Did the global response to 9/11 make us safer? | Benedetta Berti

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

Almost 20 years have passed since 9/11.

九一一事件幾乎是 二十年前的事了。

It is time to take stock of where we stand

此刻我們應該要評估一下 我們現在所處的狀況，

and stop and think.

停下來做些思考。

It is time to ask ourselves,

此刻我們應該問問自己，

have the assumptions and policies

在那些悲劇事件之後，

we developed in the wake of those tragic events

我們所發展出來的假設和政策

truly made us more secure?

真的有讓我們更安全嗎？

Have they made our societies, both in Europe and in the United States,

它們有讓我們的社會， 包括在歐洲和美國的社會，

more resilient?

更有恢復力嗎？

I've worked all my life in the field of security and defense,

我一生都在安全與防衛的領域工作，

and I am convinced that now, more than ever,

我深信，我們現今比以往更需要

we need to radically reframe the way we think and act about security,

徹底地重新構造我們針對安全 所用的思考和行動方式，

and especially about international security.

特別是針對國際安全。

By international security, I actually mean what we do,

我所謂的國際安全 指的是我們的作為，

how we prepare our countries

我們如何讓我們的國家

to better respond and prevent external threats,

有更好的準備來應變 和預防外在威脅，

and how we protect our citizens.

以及我們如何保護我們的公民。

The key to both

這兩者的關鍵

is to focus on protecting civilians,

都在於把焦點放在保護平民百姓，

both in our own countries

包括在我們自己國內的，

and in those where we are present in the name of security.

及我們以安全之名 前往的國家中的平民百姓。

Now, this idea goes against the fixed narrative

這個想法其實並不符合

that we developed over the past 20 years

我們在過去二十年 所發展出來的不變說法，

over what security is and how to get it,

關於安全應該是什麼 及如何得到安全的說法，

but that narrative is flawed, and worse, it is counterproductive.

但那說法有瑕疵，更糟糕的是， 它還會產生不良的後果。

Over the past 20 years,

在過去二十年間，

both in the United States and in Europe,

在美國和在歐洲，

we've come to accept that we must talk about security in zero sum terms,

我們漸漸接受了必須要用 零和的方式來談論安全性，

as if the only way to gain more security is by compromising on values and rights:

彷彿能夠更安全的唯一方式

就是在價值觀和權利上做妥協：

security versus human rights,

安全性 vs. 人權，

safety versus freedom and development.

安全 vs. 自由和發展。

This is a false opposition.

這是種錯誤的對立。

It just doesn't work like that.

實際上不是這樣運作的。

We need to recognize

我們得要了解到

that security and human rights are not opposite values,

安全性和人權 並不是對立的價值觀，

they are intrinsically related.

它們在內在其實是相關的。

After all, the most basic human right

畢竟，最基本的人權

is the right to live and to be free from violence,

就是生存和免於暴力的權利，

and a state's most basic responsibility

而一個國家最基本的責任

is to guarantee that right for its citizens.

就是要保障其公民的權利。

Conversely, if we think about communities all over the world

反過來說，如果我們 想想全世界受到

affected by war and conflict,

戰爭和衝突影響的社區，

it is insecurity and violence

正是不安全感和暴力

that stops them from achieving their full freedom and development.

讓他們無法達到 完全的自由和發展。

Now, they need basic security just as much as we do

他們和我們一樣需要基本的安全，

and they need it so they can live a normal life

他們需要基本的安全， 才能夠過正常的生活，

and so that they can enjoy their human rights.

才能享受他們的人權。

This is why we need to shift.

這就是為什麼我們需要轉變。

We need to acknowledge that sustainable security

我們必須要承認，永續的安全性

builds on a foundation of human rights,

應該要立基在人權的基礎之上，

builds on promoting and respecting human rights.

立基在推動和尊重人權之上。

Also, over the past two decades,

此外，在過去二十年間，

we have accepted that the best way to guarantee our own security

我們也已經接受了 保障我們安全最好的方式

is by defeating our enemies,

就是打敗我們的敵人，

and to do that, we need to rely almost exclusively on the military.

若要打敗敵人，我們 幾乎就完全要仰賴軍隊。

Again, this clashes with my work, with my research,

同樣的，這也抵觸我的工作、研究

with what I see in the field.

和我在這領域的所見所聞。

What I see is that building sustainable security

我看到的是：建立永續的安全性

has a lot less to do with crushing enemies,

和摧毀敵人並沒有很大的關係，

has a lot less to do with winning on the battlefield,

和在戰場上獲勝沒有很大的關係，

and has a lot more to do with protecting victims

比較有關係的是保護受害者

and building stability.

以及建立穩定性。

And to do that, well, the military alone

如果要做到這些，光用軍隊

is simply insufficient.

是不足夠的。

This is why I believe we need to shelve the never-ending War on Terror,

這就是為什麼我相信 我們需要把反恐戰爭擺到一邊去，

and we need to replace it with a security agenda

我們需要將它換成一種安全議程，

that is driven by the principle of protecting civilians,

由保護平民百姓的原則 所驅使的議程，

no matter where they are from, what passport they hold,

且不去區分平民百姓是來自何方、 持有哪一國的護照，

or where they live:

或現居地是哪裡：

Vancouver, New York,

溫哥華、紐約、

Kabul, Mosul, Aleppo or Douma.

