Our refugee system is failing. Here's how we can fix it | Alexander Betts

譯者: YUN-HSUAN KUO 審譯者: Kairan Wang

There are times when I feel really quite ashamed

有時候，我真的覺得很丟臉，

to be a European.

因為我是歐洲人。

In the last year,

光是去年，

more than a million people arrived in Europe in need of our help,

就有超過一百萬人來歐洲尋求幫助，

and our response, frankly, has been pathetic.

而歐洲的反應，坦白說，很可悲。

There are just so many contradictions.

過程中實在充斥著許多矛盾。

We mourn the tragic death

在我們哀悼慘死的

of two-year-old Alan Kurdi,

兩歲幼兒艾蘭·庫迪之後，

and yet, since then, more than 200 children

從那時起，卻又有超過兩百名兒童

have subsequently drowned in the Mediterranean.

溺斃於地中海。

We have international treaties

雖然國際公約認定

that recognize that refugees are a shared responsibility,

難民收容應由各國共同分擔，

and yet we accept that tiny Lebanon

但我們卻讓小小的黎巴嫩

hosts more Syrians than the whole of Europe combined.

收容的敘利亞難民 超過全歐洲收容的總數。

We lament the existence of human smugglers,

我們悲嘆人口偷渡的存在，

and yet we make that the only viable route

卻又使偷渡成為 難民唯一去歐洲尋求幫助的

to seek asylum in Europe.

可行途徑。

We have labor shortages,

我們的勞工短缺，

and yet we exclude people who fit our economic and demographic needs

然而我們卻將符合 歐洲經濟及人口結構需求的人

from coming to Europe.

排拒於歐洲之外。

We proclaim our liberal values in opposition to fundamentalist Islam,

我們宣稱我們對自由的價值觀 與伊斯蘭基本教義派對立，

and yet --

然而，

we have repressive policies

我們用高壓政策

that detain child asylum seekers,

來拘留尋求庇護的兒童，

that separate children from their families,

拆散兒童跟他們的家人，

and that seize property from refugees.

並且掠奪難民的財物，

What are we doing?

我們到底在做什麼？

How has the situation come to this,

怎麼會讓情況演變成這樣，

that we've adopted such an inhumane response to a humanitarian crisis?

我們竟然用如此不人道的方式 來處理人道主義危機？

I don't believe it's because people don't care,

我不相信原因是因為人們不在乎，

or at least I don't want to believe it's because people don't care.

至少我不願意相信這個理由。

I believe it's because our politicians lack a vision,

我認為是因為政客缺乏一種遠見，

a vision for how to adapt an international refugee system

一種遠見來改寫 50 多年前 建立的國際難民系統，

created over 50 years ago

for a changing and globalized world.

因應世界的瞬息萬變和全球化趨勢。

And so what I want to do is take a step back

所以我想做的是退一步，

and ask two really fundamental questions,

然後問兩個真的很基本的問題，

the two questions we all need to ask.

兩個我們都需要問的問題。

First, why is the current system not working?

第一，為什麼目前的系統不能用？

And second, what can we do to fix it?

第二，怎麼修復它？

So the modern refugee regime

現今的難民保護制度

was created in the aftermath of the Second World War by these guys.

創立於二戰的戰後時期創立。

這些人創立的。

Its basic aim is to ensure

它的基本目的在於確保

that when a state fails, or worse, turns against its own people,

當一個國家失敗， 或者更糟，逼迫自國人民時，

people have somewhere to go,

人民有地方可以去投奔，

to live in safety and dignity until they can go home.

在可重返祖國之前 能夠安全且有尊嚴的活著。

It was created precisely for situations like the situation we see in Syria today.

這個系統所針對的情況， 正如我們今日所看到的敘利亞現況。

Through an international convention signed by 147 governments,

通過一個由 147 個政府 所簽署的國際公約，

the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees,

1951 年《難民地位公約》，

and an international organization, UNHCR,

和一個國際組織， 聯合國難民署，所約定，

states committed to reciprocally admit people onto their territory

簽署國相互允許人們 進入他們的領土範圍

who flee conflict and persecution.

