TEDxRC2
Jonas Gahr Støre: In defense of dialogue
Jonas Gahr Støre:為了國家之間的對話進行辯護
Filmed:
Readability: 4.1
401,365 views
與暴力集團、激進份子、恐怖份子及其支持國家進行對話，似乎是有悖常理的。但是挪威外交部長Jonas Gahr Støre，以公開討論的方式找一個令人信服的理由，即使在價值偏離的情況下，仍然試圖為世人建立極大的安全感。
Jonas Gahr Støre - Foreign Minister of Norway
Jonas Gahr Støre is the Norwegian Foreign Minister, charged with working for Norway's interests internationally. Full bio
Jonas Gahr Støre is the Norwegian Foreign Minister, charged with working for Norway's interests internationally. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:15
Amongst all the troubling deficits we struggle with today --
0
0
3000
在所有今日世人仍然必需去努力實現的種種令人憂心的缺點之中---
00:18
we think of financial and economic primarily --
1
3000
3000
我們認為金融和經濟是最根本主要的--
00:21
the ones that concern me most
2
6000
2000
但是我最關心的是
00:23
is the deficit of political dialogue --
3
8000
2000
是政治上對話的不足--
00:25
our ability to address modern conflicts
4
10000
2000
我們有能力應付現今的衝突
00:27
as they are,
5
12000
2000
實際上就是，
00:29
to go to the source of what they're all about
6
14000
3000
找到事情發生的原因
00:32
and to understand the key players
7
17000
2000
了解關鍵人物
00:34
and to deal with them.
8
19000
2000
再和他們打交道。
00:36
We who are diplomats,
9
21000
2000
這就是我們：這些外交官，
00:38
we are trained to deal with conflicts between states and issues between states.
10
23000
3000
我們受過訓練以應付國家之間的衝突及問題
00:41
And I can tell you, our agenda is full.
11
26000
3000
我可以告訴你們，我們的工作滿檔。
00:44
There is trade, there is disarmament,
12
29000
2000
工作內容有貿易，有裁減軍備，
00:46
there is cross-border relations.
13
31000
3000
有跨界關係。
00:49
But the picture is changing,
14
34000
2000
但是情勢一直在變，
00:51
and we are seeing that there are new key players
15
36000
3000
我們看見有新的關鍵人物
00:54
coming onto the scene.
16
39000
2000
一直跟著出現
00:56
We loosely call them "groups."
17
41000
3000
我們概括稱之為“集團”
00:59
They may represent social, religious,
18
44000
3000
他們可能是社會、宗教的代表
01:02
political, economic, military realities.
19
47000
3000
政治、經濟、軍事實相
01:05
And we struggle with how to deal with them.
20
50000
2000
我們為了如何應付他們而奮鬥
01:07
The rules of engagement:
21
52000
2000
交戰規則
01:09
how to talk, when to talk,
22
54000
2000
怎麼交談，什麼時候交談
01:11
and how to deal with them.
23
56000
3000
以及如何和他們打交道
01:14
Let me show you a slide here
24
59000
2000
容我在此放個幻燈片
01:16
which illustrates the character of conflicts
25
61000
2000
可以說明衝突的性質
01:18
since 1946 until today.
26
63000
2000
從1946年起一直到今天
01:20
You see the green
27
65000
2000
就是你看見的綠色部份
01:22
is a traditional interstate conflict,
28
67000
3000
是傳統的國家之間的衝突
01:25
the ones we used to read about.
29
70000
3000
也是我們習慣看到的
01:28
The red is modern conflict,
30
73000
2000
紅色部份是現今的衝突
01:30
conflicts within states.
31
75000
3000
國家內部的衝突
01:33
These are quite different,
32
78000
2000
兩者是完全不同的
01:35
and they are outside the grasp
33
80000
3000
連現今的外交
01:38
of modern diplomacy.
34
83000
3000
都無法掌握
01:41
And the core of these key actors
35
86000
2000
這些關鍵參與者的核心
01:43
are groups
36
88000
2000
就是集團
01:45
who represent different interests
37
90000
2000
他們代表著國家內部
01:47
inside countries.
38
92000
2000
不同的利益
01:49
And the way they deal with their conflicts rapidly spreads to other countries.
