Samantha Power: Shaking hands with the devil

譯者: Charlie Lin 審譯者: Shelley Krishna Tsang

I spent the better part of a decade

我花了十年中大部份的時間

looking at American responses to mass atrocity and genocide.

觀察美國人對於大規模暴行和種族滅絕的反應

And I'd like to start by sharing with you one moment

現在我想先跟各位分享一個事件

that to me sums up what there is to know

對我來說這個事件可以代表

about American and democratic responses to mass atrocity.

有關美國與民主世界對於大規模暴行的反應

And that moment came on April 21, 1994.

那個事件發生在1994年4月21號

So 14 years ago, almost, in the middle of the Rwandan genocide,

所以差不多在14年前，在中非的盧安達種族大屠殺事件中

in which 800,000 people would be systematically exterminated

高達八十萬人

by the Rwandan government and some extremist militia.

被盧安達政府與一些極端主義民兵給殺害。

On April 21, in the New York Times,

在4月21號的紐約時報

the paper reported that somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 people

報導說某地大約二三十萬人

had already been killed in the genocide.

已經在這場種族大屠殺中喪生。

It was in the paper -- not on the front page.

這篇報導是在紐約時報中--但並不是在頭版

It was a lot like the Holocaust coverage,

它很像一篇有關大屠殺報導

it was buried in the paper.

隱藏在報紙裡的許多報導中。

Rwanda itself was not seen as newsworthy,

盧安達本身看起來沒什麼新聞價值

and amazingly, genocide itself was not seen as newsworthy.

且令人驚訝的是，屠殺本身看似也沒什麼新聞價值

But on April 21, a wonderfully honest moment occurred.

然而在4月21號時，出現了一個奇特地坦率言論

And that was that an American congresswoman

一位來自科羅拉多的國會議員

named Patricia Schroeder from Colorado

名字叫Patricia Schroeder

met with a group of journalists.

會見一群新聞記者

And one of the journalists said to her, what's up?

其中一位記者問她說:怎麼回事?

What's going on in the U.S. government?

美國政府到底怎麼了?

Two to 300,000 people have just been exterminated

二十到三十萬人剛被殺害

in the last couple of weeks in Rwanda.

就在幾星期前的盧旺達

It's two weeks into the genocide at that time,

那時種族大屠殺已持續了兩個星期，

but of course, at that time you don't know how long it's going to last.

當然，那時誰也不會知道屠殺會持續多久

And the journalist said, why is there so little response out of Washington?

接著記者問到:為什麼華盛頓的回應是這麼的少?

Why no hearings, no denunciations,

為什麼沒有聽證?沒有制裁?

no people getting arrested in front of the Rwandan embassy

沒有任何人在盧安達大使館前被抓

or in front of the White House? What's the deal?

也沒有在白宮前的人被抓?這是怎麼回事?

And she said -- she was so honest -- she said, "It's a great question.

結果議員很誠實的回答，她說:這是一個好問題。

All I can tell you is that in my congressional office in Colorado

我僅能告訴你說在我科羅納多的國會辦公室

and my office in Washington,

還有華盛頓辦公室

we're getting hundreds and hundreds of calls

我接到上百通的電話

about the endangered ape and gorilla population in Rwanda,

都是關心在盧旺達瀕臨危機的猿猴和大猩猩

but nobody is calling about the people.

但卻沒有人關心當地人民

The phones just aren't ringing about the people."

電話就是沒有為人民響起

And the reason I give you this moment is there's a deep truth in it.

現在我認為的原因，是一個很深層的真相

And that truth is, or was, in the 20th century,

真相就是，在二十世紀

that while we were beginning to develop endangered species movements,

當我們推動瀕臨危機動物保護運動時，

we didn't have an endangered people's movement.

我們沒有推動瀕臨危機人類保護運動

We had Holocaust education in the schools.

我們在學校有有關大屠殺的教育

Most of us were groomed not only on images of nuclear catastrophe,

大部分的我們不只培養核變災難的圖像，

but also on images and knowledge of the Holocaust.

也了解納粹大屠殺的圖像與情況

There's a museum, of course, on the Mall in Washington,

有一座博物館，座落在華盛頓廣場

right next to Lincoln and Jefferson.

林肯與傑弗遜旁

I mean, we have owned Never Again culturally,

我的意思是，我們有”絕不讓它再發生”的文化

appropriately, interestingly.

適當地，有趣地

And yet the politicization of Never Again,

然而這”絕不讓它再發生”的政治

the operationalization of Never Again,

以及運作機制

had never occurred in the 20th century.

卻不曾在二十世紀發生

And that's what that moment with Patricia Schroeder I think shows:

而我想這就是Patricia Schroedervu想表達的:

that if we are to bring about an end to the world's worst atrocities,

如果我們想結束世上最惡劣的暴行

we have to make it such.

我們必須採取行動。

There has to be a role --

必須有一個角色--

there has to be the creation of political noise and political costs

必須製造政治噪音與政治成本

in response to massive crimes against humanity, and so forth.