來逃離紛爭以及迫害。

But today, that system is failing.

然而今天，這個系統卻在崩解中。

In theory, refugees have a right to seek asylum.

理論上，難民具有尋求庇護的權利。

In practice, our immigration policies block the path to safety.

現實中，我們的移民政策 堵住了通往安全的道路。

In theory, refugees have a right to a pathway to integration,

理論上，難民有權利 透過途徑居留在庇護國，

or return to the country they've come from.

或返回他們自己的國家。

But in practice, they get stuck in almost indefinite limbo.

但是在現實中，他們卻陷入了 幾乎無止境的混沌狀態中。

In theory, refugees are a shared global responsibility.

理論上，難民是全球各國 共同承擔的責任。

In practice, geography means that countries proximate the conflict

在現實中，地理位置 鄰近紛爭的那些國家

take the overwhelming majority of the world's refugees.

收容了全球絕大多數的難民。

The system isn't broken because the rules are wrong.

難民系統行不通， 不是因為系統的規定是錯的。

It's that we're not applying them adequately to a changing world,

而是因為我們沒有合適地 應用這些規定到瞬息萬變的世界，

and that's what we need to reconsider.

而這就是我們需要進行反思的。

So I want to explain to you a little bit about how the current system works.

所以我想跟你們解釋一下 目前的系統是如何運作的。

How does the refugee regime actually work?

難民保護制度到底是怎麼運作的呢？

But not from a top-down institutional perspective,

但是不從一個從上往下的機構角度，

rather from the perspective of a refugee.

而是從一個難民的角度來看。

So imagine a Syrian woman.

所以試想一個敘利亞女人。

Let's call her Amira.

讓我們稱她為阿米拉。

And Amira to me represents many of the people I've met in the region.

而阿米拉對我來說 代表了許多我在該地區遇到的人。

Amira, like around 25 percent of the world's refugees,

阿米拉，如同世界上 大約百分之二十五的難民，

is a woman with children,

是一名有孩子的婦女，

and she can't go home because she comes from this city

而她不能回家， 因為她來自這個城市，

that you see before you, Homs,

你眼前所看到的城市，霍姆斯，

a once beautiful and historic city

一個曾經美麗以及歷史悠久的城市，

now under rubble.

如今卻形同廢墟。

And so Amira can't go back there.

所以阿米拉不能夠回去那裡。

But Amira also has no hope of resettlement to a third country,

但是阿米拉也沒有 再安置到第三國的希望，

because that's a lottery ticket

因為那是一張彩票，

only available to less than one percent of the world's refugees.

全世界僅有少於 百分之一的難民可獲得。

So Amira and her family

所以阿米拉和她的家人

face an almost impossible choice.

面對著一個幾乎沒有可能的選擇。

They have three basic options.

他們有三個基本的選項：

The first option is that Amira can take her family to a camp.

第一個選項是阿米拉可以 帶著她的家人到難民營。

In the camp, she might get assistance,

在難民營中，她可能得到幫助，

but there are very few prospects for Amira and her family.

但是那裡對於阿米拉 和她的家庭來說幾乎沒有前途可言。

Camps are in bleak, arid locations,

難民營位於荒涼和乾旱的地方，

often in the desert.

通常是在沙漠。

In the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan,

在約旦的扎塔利難民營，

you can hear the shells across the border in Syria at nighttime.

在夜間，你可以聽到 穿越敘利亞邊境的砲彈聲。

There's restricted economic activity.

那裡有受到限制的經濟活動。

Education is often of poor quality.

教育品質通常很差。

And around the world,

而且在全世界，

some 80 percent of refugees who are in camps

大約百分之八十處於 難民營中的難民

have to stay for at least five years.

需要待在那裡至少五年。

It's a miserable existence,

那是一種悲慘的生活，

and that's probably why, in reality,

而那大概就是為什麼，在現實中，

only nine percent of Syrians choose that option.