39
94000
3000
他們處理衝突的方式迅速蔓延到其他國家
01:52
So in a way, it is everybody's business.
40
97000
3000
所以，在某種程度上而言，這是攸關眾人之事
01:56
Another acknowledgment we've seen during these years,
41
101000
2000
另一件我們這幾年所見印證的事
01:58
recent years,
42
103000
2000
近幾年
02:00
is that very few
43
105000
2000
就是極少數的
02:02
of these domestic interstate, intrastate conflicts
44
107000
4000
國內的州際之間、州內的衝突
02:06
can be solved militarily.
45
111000
2000
可以用軍事來解決
02:08
They may have to be dealt with with military means,
46
113000
2000
他們處理時可能會涉及軍事
02:10
but they cannot be solved by military means.
47
115000
3000
但是不能用軍事手段來解決
02:13
They need political solutions.
48
118000
2000
他們需要用到政治解決方案
02:15
And we, therefore, have a problem,
49
120000
2000
而且我們，有個問題
02:17
because they escape traditional diplomacy.
50
122000
3000
因為他們脫離了傳統外交
02:20
And we have among states
51
125000
2000
所以許多國家
02:22
a reluctance in dealing with them.
52
127000
2000
都不願和他們打交道
02:24
Plus, during the last decade,
53
129000
2000
再加上，過去的10年間
02:26
we've been in the mode
54
131000
2000
我們一直處於這種模式
02:28
where dealing with groups
55
133000
2000
就是和集團打交道
02:30
was conceptually and politically dangerous.
56
135000
3000
在觀念上及政治上都極其危險
02:33
After 9/11,
57
138000
2000
911之後
02:35
either you were with us or against us.
58
140000
2000
非敵即友
02:37
It was black or white.
59
142000
2000
非黑即白
02:39
And groups are very often
60
144000
2000
小集團時而有之
02:41
immediately label terrorists.
61
146000
2000
很快地就被貼上恐怖份子的標籤
02:43
And who would talk to terrorists?
62
148000
3000
誰要和恐怖份子談話?
02:46
The West, as I would see it,
63
151000
2000
西方，就像我看到的
02:48
comes out of that decade weakened,
64
153000
2000
擺脫了虛弱的十年
02:50
because we didn't understand the group.
65
155000
3000
因為我們對集團不了解
02:53
So we've spent more time
66
158000
2000
所以我們花了更多的時間
02:55
on focusing on why we should not talk to others
67
160000
3000
在為什麼我們不應該和別人談話上
02:58
than finding out how we talk to others.
68
163000
2000
比找出我們如何和別人交談還多
03:00
Now I'm not naive.
69
165000
3000
現在我不是白癡
03:03
You cannot talk to everybody all the time.
70
168000
2000
你不能一直在和別人交談
03:05
And there are times you should walk.
71
170000
3000
有時候你該站起來走出去
03:08
And sometimes military intervention is necessary.
72
173000
2000
所以有時候軍事干預是必要的
03:10
I happen to believe that Libya was necessary
73
175000
3000
我碰巧認為利比亞是必要的
03:13
and that military intervention in Afghanistan was also necessary.
74
178000
3000
在阿富汗的軍事干預也是必要的
03:16
And my country relies on its security
75
181000
3000
我的國家重視安全感
03:19
through military alliance, that's clear.
76
184000
3000
透過軍事聯盟，這很明顯
03:22
But still we have a large deficit
77
187000
3000
但是我們還是有一個很大的落差
03:25
in dealing with and understanding modern conflict.
78
190000
2000
在處理和了解現今的衝突上
03:27
Let us turn to Afghanistan.
79
192000
3000
讓我們再來談談阿富汗
03:30
10 years after that military intervention,
80
195000
2000
在軍事介入的10年之後
03:32
that country is far from secure.
81
197000
2000
那個國家已很不安全了
03:34
The situation, to be honest, is very serious.
82
199000
3000
這種情況，老實說，非常嚴重
03:37
Now again, the military is necessary,
83
202000
3000
所以現在再說一次，軍事是必要的
03:40
but the military is no problem-solver.
