

為堅強的民主而戰，

because only by fighting for democracy

因為只有透過為民主而戰，

can we ensure that we will truly get peace.

才能確保我們能真正得到和平。

謝謝。

Thank you.

(Applause)

（掌聲）