喀布爾、摩蘇爾、 阿勒坡，或杜馬。

Sustainable security tells us that we're more likely

永續安全性告訴我們，

如果我們想要自己在家鄉 能夠擁有長期的安全，

to have long-term security at home for ourselves

if we focus our engagements abroad on protecting civilians

我們就必須要把我們對國外的 干涉，著重在保護平民百姓，

and on ensuring their lives are lived in dignity and free from violence.

著重在確保他們能有尊嚴地過生活，

免受暴力威脅。

For example, we all know that defeating ISIS

比如，我們都知道打敗伊斯蘭國

is a security achievement.

是安全上的一項成就。

Absolutely.

當然。

But rebuilding destroyed homes,

但重建被摧毀的家園、

restoring order,

重新恢復秩序、

ensuring a representative political system,

確保能有代議的政治體制，

these are just as, if not more important,

這些都同等重要，甚至更重要，

and not just for the security of civilians in Iraq and in Syria,

且不只是為了伊拉克 和敘利亞平民百姓的安全，

but for our own security and for global stability.

也是為了我們自己的安全 以及全球的穩定性。

More fundamentally,

更重要的，

ISIS's danger should not just be counted in the number of weapons it holds

伊斯蘭國的危險性

不應該只用它所持有的 武器數目來計算，

but also in the number of children it has kept out of school

還要考量它讓多少孩子無法上學，

or indoctrinated.

或被灌輸信仰。

This is from a security perspective.

這是從安全性的角度來看。

From a security perspective,

從安全性的角度，

the long-term generational impact of having millions of children in Syria

如果讓數百萬的敘利亞孩子

在成長過程中 只知道戰爭和不上學，

growing up knowing only war and out of school,

就長期的世代衝擊來看，

this is a far more dangerous threat to stability

對穩定性所產生的威脅，

會比所有伊斯蘭國的武器 加起來都還要危險，

than all of ISIS's weapons combined,

and we should spend just as much time and just as much energy to counter this

我們花在這上面的時間和精力，

應該要跟反擊

as what we spend when countering ISIS militarily.

伊斯蘭軍隊所花的 時間和精力一樣。

Over the past two decades, our security policy has been short-term.

在過去二十年間， 我們的安全政策都是短期的。

It has focused on the here and now.

安全政策的焦點都放在此時此刻。

It has systematically downplayed the link between what we do today

它很有計畫性地將我們現今 以安全之名所做的行為

in the name of security

與那些選擇的長期影響

and the long-term impact of those choices.

之間的連結給輕描淡寫過去。

In the years after 9/11,

在九一一事件後的這些年，

some of the choices,

我們所做的一些選擇，

some of the policies we've implemented

我們導入的一些政策，

have probably made us less, not more secure in the long term.

在長期來看可能並沒有讓我們 更安全，反而是更不安全。

Sustainable, civilian-centered security

若要做到以平民百姓 為中心的永續安全性，

needs to look at what happens in the long term.

就得要去看長期會發生的狀況。

Again, for example,

再舉個例子，

relying on drones to target enemies in faraway countries may be a tool.

靠無人機來鎖定遠方國家的 敵人可能是一種工具。

It may be a tool to make sure or to lessen the threat

這種工具可能可以確保或減少

of an imminent attack on the United States.

即將對美國進行之攻擊的威脅性。

But what about the long-term impact?

但長期的影響呢？

If civilians are killed,

如果平民百姓被殺害，

if communities are targeted,

如果社區成為目標，

this will feed a vicious circle

這會促成惡性循環，

of war, conflict, trauma and radicalization,

戰爭、衝突、傷害， 以及極端化的惡性循環，

and that vicious circle is at the center of so many of the security challenges

而現今我們所面臨的安全性難題當中，

中心議題常常就是那惡性循環。

we face today.

This will not make us safer in the long term.

長期來看，這樣做 不會讓我們更安全。

We need civilian security,

我們需要平民百姓的安全性，

we need sustainable civilian-centered security,

我們需要以平民百姓 為中心的永續安全性，

and we need it now.

且我們現在就需要。

We need to encourage thinking and research around this concept,

我們需要鼓勵關於 這個概念的思想和研究，

and to implement it.

並付諸實行。

We live in a dangerous world.

我們住在一個危險的世界上。

We have many threats to peace and conflict.

我們的和平會受到很多威脅， 會有許多突衝。

Much like in the days after 9/11,

就很像在九一一事件之後的日子，

we simply cannot afford not to think about international security.

我們實在無法承擔 不去思考國際安全的後果。

But we have to learn the lessons of the past 20 years.

但我們得要從過去 二十年學到教訓。

To get it right, to get security right,

要把它做對，要把安全性做對，

we need to focus on the long term.

我們就得要把焦點放在長期。

We need to focus on protecting civilians.

我們得要把焦點放在 保護平民百姓。

And we need to respect and acknowledge the fact

我們得要尊重及承認一項事實：

that sustainable security builds on a foundation of human rights.

永續的安全性是立基在人權上的。

Otherwise, in the name of security,

否則，我們以安全為名，

we risk leaving the world

卻在冒險讓這個世界

a far more dangerous and unstable place

變成一個比我們 現在的狀況更危險許多

than what we already found it in.

且不穩定的地方。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）