僅有百分之九的 敘利亞人民選擇如此。

Alternatively, Amira can head to an urban area

或者，阿米拉可以前往一個城市地區，

in a neighboring country, like Amman or Beirut.

一個鄰近國家的城市， 例如安曼或者貝魯特。

That's an option that about 75 percent of Syrian refugees have taken.

那是大概百分之七十五 敘利亞難民的抉擇。

But there, there's great difficulty as well.

但是在那裡也有極大的困難。

Refugees in such urban areas don't usually have the right to work.

在這些城市地區的難民 通常沒有工作的權利。

They don't usually get significant access to assistance.

他們通常沒有太多途徑 可以得到幫助。

And so when Amira and her family have used up their basic savings,

因此當阿米拉和她的家人 花光了他們的積蓄時，

they're left with very little and likely to face urban destitution.

他們所剩無幾， 並有可能面臨都市貧困。

So there's a third alternative,

所以他們還有第三個選項，

and it's one that increasing numbers of Syrians are taking.

而這正是越來越多 敘利亞人民的選擇。

Amira can seek some hope for her family

阿米拉可以給她的家人帶來希望，

by risking their lives on a dangerous and perilous journey

通過冒著生命危險， 走上一段險象環生的旅程，

to another country,

前往另外一個國家，

and it's that which we're seeing in Europe today.

這就是我們如今在歐洲所看到的。

Around the world, we present refugees with an almost impossible choice

在世界各地，我們給難民 幾乎都沒有辦法選擇的選項。

between three options:

在三個選項中：

encampment, urban destitution and dangerous journeys.

難民營、都市貧困、 和危險旅程中進行選擇。

For refugees, that choice is the global refugee regime today.

對難民來說，那選擇代表著 當今全球難民保護制度。

But I think it's a false choice.

但是我認為它是一個錯誤的選擇。

I think we can reconsider that choice.

我認為我們應該 對這個選擇進行反思。

The reason why we limit those options

我們之所以限制選項數量，

is because we think

是因為我們認為

that those are the only options that are available to refugees,

只有那些是難民可以獲得的選項，

and they're not.

然而並不是的。

Politicians frame the issue as a zero-sum issue,

政客們把這個問題 設計成一個零和的問題，

that if we benefit refugees, we're imposing costs on citizens.

如果讓難民得到好處， 我們就會把成本強加於公民身上。

We tend to have a collective assumption

我們傾向集體假設

that refugees are an inevitable cost or burden to society.

認為難民對社會 會造成不可避免的損失或負擔。

But they don't have to. They can contribute.

但是他們不一定如此。 他們可以作出貢獻。

So what I want to argue

所以我想要提出的是，

is there are ways in which we can expand that choice set

我們仍有許多方式可以 去擴增那些選項組合，

and still benefit everyone else:

同時讓每個人都得到好處：

the host states and communities,

難民收容國和社會群體，

our societies and refugees themselves.

我們的社會和難民都得到好處。

And I want to suggest four ways

我想要提出四種方式，

we can transform the paradigm of how we think about refugees.

能夠讓我們改變 我們對難民問題的思考模式。

All four ways have one thing in common:

這四種方式都有一個共同點：

they're all ways in which we take the opportunities of globalization,

都是透過把握全球化、

mobility and markets,

流動性和市場的機會，

and update the way we think about the refugee issue.

更新我們對難民問題的想法。

The first one I want to think about

第一個我想要思考的是

is the idea of enabling environments,

有利環境這個概念，

and it starts from a very basic recognition

它始於一個很基本的認知，

that refugees are human beings like everyone else,

那就是難民和每個人一樣都是人類，

but they're just in extraordinary circumstances.

只是他們處於很特別的境況中。

Together with my colleagues in Oxford,

和我在牛津大學的同事們一起，

we've embarked on a research project in Uganda

我們著手了一個 在烏干達的研究項目，

looking at the economic lives of refugees.

這個項目著眼於難民的經濟生活。

We chose Uganda not because it's representative of all host countries.

