We most certainly do talk to terrorists, no question about it.

我們所對抗的，是一種新型態的恐怖主義。

We are at war with a new form of terrorism.

它仍然具有傳統恐怖主義的部份特性

It's sort of the good old, traditional form of terrorism,

但是也具有部分的21世紀的包裝方式

but it's sort of been packaged for the 21st century.

打擊恐怖主義的最重要的事情之一

One of the big things about countering terrorism

就是，你如何看待它呢？

is, how do you perceive it?

因為看待它的方式，決定了你如何回應它。

Because perception leads to your response to it.

所以，若你用傳統的角度來看恐怖主義

So if you have a traditional perception of terrorism,

它會是一種犯罪行為，一種戰爭

it would be that it's one of criminality, one of war.

你會如何回應呢？

So how are you going to respond to it?

很自然的，你的回應會是以牙還牙

Naturally, it would follow that you meet kind with kind.

跟它作戰。但若你用比較進步的角度來看待

You fight it. If you have a more modernist approach,

恐怖主義應該更像是一種因果關係

and your perception of terrorism is almost cause-and-effect,

從這樣的角度，你所產生的回應方式

then naturally from that, the responses that come out of it

就不會是那種一報還一報的

are much more asymmetrical.

我們生活在一個現代的、 全球化的世界。

We live in a modern, global world.

恐怖分子其實已經做了調適

Terrorists have actually adapted to it.

我們也應該要做調適，而這意味著那些

It's something we have to, too, and that means the people

負責反恐對策工作的人

who are working on counterterrorism responses

必須開始，如同戴上

have to start, in effect, putting on

谷歌眼鏡之類的(以新的角度看事情的方式)

their Google-tinted glasses, or whatever.

對我來說，我想要的是讓我們對於恐怖主義

For my part, what I wanted us to do was just to look at

採用全球品牌這樣的角度來看

terrorism as though it was a global brand,

比如說，可口可樂。

say, Coca-Cola.

兩者都對你的健康不太好。（笑聲）

Both are fairly bad for your health. (Laughter)

如果你用這種 品牌 的角度來看恐怖主義

If you look at it as a brand in those ways,

你應該會發現到，這是一個相當有缺陷的產品。

what you'll come to realize is, it's a pretty flawed product.

我們已經說過，它對你的健康非常不好

As we've said, it's pretty bad for your health,

對那些被它影響的人也不好

it's bad for those who it affects,

就算是對於自殺炸彈客，也是不好的

and it's not actually good if you're a suicide bomber either.

它並不如它的外包裝上說的那樣

It doesn't actually do what it says on the tin.

你也不會真的上了天堂，還得到72個美女

You're not really going to get 72 virgins in heaven.

這些都不會發生, 我認為不會

It's not going to happen, I don't think.

就算你贊助恐怖主義組織， 這也不會如同80年代時所宣稱的

And you're not really going to, in the '80s, end capitalism

終結資本主義。它是一派胡言。

by supporting one of these groups. It's a load of nonsense.

於是你會發現，它有一個致命弱點(阿奇里斯踵)。

But what you realize, it's got an Achilles' heel.

恐怖主義這個品牌有一個致命弱點。

The brand has an Achilles' heel.

我們前面提到過 健康，

We've mentioned the health,

恐怖主義需要有客戶來買單

but it needs consumers to buy into it.

有這樣的客戶的地方，可稱為恐怖主義的選區

The consumers it needs are the terrorist constituency.

這樣的選區裡的人喜歡並支持這個品牌、

They're the people who buy into the brand, support them,

協助這個品牌。這些人也就是

facilitate them, and they're the people

我們必須去接觸的目標族群。

we've got to reach out to.

我們必須在目標族群的面前與恐怖主義來較量

We've got to attack that brand in front of them.

有兩種基本的進行方式可採用，若我們從品牌的思路來看

There's two essential ways of doing that, if we carry on this brand theme.

一個是降低恐怖主義的市占率，我的意思是

One is reducing their market. What I mean is,

這是我們的品牌在對抗它們的品牌，我們要競爭

it's their brand against our brand. We've got to compete.

就必須顯示我們的產品比較好。

We've got to show we're a better product.

如果我想要顯示我們的產品比較好，

If I'm trying to show we're a better product,

我應該不會做出像 關塔那摩灣 那樣的事情 (美國海軍在該基地拘留審訊恐怖嫌疑份子)

I probably wouldn't do things like Guantanamo Bay.