84
205000
3000
但是軍事不是用來解決問題的
03:43
When I first came to Afghanistan in 2005 as a foreign minister,
85
208000
3000
當我於2005年以外交部長的身份第一次到阿富汗時
03:46
I met the commander of ISAF,
86
211000
2000
我與駐阿富汗國際安全援助部隊的指揮官碰面
03:48
the international troops.
87
213000
2000
是個國際部隊
03:50
And he told me that, "This can be won militarily, minister.
88
215000
3000
他告訴我：這是一支勝算在握的軍隊，部長
03:53
We just have to persevere."
89
218000
3000
我們只需堅持不懈。”
03:56
Now four COM ISAF's later,
90
221000
2000
現在換了四位國際救援部隊指揮官之後
03:58
we hear a different message:
91
223000
2000
我們又聽到了不同的訊息
04:00
"This cannot be won militarily.
92
225000
2000
這不是穩操勝算的軍隊
04:02
We need military presence,
93
227000
2000
我們需要軍事存在
04:04
but we need to move to politics.
94
229000
2000
但是我們必需移向政治
04:06
We can only solve this through a political solution.
95
231000
3000
我們只能透過政治來解決
04:09
And it is not us who will solve it;
96
234000
3000
而且不是我們來解決
04:12
Afghans have to solve it."
97
237000
2000
必需阿富汗自己來解決
04:14
But then they need a different political process
98
239000
2000
但到那時候他們需要的是個不一樣的政治過程
04:16
than the one they were given in 2001, 2002.
99
241000
4000
而不是他們在2001年及2002年所得到的
04:20
They need an inclusive process
100
245000
3000
他們需要的是一種包容性的進程
04:23
where the real fabric of this very complicated society
101
248000
3000
在那裏，這個相當複雜社會的實際結構
04:26
can deal with their issues.
102
251000
2000
可以處理他們的問題
04:28
Everybody seems to agree with that.
103
253000
2000
每個人似乎都同意
04:30
It was very controversial to say three, four, five years ago.
104
255000
3000
3,4,5年前談起來還頗有爭議
04:33
Now everybody agrees.
105
258000
2000
現在大家都同意了
04:35
But now, as we prepare to talk,
106
260000
3000
但是現在，我們準備談談的是
04:38
we understand how little we know.
107
263000
2000
我們發現我們所知的不多
04:40
Because we didn't talk.
108
265000
2000
因為我們不跟人交談
04:42
We didn't grasp what was going on.
109
267000
3000
我們不了解到底是怎麼回事
04:45
The International Committee of the Red Cross, the ICRC,
110
270000
3000
國際紅十字會
04:48
is talking to everyone,
111
273000
2000
和每個人交談
04:50
and it is doing so because it is neutral.
112
275000
3000
是因為立場中立所以這樣做
04:53
And that's one reason why
113
278000
2000
這是其中一個原因為什麼
04:55
that organization probably
114
280000
2000
那個機構可能
04:57
is the best informed key player
115
282000
2000
是消息了解現今衝突
04:59
to understand modern conflict --
116
284000
2000
消息最靈通的關鍵人物--
05:01
because they talk.
117
286000
2000
因為他們與人交談
05:03
My point is that you don't have to be neutral to talk.
118
288000
4000
我的重點是你不是一定要立場中立才與人交談
05:07
And you don't have to agree
119
292000
2000
你也不必贊成對方的觀點
05:09
when you sit down with the other side.
120
294000
2000
當你和對方一起坐下來時。
05:11
And you can always walk.
121
296000
3000
你可以一直進行談話
05:14
But if you don't talk,
122
299000
2000
但是如果你不與人交談
05:16
you can't engage the other side.
123
301000
2000
你就不能加入對方
05:18
And the other side which you're going to engage
124
303000
2000
而你想加入的對方
05:20
is the one with whom you profoundly disagree.
125
305000
3000
是你極度唱反調的一方
05:23
Prime Minister Rabin said when he engaged the Oslo process,
126
308000
3000
拉賓總理說當他參與奧斯陸和平進程時，
05:26
"You don't make peace with your friends,
127
311000
2000
“你不是和你朋友和平相處，
05:28
you make peace with your enemies."
128
313000
2000
而是和敵人同床共枕
05:30
It's hard, but it is necessary.