我們選擇烏干達並不是因為 它代表了所有的難民收容國。

It's not. It's exceptional.

它並沒有。它是例外的。

Unlike most host countries around the world,

跟世界上大多數的難民收容國不一樣，

what Uganda has done

烏干達所做的

is give refugees economic opportunity.

是給予難民經濟上的機會。

It gives them the right to work. It gives them freedom of movement.

它給予他們工作的權利。 它給予他們活動的自由。

And the results of that are extraordinary

而由此產生的結果是非同尋常的，

both for refugees and the host community.

對於難民和難民收容國的社會 他們雙方來說都是。

In the capital city, Kampala,

在首都，坎帕拉，

we found that 21 percent of refugees own a business that employs other people,

我們發現有百分之二十一的難民 擁有自己的生意並雇用其他人，

and 40 percent of those employees

而百分之四十的員工

are nationals of the host country.

是難民收容國的國民。

In other words, refugees are making jobs

換句話說，難民在創造工作機會

for citizens of the host country.

給難民收容國的公民。

Even in the camps, we found extraordinary examples

更甚至在難民營中， 我們也發現了不尋常的例子

of vibrant, flourishing and entrepreneurial businesses.

那裡有著充滿活力、 蓬勃發展的自創生意。

For example, in a settlement called Nakivale,

例如，在一個叫納吉瓦萊的安置所，

we found examples of Congolese refugees

我們找到一些剛果難民的例子，

running digital music exchange businesses.

他們經營數位音樂買賣的生意。

We found a Rwandan who runs a business that's available

我們發現了一位盧旺達人 經營一種生意，

to allow the youth to play computer games

可以讓年輕人在回收利用的 遊戲機和電視機上玩電動遊戲。

on recycled games consoles and recycled televisions.

Against the odds of extreme constraint,

跟極端限制相反，

refugees are innovating,

難民們在進行創新，

and the gentleman you see before you is a Congolese guy called Demou-Kay.

還有你們眼前所看到的這位先生 是一位叫戴姆凱的剛果人。

Demou-Kay arrived in the settlement with very little,

戴姆凱來到安置所的時候， 幾乎什麼都沒有，

but he wanted to be a filmmaker.

但是他想成為一名電影製作人。

So with friends and colleagues, he started a community radio station,

所以他和朋友同事們一起， 開辦了一個社區無線電台，

he rented a video camera,

他租了一臺攝影機，

and he's now making films.

然後現在在拍電影。

He made two documentary films

他拍攝了兩部紀錄片

with and for our team,

和我們組一起拍， 並且是為了我們組而拍攝的，

and he's making a successful business out of very little.

他正在創造一個成功的生意， 在幾乎一無所有的情況下。

It's those kinds of examples

就是這些例子

that should guide our response to refugees.

應該被用來引導我們 對難民問題所作出的反應。

Rather than seeing refugees

與其視難民為

as inevitably dependent upon humanitarian assistance,

不可避免地依賴著人道援助的人，

we need to provide them with opportunities for human flourishing.

我們需要提供他們 讓人類得以繁榮的機會。

Yes, clothes, blankets, shelter, food

是的，衣服、毛毯、避難所、食物

are all important in the emergency phase,

這些在緊急階段都是重要的，

but we need to also look beyond that.

但是我們也需要看得更遠一些。

We need to provide opportunities to connectivity, electricity,

我們需要提供機會讓他們 可以與外界連結、供電、

education, the right to work,

提供教育、工作權利，

access to capital and banking.

資金和銀行業務的使用權。

All the ways in which we take for granted

我們理所當然地用來

that we are plugged in to the global economy

緊跟全球經濟步伐的所有方式，

can and should apply to refugees.

能夠也應該適用於難民。

The second idea I want to discuss is economic zones.

第二個我想要討論的 概念是經濟區域。

Unfortunately, not every host country in the world

不幸的是，並不是 每個世界上的難民收容國

takes the approach Uganda has taken.