我們所談的是 降低對產品本身的需求

We've talked there about curtailing the underlying need

你可以發現到，恐怖主義的壯大，

for the product itself. You could be looking there at

是因為 貧困、 不公正待遇，這些各種各樣的事件

poverty, injustice, all those sorts of things

的發生而滋長的。

which feed terrorism.

另一個進行方式是直接打擊對手的產品

The other thing to do is to knock the product,

打破對手的品牌迷思，如同前面說過的。

attack the brand myth, as we've said.

比如說，殺死一個年幼的孩子，根本算不上英勇的行為。

You know, there's nothing heroic about killing a young kid.

也許我們需要專注於此，讓這樣的訊息傳回去

Perhaps we need to focus on that and get that message back across.

我們必須顯示恐怖主義這個產品的危險性。

We've got to reveal the dangers in the product.

我們的目標群眾，不只是恐怖主義的製造者，

Our target audience, it's not just the producers of terrorism,

如我前面說過的，目標不只是恐怖分子。

as I've said, the terrorists.

也不只是恐怖主義的宣傳人員

It's not just the marketeers of terrorism,

不只是這些資助並培養恐怖主義的人

which is those who finance, those who facilitate it,

而應該把目標擴及恐怖主義的消費者。

but it's the consumers of terrorism.

我們必須去到那些消費者的家鄉。

We've got to get in to those homelands.

那是他們招募的地方，也是他們得到權勢與力量的地方

That's where they recruit from. That's where they get their power and strength.

也就是他們的消費者所來自的地方。

That's where their consumers come from.

我們必須讓我們的訊息傳到那裏去。

And we have to get our messaging in there.

所以從根本來說，我們必需在那些地區，

So the essentials are, we've got to have interaction

與恐怖分子、贊助者......等等，進行互動。

in those areas, with the terrorists, the facilitators, etc.

我們必須投入，我們必須去教育，

We've got to engage, we've got to educate,

而且我們必須去對話。

and we've got to have dialogue.

現在，再花一點時間談品牌這回事

Now, staying on this brand thing for just a few more seconds,

想想進行傳達的機制。

think about delivery mechanisms.

我們該如何進行這些攻擊？

How are we going to do these attacks?

嗯，減少市占率是可行的方式之一。

Well, reducing the market is really one for governments

政府和文明社會必須顯示我們是更好的選擇。

and civil society. We've got to show we're better.

我們必須顯示我們的價值觀。

We've got to show our values.

我們必須身體力行。

We've got to practice what we preach.

當談論到打擊品牌這件事的時候

But when it comes to knocking the brand,

如果恐怖分子是可口可樂，而我們是百事可樂，

if the terrorists are Coca-Cola and we're Pepsi,

我不認為，身為百事可樂，我們說的任何關於可口可樂的話

I don't think, being Pepsi, anything we say about Coca-Cola,

會有人來相信

anyone's going to believe us.

所以我們必須找一個不同的機制，

So we've got to find a different mechanism,

我所看過的最好的機制中的一個

and one of the best mechanisms I've ever come across

就是恐怖主義的受害者。

is the victims of terrorism.

如果有一個人可以真正站在那裡，說，

They are somebody who can actually stand there and say,

"本產品真的很爛。我用了它結果病了好些天

"This product's crap. I had it and I was sick for days.

它燒傷了我的手，諸如此類的"。你會相信他們。

It burnt my hand, whatever." You believe them.

你可以看到他們的傷疤。你會相信他們。

You can see their scars. You trust them.

但不管是受害者，也不管是政府、

But whether it's victims, whether it's governments,

非政府組織、或甚是英國女王昨天在北愛爾蘭，

NGOs, or even the Queen yesterday, in Northern Ireland,

我們都是需要進行互動，並與這些不同層次的

we have to interact and engage with those different

恐怖主義，建立有效的接觸

layers of terrorism, and, in effect,

我們的確需要與魔鬼跳支小舞。

we do have to have a little dance with the devil.

這是我的演講裡我最喜歡的部分

This is my favorite part of my speech.

我曾想要把你們大家都炸上天來表達我的立場

I wanted to blow you all up to try and make a point,

但是 — — （笑聲） — —

but — (Laughter) —

TED，基於健康和安全方面的考慮，已經告訴我

TED, for health and safety reasons, have told me

我必須要倒數計時

I've got to do a countdown, so

我感覺好像有點愛爾蘭或猶太人的恐怖分子的樣子，

I feel like a bit of an Irish or Jewish terrorist,

有點像是健康和安全的恐怖分子，而且我 — — （笑聲） — —

sort of a health and safety terrorist, and I — (Laughter) —

我想要倒數 3、2、1，而且

I've got to count 3, 2, 1, and

這有點令人震驚，順便想想我要喊什麼樣的口號，

it's a bit alarming, so thinking of what my motto would be,

可能會是 "身體分開了，不是心臟病發。"

and it would be, "Body parts, not heart attacks."