129
315000
3000
很難，但是必要
05:33
Let me go one step further.
130
318000
2000
容我再進一步說
05:35
This is Tahrir Square.
131
320000
2000
這是塔里爾廣場
05:37
There's a revolution going on.
132
322000
2000
有場革命將發生
05:39
The Arab Spring is heading into fall
133
324000
2000
阿拉伯之春的熱火
05:41
and is moving into winter.
134
326000
2000
持續到秋天冬天
05:43
It will last for a long, long time.
135
328000
3000
會持續很長很長的一段時間
05:46
And who knows what it will be called in the end.
136
331000
3000
有誰知道它最終將被稱為什麼
05:49
That's not the point.
137
334000
2000
這不是重點
05:51
The point is that we are probably seeing,
138
336000
3000
重點是我們可能看到
05:54
for the first time in the history of the Arab world,
139
339000
2000
阿拉伯世界歷史上的第一次
05:56
a revolution bottom-up --
140
341000
2000
一場自下而上的革命
05:58
people's revolution.
141
343000
2000
人民的革命
06:00
Social groups are taking to the streets.
142
345000
3000
社會集團走上街頭
06:03
And we find out in the West
143
348000
2000
我們發現在西方
06:05
that we know very little about what's happening.
144
350000
3000
我們對於發生的事所知甚少
06:08
Because we never talk to the people in these countries.
145
353000
4000
因為我們從不和這些國家的人民交談
06:12
Most governments followed
146
357000
2000
大部份政府遵守
06:14
the dictate of the authoritarian leaders
147
359000
2000
獨裁主義領導人的命令規定
06:16
to stay away from these different groups,
148
361000
2000
就是遠離這些各種不同的集團
06:18
because they were terrorists.
149
363000
4000
因為他們曾是恐怖份子
06:22
So now that they are emerging in the street
150
367000
2000
所以現在他們出現在街頭
06:24
and we salute the democratic revolution,
151
369000
3000
我們讚揚民主革命
06:27
we find out how little we know.
152
372000
2000
我們發現我們所知竟如此之少
06:29
Right now, the discussion goes,
153
374000
2000
就是現在，討論下去
06:31
"Should we talk to the Muslim Brotherhood?
154
376000
3000
我們是不是應該和穆斯林弟兄會交談?
06:34
Should we talk to Hamas?
155
379000
2000
我們是不是應該和哈瑪斯交談?
06:36
If we talk to them, we may legitimize them."
156
381000
3000
如果我們和他們交談，就是承認他們合法
06:39
I think that is wrong.
157
384000
2000
我覺得這是不對的
06:41
If you talk in the right way, you make it very clear
158
386000
2000
如果用正確的方式交談，你非常明白
06:43
that talking is not agreeing.
159
388000
3000
這樣的交談是不被同意的
06:46
And how can we tell the Muslim Brotherhood,
160
391000
2000
而且我們要怎樣才能告訴穆斯林弟兄會?
06:48
as we should,
161
393000
2000
就像我們應該告訴他們一樣
06:50
that they must respect minority rights,
162
395000
4000
他們必需尊重少數人的權利
06:54
if we don't accept majority rights?
163
399000
3000
如果我們不接受多數人的權利?
06:57
Because they may turn out to be a majority.
164
402000
3000
因為他們可能變成多數人
07:00
How can we escape [having] a double-standard,
165
405000
3000
我們怎能避免雙重標準?
07:03
if we at the same time preach democracy
166
408000
3000
如果我們同時宣揚民主
07:06
and at the same time
167
411000
2000
然而
07:08
don't want to deal with the groups that are representative?
168
413000
2000
又不想和具有代表性的集團打交道
07:10
How will we ever be interlocutors?
169
415000
3000
我們如何永遠做個談話對象?
07:13
Now my diplomats are instructed
170
418000
2000
所以現在教我的外交官被教導
07:15
to talk to all these groups.
171
420000
2000
要和所有這樣的集團交談
07:17
But talking can be done in different ways.
172
422000
3000
但是談話有各種不同的方式
07:20
We make a distinction between talking from a diplomatic level
173
425000
3000
我們從外交層面的談話
07:23
and talking at the political level.