採用烏干達所採用的方法。

Most host countries don't open up their economies to refugees

大部分的難民收容國 沒有像烏干達那樣

in the same way.

向難民們開放它們的經濟。

But there are still pragmatic alternative options that we can use.

但是我們還是有其它 實用的選項可以使用。

Last April, I traveled to Jordan with my colleague,

去年四月，我和我的同事 發展經濟學家保羅·科利爾

the development economist Paul Collier,

到約旦旅行，

and we brainstormed an idea while we were there

當我們在那裡時， 我們想出了一個主意，

with the international community and the government,

和國際社會還有當地政府在一起，

an idea to bring jobs to Syrians

一個給敘利亞人民帶來工作

while supporting Jordan's national development strategy.

並同時支持著約旦 國家發展策略的主意。

The idea is for an economic zone,

這是一個關於經濟區域的主意，

one in which we could potentially integrate the employment of refugees

一個我們也許能夠把對難民的雇用

alongside the employment of Jordanian host nationals.

和對約旦國民的雇用 綜合起來的主意。

And just 15 minutes away from the Zaatari refugee camp,

在距離扎塔利難民營僅有 15 分鐘距離的地方，

home to 83,000 refugees,

居住著 83,000 位難民，

is an existing economic zone

是一個現存的經濟區域，

called the King Hussein Bin Talal Development Area.

它叫哈桑·賓·塔拉勒國王開發區。

The government has spent over a hundred million dollars

政府已經花費了超過一億

connecting it to the electricity grid, connecting it to the road network,

把它連接到電網和道路網，

but it lacked two things:

但它缺兩種東西：

access to labor and inward investment.

勞動力和內部投資。

So what if refugees were able to work there

所以如果難民能夠在那裡工作，

rather than being stuck in camps,

而不是滯留在難民營中，

able to support their families and develop skills through vocational training

能夠支撐他們的家庭， 還有通過職業培訓發展技能，

before they go back to Syria?

在他們回去敘利亞之前， 這會怎麼樣呢？

We recognized that that could benefit Jordan,

我們認識到這會使約旦受惠，

whose development strategy requires it to make the leap

因為它的發展策略要求它大幅成長，

as a middle income country to manufacturing.

成為一個製造業的中等收入國家。

It could benefit refugees, but it could also contribute

這也會使難民受惠，

但它也可以貢獻於 衝突後的敘利亞的重建工作，

to the postconflict reconstruction of Syria

by recognizing that we need to incubate refugees

通過認識到我們需要 把難民們逐步培養成

as the best source of eventually rebuilding Syria.

最終重建敘利亞的最佳的來源。

We published the idea in the journal Foreign Affairs.

我們把這個主意 發表在《外交事務》期刊。

King Abdullah has picked up on the idea.

沙特國王阿卜杜拉 已經注意到這個主意。

It was announced at the London Syria Conference two weeks ago,

在兩個星期前的 倫敦敘利亞會議上他宣告

and a pilot will begin in the summer.

將在今年夏天採取試行。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

The third idea that I want to put to you

第三個我想要向你們提出的概念，

is preference matching between states and refugees

是國家和難民之間的偏好配對，

to lead to the kinds of happy outcomes you see here in the selfie

從而導致種種美好的結果 就像你從這張自拍所看到的那樣。

featuring Angela Merkel and a Syrian refugee.

特寫著德國總理安吉拉默克爾和 一名敘利亞難民的自拍。

What we rarely do is ask refugees what they want, where they want to go,

我們很少做的是問問難民 他們想要什麼，他們想去哪裡，

but I'd argue we can do that

但是我想證明我們可以做到如此，

and still make everyone better off.

並且同時讓每個人的 生活都變得更好。

The economist Alvin Roth has developed the idea of matching markets,

經濟學家阿爾文· 羅斯 已經提出了配對市場的這種想法，

ways in which the preference ranking of the parties shapes an eventual match.