突顯大部分的人道犯罪等等

So that was the 20th century.

所以這就是二十世紀

Now here -- and this will be a relief to you at this point in the afternoon --

現在--在這個下午有一件事可以讓各位鬆一口氣

there is good news, amazing news, in the 21st century,

有一個好消息，令人驚訝的消息，

and that is that, almost out of nowhere, there has come into being

而且，幾乎不知從哪冒出來的

an anti-genocide movement, an anti-genocide constituency,

一個反種族大屠殺運動，反種族大屠殺的社群

and one that looks destined, in fact, to be permanent.

且它看似是注定的，事實上，會一直持續下去

It grew up in response to the atrocities in Darfur.

它因達佛的暴行而發起

It is comprised of students. There are something like 300 anti-genocide chapters

它是由學生組成的。有近三百個反種族大屠殺分會

on college campuses around the country.

分布在整個國家大學校園裡

It's bigger than the anti-apartheid movement.

規模大於反種族隔離運動

There are something like 500 high school chapters

有近五百個高中分會

devoted to stopping the genocide in Darfur.

致力於制止在達佛的種族滅絕

Evangelicals have joined it. Jewish groups have joined it.

有福因派的加入。有猶太人的加入

"Hotel Rwanda" watchers have joined it. It is a cacophonous movement.

有盧安達旅館觀察家的加入。它是個噪雜的運動

To call it a movement, as with all movements, perhaps, is a little misleading.

說它是個運動，就所有運動來說，或許，有點小小的誤導

It's diverse. It's got a lot of different approaches.

它是多樣的。它採取很多不同的方式

It's got all the ups and the downs of movements.

它歷經過起起落落

But it has been amazingly successful in one regard,

但從某一方面來說它是出奇的成功

in that it has become,

因為它已經變成，

it has congealed into this endangered people's movement

它已經集結成拯救瀕臨危機人民的運動

that was missing in the 20th century.

這是之前二十世紀沒有的。

It sees itself, such as it is, the it,

它認為它自己是，

as something that will create the impression that there will be political cost,

它被認為是代表著一種政治成本，

there will be a political price to be paid,

政治的代價，

for allowing genocide, for not having an heroic imagination,

給默許讓種族大屠殺發生，不想出鋒頭，

for not being an upstander but for being, in fact, a bystander.

不想站出來阻止大屠殺而只是旁觀的人

Now because it's student-driven,

現在，因為它是由學生策動

there's some amazing things that the movement has done.

這運動有了些驚人的成就

They have launched a divestment campaign

他們發起了撤資運動

that has now convinced, I think, 55 universities in 22 states

現在能確信，至少我認為，二十二的州內的五十五所大學

to divest their holdings of stocks

將他們手中股票脫手

with regard to companies doing business in Sudan.

賣掉那些在蘇丹有事業的公司股票

They have a 1-800-GENOCIDE number --

他們有一支1-800-GENOCIDE免費熱線電話

this is going to sound very kitsch,

這個聽起來很俗

but for those of you who may not be, I mean, may be apolitical,

但對很多人這並不是政治化，

but interested in doing something about genocide,

而是想要對種族大屠殺做些事

you dial 1-800-GENOCIDE and you type in your zip code,

你打1-800-GENOCIDE 這個電話並輸入你的郵遞區號

and you don't even have to know who your congressperson is.

你甚至不需要知道你的議員是誰

It will refer you directly to your congressperson, to your U.S. senator,

它將直接轉接到你的議員，你的參議員

to your governor where divestment legislation is pending.

的州長讓你能為撤資立法做點事。

They've lowered the transaction costs of stopping genocide.

他們已經降低了制止種族大屠殺的遊說成本

I think the most innovative thing they've introduced recently

我認為最近他們推出的最有創意的事情是

are genocide grades.

種族大屠殺程度

And it takes students to introduce genocide grades.

且使學生幫議員作種族大屠殺的評分

So what you now have when a Congress is in session

當議會開會的時候

is members of Congress calling up these 19-year-olds or 24-year-olds

國員說這些19歲或24歲的學生

and saying, I'm just told I have a D minus on genocide;

說這些學生說我在大屠殺的成績是D減

what do I do to get a C? I just want to get a C. Help me.

我要怎麼做才能得到C。我只想得到C。幫幫忙吧

And the students and the others

這些同學和其他人

who are part of this incredibly energized base

那些屬於這個非常有創意與活力的社群

are there to answer that, and there's always something to do.

已經知道該怎麼做，而且總是有該做的事

Now, what this movement has done is it has extracted from the Bush administration

現在，這運動已經做到的是它讓布希政府

from the United States,

讓美國，

at a time of massive over-stretch -- military, financial, diplomatic --

在已經大規模軍事、經濟、外交負荷的當時

a whole series of commitments to Darfur

還為Darfur做了一連串的承諾

that no other country in the world is making.