174
428000
3000
以及政治層面的談話做個區分
07:26
Now talking can be accompanied with aid or not with aid.
175
431000
3000
現在談話分成有援助也有沒有援助的
07:29
Talking can be accompanied with inclusion or not inclusion.
176
434000
3000
也分成有內容的也有沒有內容的
07:32
There's a big array
177
437000
2000
有一大批
07:34
of the ways of dealing with this.
178
439000
2000
處理這些問題的方式
07:36
So if we refuse
179
441000
2000
所以如果我們拒絕
07:38
to talk to these new groups
180
443000
3000
與這些今後幾年將主導新聞
07:41
that are going to be dominating the news in years to come,
181
446000
3000
的新集團談話
07:44
we will further radicalization,
182
449000
2000
我們將更激進化
07:46
I believe.
183
451000
2000
我相信
07:48
We will make the road from violent activities into politics
184
453000
3000
我們將使這條路從暴力活動進入政治活動
07:51
harder to travel.
185
456000
2000
更難以行進
07:53
And if we cannot demonstrate to these groups
186
458000
3000
如果我們無法向這些集團證明
07:56
that if you move towards democracy,
187
461000
2000
如果你向民主妥協
07:58
if you move towards taking part
188
463000
3000
如果你走向參與
08:01
in civilized and normal standards among states,
189
466000
3000
國家之間的文明及正常標準
08:04
there are some rewards on the other side.
190
469000
3000
對方會有回報的
08:07
The paradox here
191
472000
2000
這裏有個自相矛盾的議論
08:09
is that the last decade probably was a lost decade
192
474000
3000
就是最後的這十年完全沒有進展
08:12
for making progress on this.
193
477000
2000
是個失去的十年
08:14
And the paradox is that the decade before the last decade was so promising --
194
479000
4000
而自相矛盾的議論就是十年前到二十年前中間這段時間相當有前景
08:18
and for one reason primarily.
195
483000
3000
主要的原因之一
08:21
And the reason is what happened in South Africa:
196
486000
2000
原因就是在南非發生的事
08:23
Nelson Mandela.
197
488000
2000
尼爾遜 曼德拉
08:25
When Mandela came out of prison
198
490000
2000
當曼德拉在27年的牢獄之災之後
08:27
after 27 years of captivity,
199
492000
3000
從牢裏被放出來的時候
08:30
if he had told his people,
200
495000
2000
如果他告訴國民
08:32
"It's time to take up the arms,
201
497000
2000
“拿起武器的時候到了，
08:34
it's time to fight,"
202
499000
2000
作戰的時候到了，”
08:36
he would have been followed.
203
501000
2000
就會有人聽他的話
08:38
And I think the international community
204
503000
2000
而且我想國際社會
08:40
would have said, "Fair enough.
205
505000
2000
會說，“很好。
08:42
It's their right to fight."
206
507000
2000
他們有權開戰
08:44
Now as you know, Mandela didn't do that.
207
509000
3000
現在如你所知，曼德拉並未如此做
08:47
In his memoirs, "Long Road to Freedom,"
208
512000
3000
在他的回憶錄“漫漫自由路”中
08:50
he wrote that he survived
209
515000
2000
他寫道他活在
08:52
during those years of captivity
210
517000
3000
牢獄之中的這些年
08:55
because he always decided to look upon his oppressor
211
520000
3000
因為他總是決定將壓迫他的人
08:58
as also being a human being,
212
523000
3000
也看做是個人
09:01
also being a human being.
213
526000
3000
也視為一個人
09:04
So he engaged a political process of dialogue,
214
529000
5000
所以他參與了一個政治對話進程
09:09
not as a strategy of the weak,
215
534000
3000
不是弱者的戰略
09:12
but as a strategy of the strong.
216
537000
3000
而是強者的戰略
09:15
And he engaged talking profoundly
217
540000
3000
而且他從事深入交談
09:18
by settling some of the most tricky issues
218
543000
2000
透過解決一些最棘手的問題
09:20
through a truth and reconciliation process
219
545000
3000
憑藉著真相及和解的進程
09:23
where people came and talked.
220
548000
2000
人們來到這裏而且交談著
09:25
Now South African friends will know
221
550000
2000
現在南非的朋友會知道
09:27
that was very painful.