所以 3、 2、 1。（爆炸聲)

So 3, 2, 1. (Explosion sound)

非常好。（笑聲）

Very good. (Laughter)

現在，坐在 15J 的女士是藏身我們之中的一個自殺炸彈客。

Now, lady in 15J was a suicide bomber amongst us all.

我們都變成了恐怖主義的受害者。

We're all victims of terrorism.

這房間裡有625個人，每個人都會終身帶著傷疤

There's 625 of us in this room. We're going to be scarred for life.

有一位父親和兒子坐在那邊的座位。

There was a father and a son who sat in that seat over there.

兒子死了。父親活了下來。

The son's dead. The father lives.

父親在往後的歲月中會自責

The father will probably kick himself for years to come

為什麼他坐的不是他的兒子的位置

that he didn't take that seat instead of his kid.

他可能會開始喝酒，他大概

He's going to take to alcohol, and he's probably

會在三年內自殺。這是統計出來的數據。

going to kill himself in three years. That's the stats.

在那裡，有一個很年輕貌美的女人

There's a very young, attractive lady over here,

爆炸對她帶來的結果，會是我認為由自殺爆炸造成的

and she has something which I think's the worst form

我所見過最糟糕的心理與

of psychological, physical injury I've ever seen

身體上的損傷: 所謂的霰彈片人。

out of a suicide bombing: It's human shrapnel.

這個意思是，當她坐在一家餐館

What it means is, when she sat in a restaurant

在未來的年頭，10 年，15 年，

in years to come, 10 years to come, 15 years to come,

或者她是在沙灘上，每隔一陣子她就會開始

or she's on the beach, every so often she's going to start

揉她的皮膚，然後就會掉出來

rubbing her skin, and out of there will come

一片的霰彈片。

a piece of that shrapnel.

這對理智來說，是件很難接受的事情

And that is a hard thing for the head to take.

有位女士在那邊，在這次爆炸事件中

There's a lady over there as well who lost her legs

也失去了她的雙腿。

in this bombing.

她將會發現，她會得到一筆少的可憐

She's going to find out that she gets a pitiful amount

的金錢，從我們的政府發給她的

of money off our government

來照顧她所遭遇的事件後的生活。

for looking after what's happened to her.

她有一個女兒原本打算去就讀一所最好的大學

She had a daughter who was going to go to one of the best

這個女兒打算放棄大學

universities. She's going to give up university

來照顧媽媽。

to look after Mum.

我們都在這裡，而所有看到這個爆炸事件的人

We're all here, and all of those who watch it

將會受到心理創傷

are going to be traumatized by this event,

而你們這些遇難者，將會學到

but all of you here who are victims are going to learn

一些殘酷的真理。

some hard truths.

也就是說，我們的社會，一開始會同情，但過了一陣子，

That is, our society, we sympathize, but after a while,

我們就會開始忽略。作為一個社會，我們做得不夠。

we start to ignore. We don't do enough as a society.

我們沒有照顧我們的受害者，我們也沒有賦予他們力量，

We do not look after our victims, and we do not enable them,

我將嘗試表現的是，實際上，

and what I'm going to try and show is that actually,

受害者是我們擁有來對抗恐怖主義

victims are the best weapon we have

的最佳武器。

against more terrorism.

在千禧年交替時的政府會如何面對恐怖攻擊？

How would the government at the turn of the millennium

嗯，我們都知道。

approach today? Well, we all know.

他們所做過的是侵略。

What they'd have done then is an invasion.

如果自殺炸彈客是來自威爾斯，

If the suicide bomber was from Wales,

我會說: 祝好運啊，威爾斯。

good luck to Wales, I'd say.

訴諸直覺的立法，緊急條文的立法

Knee-jerk legislation, emergency provision legislation --

這些都打擊了我們社會的根本基礎，我們都知道 — —

which hits at the very basis of our society, as we all know --

這樣做是錯的。

it's a mistake.

我們將會驅動對威爾斯人的偏見，從愛丁堡，

We're going to drive prejudice throughout Edinburgh,

到整個英國。

throughout the U.K., for Welsh people.

現今的做法，政府已從他們的錯誤中學習。

Today's approach, governments have learned from their mistakes.