世界上沒有其它國家這樣做。

For instance, the referral of the crimes in Darfur

舉例來說，在Darfur的罪行

to the International Criminal Court,

轉由國際刑事法院審理

which the Bush administration doesn't like.

這是布希政府不喜歡的

The expenditure of 3 billion dollars in refugee camps to try to keep,

花在難民營的三十億美金基本上來說是試著要維持，

basically, the people who've been displaced from their homes

那些曾被蘇丹政府、所謂的Janjaweed(阿拉伯民兵)、軍隊

by the Sudanese government, by the so-called Janjaweed, the militia,

害得流離失所的人民

to keep those people alive

能活下去

until something more durable can be achieved.

一直到他們能得到更好的安置。

And recently, or now not that recently,

還有最近，或許沒那麼近，

about six months ago, the authorization of a peacekeeping force

大約六個月前，維和部隊授權

of 26,000 that will go.

兩萬六千人的兵力會投入。

And that's all the Bush administration's leadership,

那是布希政府的領導

and it's all because of this bottom-up pressure

全都是因為由下而上的壓力

and the fact that the phones haven't stopped ringing

來自從未停止的電話遊說

from the beginning of this crisis.

從危機發生一開始就未曾停止

The bad news, however, to this question of will evil prevail,

然而壞消息是，對於邪惡會戰勝的問題，

is that evil lives on.

邪惡會繼續存在

The people in those camps are surrounded on all sides

難民營中的人們四周都被包圍了

by so-called Janjaweed, these men on horseback

被所謂的Janjaweed(阿拉伯民兵)，這些騎在馬上

with spears and Kalashnikovs.

手拿矛與衝鋒槍的人。

Women who go to get firewood in order to heat the humanitarian aid

有些婦女為了加熱救濟食物而必須取得木柴

in order to feed their families -- humanitarian aid,

為了餵飽她們的家人—救濟糧食--

the dirty secret of it is it has to be heated, really, to be edible --

那不堪的的秘密是那些救濟品必須要煮過才能吃--

are themselves subjected to rape,

她們因為要取得木柴而可能遭到強暴

which is a tool of the genocide that is being used.

這是種族大屠殺中常見的行為

And the peacekeepers I've mentioned, the force has been authorized,

另外我之前提到的維和部隊，被授權的那些

but almost no country on Earth has stepped forward since the authorization

在授權後幾乎沒有一個國家

to actually put its troops or its police in harm's way.

真的投入自身兵力或警察進入

So we have achieved an awful lot relative to the 20th century,

所以相較於二十世紀我們進步了很多

and yet far too little relative to the gravity of the crime that is unfolding

但是相較於暴行的發生我們做的還是少得可憐

as we sit here, as we speak.

當我們現在坐著、說著的時候，暴行還在持續著

Why the limits to the movement?

為什麼運動被限制呢?

Why is what has been achieved, or what the movement has done,

為什麼那些已經達成的，或已發起的運動

been necessary but not sufficient to the crime?

是有必要卻無法遏止罪行？

I think there are a couple -- there are many reasons --

我認為有一些--有很多原因--

but a couple just to focus on briefly.

但我只強調兩個重點

The first is that the movement, such as it is,

第一點是反大屠殺運動，

stops at America's borders. It is not a global movement.

總停在美國的邊界。它不是個全球運動

It does not have too many compatriots abroad who themselves

沒有很多的海外同胞

are asking their governments to do more to stop genocide.

能去要求他們的政府做更多事去阻止種族大屠殺

And the Holocaust culture that we have in this country

我們這國家的反抗大屠殺的文化

makes Americans, sort of, more prone to, I think,

使美國人，更傾向於

want to bring Never Again to life.

追求”絕不再發生”的實現

The guilt that the Clinton administration expressed,

那由柯林頓政府所表達的罪惡感

that Bill Clinton expressed over Rwanda,

柯林頓對盧安達所表達的對

created a space in our society for a consensus

讓我們社會有機會建立一個共識

that Rwanda was bad and wrong

就是盧安達大屠殺是惡劣且錯誤的

and we wish we had done more, and that is something

並且我們希望我們能多做些事，而這就是

that the movement has taken advantage of.

反大屠殺運動能加以發揮的

European governments, for the most part,

大部分的歐洲政府

haven't acknowledged responsibility, and there's nothing to kind of

沒意識到責任，且好像沒什麼

to push back and up against.

要去阻擋或奮而抵抗的

So this movement, if it's to be durable and global,

所以這個運動如果要經得起考驗且是全球的

will have to cross borders, and you will have to see

那勢必要跨越國界，必須要看到

other citizens in democracies, not simply resting on the assumption

其它民主社會的市民也參與，不只是假定

that their government would do something in the face of genocide,

他們的政府會為種族大屠殺做些什麼，

but actually making it such.

而是真的去參與行動

Governments will never gravitate towards crimes of this magnitude

政府絕不可能如此大規模地對抗暴行

naturally or eagerly.