222
552000
2000
那很痛苦
09:29
So what can we learn from all of this?
223
554000
3000
所以我們從這一切中學到了什麼?
09:32
Dialogue is not easy --
224
557000
2000
對話並不簡單
09:34
not between individuals, not between groups, not between governments --
225
559000
3000
不管於人與人之間，集團與集團之間，政府與政府之間
09:37
but it is very necessary.
226
562000
3000
它都是非常必要的
09:40
If we're going to deal with political conflict-solving of conflicts,
227
565000
4000
如果我們要解決政治上的衝突
09:44
if we're going to understand these new groups
228
569000
3000
如果我們要了解這些新團體
09:47
which are coming from bottom-up,
229
572000
3000
這些事都是從下至上、從細節到總體、從個別到全貌而來的
09:50
supported by technology, which is available to all,
230
575000
3000
有科技資助，每個人都會知道
09:53
we diplomats cannot be sitting back in the banquets
231
578000
3000
我們做外交官的總不能在宴會時坐在後方
09:56
believing that we are doing interstate relations.
232
581000
3000
然後就相信我們正在做國際關係
09:59
We have to connect
233
584000
2000
我們必需拉攏
10:01
with these profound changes.
234
586000
2000
這些深刻改變的關係
10:03
And what is dialogue really about?
235
588000
2000
而對話的真意為何?
10:05
When I enter into dialogue,
236
590000
2000
當我和他人交談時
10:07
I really hope that the other side
237
592000
2000
我真誠的希望對方
10:09
would pick up my points of view,
238
594000
2000
能抓到我的觀點
10:11
that I would impress upon them
239
596000
2000
我就會讓他們留下深刻的印象
10:13
my opinions and my values.
240
598000
2000
我的意見和我的價值觀
10:15
I cannot do that
241
600000
2000
但是我不能做這樣的事
10:17
unless I send the signals that I will be open
242
602000
2000
除非我示意我會公開地表示
10:19
to listen to the other side's signals.
243
604000
3000
我一直都會注意你的暗示
10:22
We need a lot more training on how to do that
244
607000
3000
我們需要更多如何做到這一點的訓練
10:25
and a lot more practice
245
610000
2000
以及更多的練習
10:27
on how that can take problem-solving forward.
246
612000
3000
在如何將解決問題推展開來
10:30
We know from our personal experiences
247
615000
2000
我們從自己體驗中知道
10:32
that it's easy sometimes
248
617000
2000
它有時候很容易
10:34
just to walk,
249
619000
2000
就只是走出去
10:36
and sometimes you may need to fight.
250
621000
3000
有時候卻需要開戰
10:39
And I wouldn't say that is the wrong thing in all circumstances.
251
624000
3000
我不會說在所有情況下那都是件錯事
10:42
Sometimes you have to.
252
627000
2000
因為有時候你必需這樣做
10:44
But that strategy seldom takes you very far.
253
629000
3000
但那策略不會花你太多時間
10:47
The alternative is a strategy
254
632000
2000
換個方式也是
10:49
of engagement and principled dialogue.
255
634000
2000
作戰和有原則對話的策略
10:51
And I believe we need to strengthen this approach
256
636000
3000
而且我相信我們必需鞏固這個方法
10:54
in modern diplomacy,
257
639000
2000
在現今的外交上
10:56
not only between states,
258
641000
2000
不只是國與國之間
10:58
but also within states.
259
643000
2000
也是國家內部間
11:00
We are seeing some new signs.
260
645000
2000
我們看見一些新的跡象
11:02
We could never have done
261
647000
2000
我們永遠無法完成
11:04
the convention against anti-personnel landmines
262
649000
2000
反對殺傷性地雷的協定
11:06
and the convention that is banning cluster munitions
263
651000
4000
以及禁止大規模軍火彈藥的協定
11:10
unless we had done diplomacy differently,
264
655000
3000
除非我們完成了不同的外交
11:13
by engaging with civil society.
265
658000
2000
透過與民間社會銜接
11:15
All of a sudden,
266
660000
2000
忽然間
11:17
NGOs were not only standing in the streets, crying their slogans,
267
662000
3000
非政府組織不是只站在街頭，為他們的口號哭泣，
11:20
but they were taking [them] into the negotiations,
268
665000
3000
而且還將它們帶入協商中
11:23
partly because they represented the victims of these weapons.