通過各方的喜愛順序形成 一種最終的配對的方式。

My colleagues Will Jones and Alex Teytelboym

我的同事威爾·瓊斯和 亞歷克斯·泰伊特爾卜依

have explored ways in which that idea could be applied to refugees,

探索了很多能夠使這種想法 應用到難民身上的方法，

to ask refugees to rank their preferred destinations,

讓難民對他們偏好的 目的地進行排序，

but also allow states to rank the types of refugees they want

並且也讓國家們對他們想要的 難民種類進行排序，

on skills criteria or language criteria

根據技能或者語言標準，

and allow those to match.

然後允許它們進行配對。

Now, of course you'd need to build in quotas

當然你需要去設立限額，

on things like diversity and vulnerability,

針對多樣性和脆弱性，

but it's a way of increasing the possibilities of matching.

但它是提高配對可能性的一種方式。

The matching idea has been successfully used

這種配對的概念已經被很好地

to match, for instance, students with university places,

用去配對，例如， 學生和大學所在地，

to match kidney donors with patients,

去配對腎臟捐獻者和患者們，

and it underlies the kind of algorithms that exist on dating websites.

並且它還成為交往網站上 一種運算法則的基礎。

So why not apply that to give refugees greater choice?

所以為什麼不把它應用 去給予難民們更好的選擇呢？

It could also be used at the national level,

它還可以被用到國家層面，

where one of the great challenges we face

我們所面臨的巨大的挑戰之一，

is to persuade local communities to accept refugees.

是去說服當地社區接受難民。

And at the moment, in my country, for instance,

而在目前，在我的國家，舉個例子，

we often send engineers to rural areas and farmers to the cities,

我們經常把工程師派往到農村地區 和把農民派往城市，

which makes no sense at all.

這麼做毫無意義。

So matching markets offer a potential way to bring those preferences together

所以配對市場提供一種潛在的方法， 能夠把那些偏好者集合在一起，

and listen to the needs and demands of the populations that host

並聽取難民收容國人民的需求和要求，

and the refugees themselves.

還有難民他們自己的（需求和要求）。

The fourth idea I want to put to you is of humanitarian visas.

第四個我想要告訴你們的概念 是人道主義簽證。

Much of the tragedy and chaos we've seen in Europe

許多我們在歐洲 所看到的悲劇和騷亂，

was entirely avoidable.

是完全可以避免的。

It stems from a fundamental contradiction in Europe's asylum policy,

它根源於歐洲 庇護政策中的基本矛盾，

which is the following:

就是以下的這個：

that in order to seek asylum in Europe,

為了在歐洲尋求庇護，

you have to arrive spontaneously by embarking on those dangerous journeys

你需要踏上危險的旅途， 自行抵達歐洲，

that I described.

如我所描述的那樣。

But why should those journeys be necessary in an era of the budget airline

但是為什麼在這麼一個具有 廉價航空和現代領事能力的時代，

and modern consular capabilities?

這些旅程還有必要呢？

They're completely unnecessary journeys,

它們完全是沒有必要的旅程，

and last year, they led to the deaths of over 3,000 people

而且在去年，這些旅程導致了 超過三千人的死亡，

on Europe's borders and within European territory.

在歐洲的邊境 和在歐洲的領土範圍內。

If refugees were simply allowed

如果難民能夠簡單地被允許

to travel directly and seek asylum in Europe,

直接地到歐洲旅行和尋求庇護，

we would avoid that,

我們就會避免了它的發生，

and there's a way of doing that

而且有一種方法可以做到如此，

through something called a humanitarian visa,

就是人道主義簽證，

that allows people to collect a visa at an embassy

它允許人們從大使館獲取一個簽證，

or a consulate in a neighboring country

或從一個鄰近國家的領事館獲得，

and then simply pay their own way

然後只要支付他們

through a ferry or a flight to Europe.

搭渡船或者飛機去歐洲的旅程。

It costs around a thousand euros

偷渡客大約需要一千歐元，

to take a smuggler from Turkey to the Greek islands.

從土耳其偷渡到希臘群島，

It costs 200 euros to take a budget airline from Bodrum to Frankfurt.