自發或積極地

As we saw, they haven't even gravitated towards protecting our ports

如我們所見，他們甚至曾未傾向試著保護我們的出入口

or reigning in loose nukes.

或各地的核彈

Why would we expect in a bureaucracy that it would orient itself

我們怎麼能夠冀求這樣的官僚

towards distant suffering?

去管到遙遠的苦難?

So one reason is it hasn't gone global.

其中一個原因是，它還未達到全球化

The second is, of course, that at this time in particular in America's history,

第二個原因是，從美國歷史來看此刻的美國

we have a credibility problem,

美國在國際上有誠信問題

a legitimacy problem in international institutions.

在國際治理上有合法性問題

It is structurally really, really hard to do,

在制度上真的真的很難去做，

as the Bush administration rightly does,

如同布希政府所做的

which is to denounce genocide on a Monday

在某個星期一譴責種族大屠殺

and then describe water boarding on a Tuesday as a no-brainer

並接著在星期二說水刑是可以接受的

and then turn up on Wednesday and look for troop commitments.

然後又在星期三出面尋求軍事承諾

Now, other countries have their own reasons for not wanting to get involved.

現在，別的國家有了不想牽涉其中的理由

Let me be clear.

讓我說的更明白些

They're in some ways using the Bush administration as an alibi.

各國往往拿布希政府當擋箭牌

But it is essential for us to be a leader in this sphere,

但是美國在這重要領域扮演領導者角色是很重要的

of course to restore our standing and our leadership in the world.

恢復我們在世界上的地位與領導力。

The recovery's going to take some time.

這是要花時間的。

We have to ask ourselves, what now? What do we do going forward

我們必須問問我們自己，現在該做什麼?我們如何前進?

as a country and as citizens in relationship to the world's worst places,

作為一個國家及公民，面對世上最惡劣的地區

the world's worst suffering, killers, and the kinds of killers

世上最慘的苦難、殺手，和各種屠殺

that could come home to roost sometime in the future?

都可能在未來影響到我們

The place that I turned to answer that question was to a man

在此我用一個人的故事來回答這個問題

that many of you may not have ever heard of,

你們多半沒有聽過他，

and that is a Brazilian named Sergio Vieira de Mello who,

一個名叫Sergio Vieira de Mello 的巴西人，

as Chris said, was blown up in Iraq in 2003.

就如克里斯說的，他在2003年在伊拉克被炸死

He was the victim of the first-ever suicide bomb in Iraq.

他是在伊拉克第一個自殺炸彈的受害者。

It's hard to remember, but there was actually a time in the summer of 2003,

很難記得，但確實發生在2003年的夏季，

even after the U.S. invasion, where,

即使在美國介入後，

apart from looting, civilians were relatively safe in Iraq.

除搶劫外，在伊拉克的人民基本上是安全的。

Now, who was Sergio? Sergio Vieira de Mello was his name.

現在，來談一下Sergio? Sergio Vieira de Mello 是他的名字。

In addition to being Brazilian, he was described to me

除了他是巴西人之外，我會說他是

before I met him in 1994 as someone who was a cross between

在1994年我遇見他之前他是一位介於

James Bond on the one hand and Bobby Kennedy on the other.

詹姆士龐德與鮑比甘迺迪的人。

And in the U.N., you don't get that many people

在聯合國，你找不太到

who actually manage to merge those qualities.

那些真的同時具備那些特質的人

He was James Bond-like in that he was ingenious.

他就如詹姆士龐德般地聰明

He was drawn to the flames, he chased the flames,

總身陷戰火，追逐戰火，

he was like a moth to the flames. Something of an adrenalin junkie.

他就像飛蛾撲火。一副腎上腺素亢進的樣子。

He was successful with women.

他頗有女人緣。

He was Bobby Kennedy-like because in some ways one could never tell

另一方面他像甘迺迪的地方是因為我們總是分不清

if he was a realist masquerading as an idealist

他是否是一個偽裝成理想主義的現實主義者

or an idealist masquerading as a realist, as people always wondered

還是用現實主義偽裝的理想主義者，這就像人們想到

about Bobby Kennedy and John Kennedy in that way.

老甘迺迪與小甘迺迪的時候。

What he was was a decathlete of nation-building, of problem-solving,

他就像是十項全能，在建設國家、解決問題

of troubleshooting in the world's worst places

在世上最最惡劣的地區裡解決各種問題

and in the world's most broken places.

在世上最分裂的地方。

In failing states, genocidal states, under-governed states,

不管是衰敗的國家、種族大屠殺、缺乏治理的國家等

precisely the kinds of places that threats to this country exist

精確地說就是任何威脅國家存在的問題

on the horizon, and precisely the kinds of places

且精確地說

where most of the world's suffering tends to get concentrated.

世上最多苦難聚集的地方

These are the places he was drawn to.

那些就是他最愛去的地方。

He moved with the headlines.

他跟著頭條新聞跑

He was in the U.N. for 34 years. He joined at the age of 21.