269
668000
4000
部份因為他們是這些武器犧牲者的代表
11:27
And they brought their knowledge.
270
672000
2000
而且還帶來了他們的知識
11:29
And there was an interaction
271
674000
2000
在外交和從下而上的力量之間
11:31
between diplomacy and the power coming bottom-up.
272
676000
3000
互相影響
11:34
This is perhaps a first element
273
679000
2000
這可能是改變的
11:36
of a change.
274
681000
2000
第一個因素
11:38
In the future, I believe,
275
683000
2000
未來，我相信
11:40
we should draw examples from these different illustrations,
276
685000
3000
我們應該從這些不同的實例中找出範例
11:43
not to have diplomacy
277
688000
2000
但不包括外交
11:45
which is disconnected from people and civil society.
278
690000
3000
因為外交脫離了人民及民間社會
11:48
And we have to go also
279
693000
3000
我們也必需
11:51
beyond traditional diplomacy
280
696000
2000
超越傳統外交
11:53
to the survival issue of our times,
281
698000
2000
來到我們這個時代的生存問題
11:55
climate change.
282
700000
2000
趨勢的改變
11:57
How are we going to solve climate change through negotiations,
283
702000
3000
我們如何透過談判來解決趨勢的改變?
12:00
unless we are able to make civil society and people,
284
705000
3000
除非我們能使民間社會及人民
12:03
not part of the problem, but part of the solution?
285
708000
3000
不是問題的一部份，而是解決方案的一部份。
12:06
It is going to demand an inclusive process of diplomacy
286
711000
3000
這就是要求一個外交的包括性的進程
12:09
very different from the one we are practicing today
287
714000
3000
與今日實行的大不相同
12:12
as we are heading to new rounds of difficult climate negotiations,
288
717000
3000
因為我們正朝著困難趨勢談判的新一輪邁進
12:15
but when we move toward something
289
720000
2000
但是當我們接近某件事情的時候
12:17
which has to be much more
290
722000
2000
它就應該更加
12:19
along a broad mobilization.
291
724000
2000
順著廣泛的調動
12:21
It's crucial to understand, I believe,
292
726000
3000
了解這一點很重要，我相信
12:24
because of technology and because of globalization,
293
729000
2000
因為科技也因為全球化
12:26
societies from bottom-up.
294
731000
2000
從下而上的社會
12:28
We as diplomats
295
733000
2000
我們身為外交家
12:30
need to know the social capital
296
735000
2000
需要了解共同社會的
12:32
of communities.
297
737000
2000
社會資本
12:34
What is it that makes people trust each other,
298
739000
3000
是什麼使得人們互相信任彼此
12:37
not only between states,
299
742000
2000
不只是國與國之間
12:39
but also within states?
300
744000
2000
也是國家內部
12:41
What is the legitimacy of diplomacy,
301
746000
3000
什麼是外交的合法性?
12:44
of the the solution we devise as diplomats
302
749000
3000
什麼是我們身為外交官所制定的解決方案的合法性?
12:47
if they cannot be reflected and understood
303
752000
3000
如果合法性不能也透過社會上更廣泛的力量
12:50
by also these broader forces of societies
304
755000
3000
來反省及了解
12:53
that we now very loosely call groups?
305
758000
4000
我們現在又如何能概括的稱之為團體?
12:58
The good thing is that we are not powerless.
306
763000
2000
好事是我們並非無能為力
13:00
We have never had
307
765000
2000
而是我們從來沒有
13:02
as many means of communication,
308
767000
2000
許多溝通的方法
13:04
means of being connected, means of reaching out,
309
769000
3000
連結的方法，求助的方法
13:07
means of including.
310
772000
2000
包括各種方法
13:09
The diplomatic toolbox
311
774000
2000
外交工具箱
13:11
is actually full of different tools we can use
312
776000
3000
實際上有很多我們可以使用的各種不同的工具
13:14
to strengthen our communication.