而只需要兩百歐元就能搭一班廉航 從博德魯姆到法蘭克福。

If we allowed refugees to do that, it would have major advantages.

如果我們當初允許難民這麼做， 它能帶來許多好處。

It would save lives,

它本可以拯救生命，

it would undercut the entire market for smugglers,

它本可以根除掉整個偷渡市場，

and it would remove the chaos we see from Europe's front line

並且它本來可以移除掉 我們看到的歐洲前線的騷亂，

in areas like the Greek islands.

比如希臘群島那樣的地區。

It's politics that prevents us doing that rather than a rational solution.

然而就是政治阻止了我們 做出理智的解決方法。

And this is an idea that has been applied.

這種概念已經被應用了。

Brazil has adopted a pioneering approach

巴西已經採用了一個開創性的方法，

where over 2,000 Syrians have been able to get humanitarian visas,

在那裡有超過兩千名敘利亞人民 已經得到人道主義簽證，

enter Brazil, and claim refugee status on arrival in Brazil.

進入巴西，並在到達巴西的時候 要求獲得難民身份。

And in that scheme, every Syrian who has gone through it

而在那個計劃中， 每個已經經歷過它的敘利亞人民

has received refugee status and been recognized as a genuine refugee.

已經得到了難民身份， 並已經承認為一個真正的難民。

There is a historical precedent for it as well.

在歷史上也有這樣的先例。

Between 1922 and 1942,

在 1922 年和 1942 年之間，

these Nansen passports were used as travel documents

南森護照被用作為旅行證件，

to allow 450,000 Assyrians, Turks and Chechens

允許四十五萬亞述人、 土耳其人和車臣人

to travel across Europe

穿越歐洲，

and claim refugee status elsewhere in Europe.

並在歐洲任何地方 要求獲得難民身份。

And the Nansen International Refugee Office

而南森國際難民部門

received the Nobel Peace Prize

獲得了諾貝爾和平獎，

in recognition of this being a viable strategy.

承認它為一項可行的策略。

So all four of these ideas that I've presented you

所以我向你們提出的這四個概念，

are ways in which we can expand Amira's choice set.

是我們可以用來擴展 阿米拉的選項組合的方法。

They're ways in which we can have greater choice for refugees

是我們可以給予難民更好選擇的方法，

beyond those basic, impossible three options

勝過我剛剛向你們解釋的 那三個基本、不可能的選項，

I explained to you

and still leave others better off.

並且仍然能夠讓 其他人的生活也變得更好。

In conclusion, we really need a new vision,

總之，我們真的需要一個新的遠見，

a vision that enlarges the choices of refugees

能加增難民可以選擇的選項，

but recognizes that they don't have to be a burden.

並且認識到它們不必成為一種負擔。

There's nothing inevitable about refugees being a cost.

難民並非無可避免地 一定會成為社會成本。

Yes, they are a humanitarian responsibility,

是的，他們是人道主義的責任，

but they're human beings with skills, talents, aspirations,

但他們也是具備技能、 才能、和志向的人類，

with the ability to make contributions -- if we let them.

他們具有作出貢獻的能力 ——如果我們允許的話。

In the new world,

在新世界中，

migration is not going to go away.

人口遷徙是不會消失的。

What we've seen in Europe will be with us for many years.

我們在歐洲所看到的 將會伴隨著我們多年。

People will continue to travel,

人們會繼續旅行，

they'll continue to be displaced,

他們也會繼續流離失所，

and we need to find rational, realistic ways of managing this --

而我們需要去尋求理性、 現實的管理方法，

not based on the old logics of humanitarian assistance,

不是基於舊的人道援助的邏輯，

not based on logics of charity,

不是基於慈善的邏輯，

but building on the opportunities

而是著眼於全球化、市場 和流動性造成的機會。

offered by globalization, markets and mobility.

I'd urge you all to wake up and urge our politicians

我力勸你們清醒過來， 力勸我們的政客們

to wake up to this challenge.

去意識到這個挑戰。

Thank you very much.

非常感謝你們。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）