他在聯合國服務34年。他在他21歲時就加入了。

Started off when the causes in the wars du jour in the '70s

從70年代的戰爭的主因是

were wars of independence and decolonization.

關於獨立與反殖民戰爭。

He was there in Bangladesh

他當時在孟加拉

dealing with the outflow of millions of refugees --

處理數百萬的難民潮

the largest refugee flow in history up to that point.

那可是歷史上規模最大的難民潮

He was in Sudan when the civil war broke out there.

蘇丹的內戰爆發時他也在

He was in Cyprus right after the Turkish invasion.

而土耳其入侵時他人在塞浦路斯。

He was in Mozambique for the War of Independence.

莫桑比克的獨立戰爭他也在場。

He was in Lebanon. Amazingly, he was in Lebanon -- the U.N. base was used --

他去黎巴嫩。神奇的是，他當時在黎巴嫩--聯合國基地--

Palestinians staged attacks out from behind the U.N. base.

巴勒斯坦人從聯合國基地背後發動攻擊。

Israel then invaded and overran the U.N. base.

之後以色列人侵入且佔領聯合國基地。

Sergio was in Beirut when the U.S. Embassy was hit

他在貝魯特，那時美國大使館被攻擊

by the first-ever suicide attack against the United States.

首次反美自殺式攻擊。

People date the beginning of this new era to 9/11, but surely 1983,

人們把911訂為新年代的開始，但事實上在1983年，

with the attack on the US Embassy and the Marine barracks --

攻擊美國大使館與海軍軍營

which Sergio witnessed -- those are, in fact, in some ways,

--Sergio親眼目睹的從某方面說，那些事實上

the dawning of the era that we find ourselves in today.

就是我們今天新年代的濫觴。

From Lebanon he went to Bosnia in the '90s.

在90年代他從黎巴嫩他跑至波士尼亞

The issues were, of course, ethnic sectarian violence.

當然議題是種族派系暴力衝突。

He was the first person to negotiate with the Khmer Rouge.

他是與Khmer Rouge協商的第一人

Talk about evil prevailing. I mean, here he was in the room

關於邪惡盛行。我的意思是，他就在

with the embodiment of evil in Cambodia.

柬埔寨與邪惡的化身進行談判。

He negotiates with the Serbs.

他與賽族人協商。

He actually crosses so far into this realm of talking to evil

事實上他深入與邪惡談判的空間

and trying to convince evil that it doesn't need to prevail

且試著勸說邪惡停止惡行

that he earns the nickname -- not Sergio but Serbio

因此他得到了個綽號--不是Sergio而是Serbio

while he's living in the Balkans and conducting these kinds of negotiations.

當他在巴爾幹地區，處理著這些協商時被冠上這個綽號。

He then goes to Rwanda and to Congo in the aftermath of the genocide,

他接著去發生種族大屠殺的盧安達和剛果，

and he's the guy who has to decide -- huh, OK, the genocide is over;

且他是那種必須要確定--恩，OK，種族大屠殺已經結束了的人；

800,000 people have been killed; the people responsible are fleeing

八十萬人已經被殺害；該負責的人已逃離

into neighboring countries -- into Congo, into Tanzania.

至鄰近國家--剛果或坦薩尼亞。

I'm Sergio, I'm a humanitarian, and I want to feed those --

我是Sergio，我是人道救援者，且我想救援那些--

well, I don't want to feed the killers

當然~我不想救那些殺手

but I want to feed the two million people who are with them, so we're going to go,

但我想救那兩百萬名與殺手共處的人民，所以我們將前去

we're going to set up camps,

前去設置難民營

and we're going to supply humanitarian aid.

我們將提供人道救援

But, uh-oh, the killers are within the camps.

但，喔唷，殺手藏在難民營裡

Well, I'd like to separate the sheep from the wolves.

當然~我想把羊群與狼群分開。

Let me go door-to-door to the international community

讓我挨家挨戶地遍訪國際社群

and see if anybody will give me police or troops to do the separation.

來看看是否有任何人能給我警力與軍隊來幫忙這件事。

And their response, of course, was no more than we wanted

而他們的回應是，當然，跟我們預期的一樣

to stop the genocide and put our troops in harm's way to do that,

去阻止種族大屠殺和把我們的軍隊置於危險之中

nor do we now want to get in the way and pluck genocidaires from camps.

我們現在也不想親自動手從難民營抓出種族大屠殺的兇手。

So then you have to make the decision.

所以必須做出決定。

Do you turn off the international spigot of life support

是停止國際人道救援

and risk two million civilian lives?

讓兩百萬人民的生命進入險境?

Or do you continue feeding the civilians, knowing that the genocidaires

或著繼續進行人道救援，任由兇手藏在難民營

are in the camps, literally sharpening their knives for future battle?

任由殺手繼續磨刀討論日後的戰鬥？

What do you do?

你會怎麼做?

It's all lesser-evil terrain in these broken places.