313
779000
2000
來強化我們彼此間的溝通
13:16
But the problem is that we are coming out of a decade
314
781000
3000
但問題是未來的十年裏
13:19
where we had a fear of touching it.
315
784000
2000
很怕用到它
13:21
Now, I hope, in the coming years,
316
786000
3000
現在，我希望，在來年
13:24
that we are able to demonstrate through some concrete examples
317
789000
3000
我們能夠透過一些具體的範例來證明
13:27
that fear is receding
318
792000
3000
恐懼消退
13:30
and that we can take courage
319
795000
2000
我們可以
13:32
from that alliance
320
797000
2000
從聯盟中
13:34
with civil society
321
799000
2000
和不同國家中的
13:36
in different countries
322
801000
2000
公民社會拿出勇氣
13:38
to support their problem-solving,
323
803000
2000
去支持他們解決
13:40
among the Afghans,
324
805000
2000
阿富汗人之間
13:42
inside the Palestinian population,
325
807000
3000
巴勒斯坦人口之內
13:45
between the peoples of Palestine and Israel.
326
810000
2000
在巴勒斯坦和以色列人民之間的問題
13:47
And as we try to understand this broad movement
327
812000
3000
而隨著我們試著了解這廣泛的調動時
13:50
across the Arab world,
328
815000
2000
只要跨越阿拉伯世界
13:52
we are not powerless.
329
817000
2000
我們就不是毫無力量
13:54
We need to improve the necessary skills,
330
819000
2000
我們必需改進必要的技能
13:56
and we need the courage to use them.
331
821000
2000
我們需要勇氣來使用他們
13:58
In my country,
332
823000
2000
在我的國家裏
14:00
I have seen how the council of Islamist groups
333
825000
5000
我看到伊斯蘭集團的協調會
14:05
and Christian groups
334
830000
2000
及基督教集團
14:07
came together, not as a government initiative,
335
832000
3000
是怎麼一起來的，不是政府提倡的
14:10
but they came together on their own initiative
336
835000
2000
而是出於自願的一起來
14:12
to establish contact and dialogue
337
837000
2000
來建立接觸及對話
14:14
in times where things were pretty low-key tension.
338
839000
4000
在事情低調、不緊繃的時機下
14:18
And when tension increased,
339
843000
2000
當張力增加
14:20
they already had that dialogue,
340
845000
3000
他們已經交談過了
14:23
and that was a strength to deal with different issues.
341
848000
3000
那是一種處理不同問題的力量
14:26
Our modern Western societies
342
851000
2000
我們現今西方社會
14:28
are more complex than before,
343
853000
2000
比以前更複雜
14:30
in this time of migration.
344
855000
2000
在這個遷移的時代
14:32
How are we going to settle and build a bigger "We"
345
857000
3000
我們如何解決且建立一個更大的“我們”
14:35
to deal with our issues
346
860000
2000
來處理我們的問題
14:37
if we don't improve our skills of communication?
347
862000
2000
如果不改善我們的溝通技巧?
14:39
So there are many reasons,
348
864000
2000
所以有許多原因
14:41
and for all of these reasons,
349
866000
2000
而且為了這些原因
14:43
this is time and this is why we must talk.
350
868000
3000
是我們為何一定要交談的時機到了 ，也是理由
14:46
Thank you for your attention.
351
871000
2000
謝謝來參加
14:48
(Applause)
352
873000
4000
鼓掌
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Jonas Gahr Støre - Foreign Minister of NorwayJonas Gahr Støre is the Norwegian Foreign Minister, charged with working for Norway's interests internationally.
Why you should listen
Norway sits on the edge of the strategically important North Atlantic and is blessed with oil, gas and marine resources. Its economy is open and busy, its social programs generous. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jonas Gahr Støre's job is to represent Norway in the international community and work to preserve the nation's peace and stability -- and to help create a modern multicultural society that welcomes immigrants and new traditions. This is not an abstract question after the shocking violence of 2011's terrorist attack on Norway.
Støre's approach to this task: We must talk.
He is a former executive director at the World Health Organization, and was also the Executive Chairman of the Norwegian think-tank ECON Analyse. Before becoming Foreign Minister he served as Secretary General of the Norwegian Red Cross from 2003 to 2005.
Jonas Gahr Støre | Speaker | TED.com