在這滿是破碎的地方，只能選擇較小的惡。

Late '90s: nation-building is the cause du jour.

90年代末期:國家建設是主要訴求。

He's the guy put in charge. He's the Paul Bremer or the Jerry Bremer

他是那位居中負責的人。他是第一位科索沃 與 東帝汶的

of first Kosovo and then East Timor. He governs the places.

Paul Bremer 和 Jerry Bremer。他治理這些地方。

He's the viceroy. He has to decide on tax policy, on currency,

他是總督。他必須要決定租稅政策、貨幣

on border patrol, on policing. He has to make all these judgments.

邊境巡邏、治安等。他必須做所有的判斷。

He's a Brazilian in these places. He speaks seven languages.

他在這些地方是一位巴西人。一位有著七國語言能力的人。

He's been up to that point in 14 war zones

他曾待過十四個戰亂區

so he's positioned to make better judgments, perhaps,

或許他能有較好的判斷

than people who have never done that kind of work.

因為他有很多親身體驗。

But nonetheless, he is the cutting edge of our experimentation

但儘管如此，他所做的是前所未有的

with doing good with very few resources being brought to bear in,

以極少的資源促進善行

again, the world's worst places.

在世界上最慘的地方。

And then after Timor, 9/11 has happened,

在帝汶事件之後，911事件發生了，

he's named U.N. Human Rights Commissioner,

他被任命為聯合國人權特派員，

and he has to balance liberty and security and figure out,

他必須要在自由和安全間取得平衡，並想出

what do you do when the most powerful country in the United Nations

在聯合國中最強的國家

is bowing out of the Geneva Conventions,

是要向日內瓦公約低頭

bowing out of international law? Do you denounce?

還是國際公約低頭？你會譴責嘛？

Well, if you denounce,

當然～如果你譴責了

you're probably never going to get back in the room.

你大概就再也無法進到談判室裡了。

Maybe you stay reticent. Maybe you try to charm President Bush --

也許你保持沉默。也許你試著拉攏布希總統--

and that's what he did. And in so doing he earned himself,

這也是他的選擇。但說動小布希這件事為他自己帶來

unfortunately, his final and tragic appointment to Iraq --

，很不幸地，最後也最悲慘的伊拉克任務--

the one that resulted in his death.

造成他死亡的任務。

One note on his death, which is so devastating,

在他死後，有一個很驚人的報導，

is that despite predicating the war on Iraq

就是除了預測在伊拉克的戰事

on a link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism in 9/11,

海珊與911恐怖攻擊有的情形，

believe it or not, the Bush administration or the invaders

信不信由你，布希政府或侵略者

did no planning, no pre-war planning, to respond to terrorism.

都沒有規畫，沒有戰前規劃，來對抗恐怖主義。

So Sergio -- this receptacle of all of this learning on how to deal with evil

所以 Sergio--這位知道如何與邪惡交涉的人

and how to deal with brokenness,

和解決分裂的人，

lay under the rubble for three and a half hours without rescue.

躺在廢墟下三個小時半毫無救援。

Stateless. The guy who tried to help the stateless people his whole career.

沒有國籍。他以幫助無國籍的人們作為一生的志業

Like a refugee. Because he represents the U.N.

他像一位難民。因為他代表聯合國。

If you represent everyone, in some ways you represent no one.

如果你代表所有的人，你就等於不代表任何人。

You're un-owned.

你不屬於任何國家。

And what the American -- the most powerful military in the history of mankind

而有著世上最強軍隊的美國

was able to muster for his rescue,

且能召集足夠兵力救他

believe it or not, was literally these heroic two American soldiers

信不信由你，他們只派了兩位英勇的美國士兵

went into the shaft. Building was shaking.

進入礦井。那時建築物正搖晃著。

One of them had been at 9/11 and lost his buddies on September 11th,

其中一位曾在911事件中喪失他的夥伴

and yet went in and risked his life in order to save Sergio.

而今他要冒著生命危險去救Sergio。

But all they had was a woman's handbag --

但是他們卻只有一個女用手提包--

literally one of those basket handbags --

聽說是一種手提包--

and they tied it to a curtain rope from one of the offices at U.N. headquarters,

且他們把它綁在一個從聯合國總部辦公室拿的窗簾繩上，

and created a pulley system into this shaft in this quivering building

在搖晃的建築中製作一個滑輪系統進入這個礦井

in the interests of rescuing this person,

以設法救出這個人，

the person we most need to turn to now, this shepherd,

這個我們最需要救的人，這位領袖，

at a time when so many of us feel like we're lacking guidance.

我們多數覺得缺乏引導的時刻。

And this was the pulley system. This was what we were able to muster for Sergio.

而這樣的滑輪系統。是我們用來救Sergio的方法。

The good news, for what it's worth,

好消息是，就消息的價值而言，

is after Sergio and 21 others were killed that day in the attack on the U.N.,

在Sergio和其它二十一名在聯合國被攻擊事件中喪生後

the military created a search and rescue unit

軍隊就成立了搜救組織

that had the cutting equipment, the shoring wood, the cranes,

有著切割工具，撐木，起重機，

the things that you would have needed to do the rescue.

所有救援所需的器具都有了。

But it was too late for Sergio.

但對Sergio來說還是太晚了。

I want to wrap up, but I want to close

我想就此總結，但我還想更進一步

with what I take to be the four lessons from Sergio's life

說說我從Sergio一生學到的四個心得

on this question of how do we prevent evil from prevailing,

他一生教導我們如何防止邪惡戰勝的課題，

which is how I would have framed the question.

我以此定義問題。

Here's this guy who got a 34-year head start

這個人用34個年頭

thinking about the kinds of questions we as a country are grappling with,

思考我們作為一個國家所涉入的問題，

we as citizens are grappling with now. What do we take away?

和身為公民所面對的問題。我們有什麼心得?

First, I think, is his relationship to, in fact, evil is something to learn from.

第一，我認為是他與邪惡互動的關係是可以學的。

He, over the course of his career, changed a great deal.

他在他的一生當中改變了很多很多。

He had a lot of flaws, but he was very adaptive.

他有很多缺點，但他很能適應。

I think that was his greatest quality.

我想那就是他最棒的特質。

He started as somebody who would denounce harmdoers,

他在一開始時會譴責施暴的人，

he would charge up to people who were violating international law,

他會抨擊那些觸犯國際公法的人

and he would say, you're violating, this is the U.N. Charter.

且會跟他們說:你正在觸犯這個法規，這可是聯合國憲章。

Don't you see it's unacceptable what you're doing?

難道你不知道你正在做些於法所不容的事嗎?

And they would laugh at him because he didn't have the power of states,

然後那些人會嘲笑他，只因他沒有國家權力，

the power of any military or police.

沒有指揮軍隊或警察的權力。

He just had the rules, he had the norms, and he tried to use them.

他有的只是規則，他有規範，且他試著運用它們。

And in Lebanon, Southern Lebanon in '82,

在黎巴嫩，1982年的黎巴嫩南部，

he said to himself and to everybody else,

他對自己與所有人說，

I will never use the word "unacceptable" again.

我不會再說"無法接受"這些話了。

I will never use it. I will try to make it such,

我不會再說了。我要盡力實現它，

but I will never use that word again.

但我不會再用說的了。

But he lunged in the opposite direction.

但是他卻往相反的方向撲去。

He started, as I mentioned, to get in the room with evil,

就像之前我提到的，他開始與邪惡談判。

to not denounce, and became almost obsequious

不再譴責，而是變得近乎拍馬屁

when he won the nickname Serbio, for instance,

就在他得到Serbio這個綽號的時候，例如，

and even when he negotiated with the Khmer Rouge

他與Khmer Rouge談判時

would black-box what had occurred prior to entering the room.

他會在談判前用黑箱作業處理那些曾發生過的惡行。

But by the end of his life, I think he had struck a balance

但在他一生的最後，我認為他已達到了平衡

that we as a country can learn from.

這是我們作為一個國家應該學習的。

Be in the room, don't be afraid of talking to your adversaries,

在談判室裡，不要害怕跟你的對手說話，

but don't bracket what happened before you entered the room.

但是不要拖出在外面曾經發生的事。

Don't black-box history. Don't check your principles at the door.

別對歷史黑箱作業。別在門口清點你的原則。

And I think that's something that we have to be in the room,

且我想那是些我們在談判時該做的，

whether it's Nixon going to China or Khrushchev and Kennedy

不管是尼克森去大陸或是赫比雪夫與甘迺迪

or Reagan and Gorbachev.

或是雷根與戈巴契夫。

All the great progress in this country with relation to our adversaries

所有美國與對手間的大進步

has come by going into the room.

都發生在談判室裡。

And it doesn't have to be an act of weakness.

而且不需要把談判看作是軟弱的行為。

You can actually do far more to build an international coalition

利用談判你能建立國際聯盟

against a harmdoer or a wrongdoer by being in the room

來對抗施暴或惡行者

and showing to the rest of the world that that person, that regime,

且讓世界所有的人知道這個人，這個政權，

is the problem and that you, the United States, are not the problem.

是有問題的，而不是美國的問題。

Second take-away from Sergio's life, briefly.

第二點從Sergio的人生學到的，簡單來說，

What I take away, and this in some ways is the most important,

我學到的，就某些方面來說，最重要的，

he espoused and exhibited a reverence for dignity

他展現出對人性尊嚴的崇敬

that was really, really unusual.

這是真的真的很不尋常。

At a micro level, the individuals around him were visible.

從微觀的角度來看，圍繞在他身旁的個體都是可見的。

He saw them.

他看得見他們

At a macro level, he thought, you know,

從鉅觀角度來說，他認為

we talk about democracy promotion, but we do it in a way sometimes

我們談到宣導民主，但我們在宣導的同時

that's an affront to people's dignity.

某種程度上卻侮辱了對人們的尊嚴。

We put people on humanitarian aid

我們讓人民依賴人道救援

and we boast about it because we've spent three billion.

我們鼓吹它因為我們在這件事上花了三十億

It's incredibly important,

這非常的重要，

those people would no longer be alive if the United States, for instance,

舉個例子來說，如果沒有美國的援助，

hadn't spent that money in Darfur,

Darfur的人民可能活不下去的，

but it's not a way to live.

但依賴救濟的生活並不是一種生活方式。

If we think about dignity in our conduct as citizens

如果我們想一想作為公民應有的尊嚴

and as individuals with relation to the people around us,

以及作為一個人與身旁的人應有的互動

and as a country, if we could inject a regard for dignity

以及作為一個國家，如果我們將對尊嚴的關注

into our dealings with other countries,

融入與其他國家的交涉上，

it would be something of a revolution.

那將會像是一個革命。

Third point, very briefly. He talked a lot about freedom from fear.

第三點，很簡潔的說。Sergio講到很多免於恐懼的自由。

And I recognize there is so much to be afraid of.

我意識到還真有很多事情是令人害怕的。

There are so many genuine threats in the world.

世上還是有很多真正的威脅存在著。

But what Sergio was talking about is,

但Sergio常說的是，

let's calibrate our relationship to the threat.

讓我們調整我們與威脅的關係。

Let's not hype the threat; let's actually see it clearly.

讓我們別放大威脅；讓我們好好的看透它。

We have reason to be afraid of melting ice caps.

我們有理由害怕正在融化的冰帽。

We have reason to be afraid that we haven't secured

我們有理由害怕我們尚未掌握

loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union.

前蘇聯外流出來的核子原料。

Let's focus on what are the legitimate challenges and threats,

讓我們專注在合法的挑戰與威脅，

but not lunge into bad decisions because of a panic, of a fear.

但別因為恐荒與害怕而倉促作出錯誤的決定。

In times of fear, for instance, one of the things Sergio used to say

在恐懼的時代，就如Sergio常說的

is, fear is a bad advisor.

恐懼是很糟的顧問。

We lunge towards the extremes

恐懼讓我們衝向極端

when we aren't operating and trying to, again,

當我們沒有經營或試著

calibrate our relationship to the world around us.

調整我們與世界周遭國家的關係。

Fourth and final point: he somehow, because he was working

第四點也是最後一點：因為他的工作是

in all the world's worst places and all lesser evils,

在世上最多惡行的地方，與邪惡進行周旋，

had a humility, of course,

他有一種謙悲精神，

and an awareness of the complexity of the world around him.

還加上對世上圍著他的複雜問題的警覺。

I mean, such an acute awareness of how hard it was.

我的意思是，關於問題困難度的高度覺察。

How Sisyphean this task was of mending,

這件永無止境的困難要如何修復，

and yet aware of that complexity,

且還沒察覺到它的複雜，

humbled by it, he wasn't paralyzed by it.

他因而謙卑，但並未被它癱瘓。

And we as citizens, as we go through this experience of the kind of,

且我們作為公民，當我們經歷這種

the crisis of confidence, crisis of competence, crisis of legitimacy,

信心危機、能力危機、合法性危機，

I think there's a temptation to pull back from the world and say,

我認為有種想從世界中撤退的傾向，且說，

ah, Katrina, Iraq -- we don't know what we're doing.

啊～卡翠娜、伊拉克--我們不知道我們在做什麼。

We can't afford to pull back from the world.

我們不能承受從世界中撤退。

It's a question of how to be in the world.

問題應該是我們在這世界中該怎麼做。

And the lesson, I think,

所以從這些得到的教訓是，我認為，

of the anti-genocide movement that I mentioned,

從我先前提到的反種族大屠殺運動，

that is a partial success but by no means

是局部的成功，但絕不意味著

has it achieved what it has set out to do --

它已經達成它所預設的目標--

it'll be many decades, probably, before that happens --

在那發生之前大概還需要幾十年--

but is that if we want to see change, we have to become the change.

但是如果我們真想看到改變，我們自己就必須改變。

We can't rely upon our institutions to do the work

我們不能倚賴制度來完成這事

of necessarily talking to adversaries on their own

去與對手國家展開必要的談判

without us creating a space for that to happen,

不能沒有我們開創有利的條件，

for having respect for dignity,

為了標舉人性尊嚴，

and for bringing that combination of humility

為了結合謙悲

and a sort of emboldened sense of responsibility

和一種對世界的責任

to our dealings with the rest of the world.

融入我們與世界的互動中。

So will evil prevail? Is that the question?

所以，邪惡會戰勝嗎? 是這個問題嗎?

I think the short answer is: no, not unless we let it.

我想最簡潔的回答是: 不會，除非我們任由它發生。

Thank you.

謝謝大家。

(Applause)

(掌聲鼓勵鼓勵)