他們開始研究我在演講開頭所說的，

They are looking at what I've started off on,

關於這些更加不對稱的做法，

on these more asymmetrical approaches to it,

更多的現代主義者的觀點、 因果關係。

more modernist views, cause and effect.

但過去的錯誤是無法避免的。

But mistakes of the past are inevitable.

這是人類的天性。

It's human nature.

做這些事情所要面對的壓力和恐懼

The fear and the pressure to do something on them

將會是巨大的。他們將會犯錯。

is going to be immense. They are going to make mistakes.

他們不只是要變聰明。

They're not just going to be smart.

有一個著名的愛爾蘭恐怖分子曾下了一個

There was a famous Irish terrorist who once summed up

十分漂亮的結論。他說，

the point very beautifully. He said,

"事情昰這樣的，對於英國政府來說，

"The thing is, about the British government, is, is that it's got

必須要每次都幸運才行， 而對我們來說，只要幸運一次就夠了"。

to be lucky all the time, and we only have to be lucky once."

所以我們需要做的是，我們要去影響它。

So what we need to do is we have to effect it.

我們得開始想想，更積極地去預防。

We've got to start thinking about being more proactive.

我們需要建立一個非武力戰爭的武器庫

We need to build an arsenal of noncombative weapons

來因應這場反恐戰爭。

in this war on terrorism.

但當然，這只是想法，這並不是政府能做得很好的事情。

But of course, it's ideas -- is not something that governments do very well.

我想回到剛剛的爆炸前，那個關於品牌的想法

I want to go back just to before the bang, to this idea of

那時我談到可口可樂和百事可樂，等等。

brand, and I was talking about Coke and Pepsi, etc.

我們認為這就像是恐怖主義與民主的品牌戰爭。

We see it as terrorism versus democracy in that brand war.

他們(恐怖份子)則會把這看作自由戰士與真理

They'll see it as freedom fighters and truth

對抗不公正與帝國主義。

against injustice, imperialism, etc.

我們必須把這看作是一個致命的戰場。

We do have to see this as a deadly battlefield.

恐怖分子不只是想要我們的生命。

It's not just [our] flesh and blood they want.

他們實際上想要的，是我們文化的靈魂，這就是為什麼

They actually want our cultural souls, and that's why

品牌比喻是一個非常有趣的方式來看待這問題。

the brand analogy is a very interesting way of looking at this.

如果我們看看阿爾蓋達組織。阿爾蓋達基本上算是

If we look at al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was essentially

在某處露天市場的貨架上的產品

a product on a shelf in a souk somewhere

並沒有很多人聽說過的產品

which not many people had heard of.

而9/11事件就像是產品發表。這是一個重大的行銷日子

9/11 launched it. It was its big marketing day,

這整個事件用21世紀的手法包裝。他們知道他們在做什麼。

and it was packaged for the 21st century. They knew what they were doing.

他們有效地 [執行] 關於這個品牌形象的工作

They were effectively [doing] something in this brand image

創建了一個可以連鎖開業到全世界的品牌

of creating a brand which can be franchised around

只要有貧窮、 愚昧和不公正的現象就行得通。

the world, where there's poverty, ignorance and injustice.

我已經說過，我們要打進這個市場，

We, as I've said, have got to hit that market,

但我們要使用我們的頭腦，而不是我們的力量。

but we've got to use our heads rather than our might.

如果我們把這當成品牌來看，或以其他類似的方式來思考它

If we perceive it in this way as a brand, or other ways of thinking at it like this,

我們就不會去解決或打擊恐怖主義。

we will not resolve or counter terrorism.

我想做的是只簡短地舉出幾個例子

What I'd like to do is just briefly go through a few examples

從我在一些區域的實務經驗，試著用不同的方式進行這些事情。

from my work on areas where we try and approach these things differently.

第一個被命名為 "lawfare" (法律戰爭)

The first one has been dubbed "lawfare,"

因為這樣名字比較響亮。

for want of a better word.

當我們最初開始對恐怖分子提出民事訴訟的時候，

When we originally looked at bringing civil actions against terrorists,

每個人都以為我們是有點瘋狂的初生之犢

everyone thought we were a bit mad and mavericks

和狂想家。現在它有一個標題。每個人都在這樣做。

and crackpots. Now it's got a title. Everyone's doing it.

如果有一枚炸彈炸了，人們就會提出訴訟。

There's a bomb, people start suing.

這類早期案例之一是奧馬爆炸事件 (1998.8.15發生在北愛爾蘭)。

But one of the first early cases on this was the Omagh Bombing.

從 1998 年提出了民事訴訟。

A civil action was brought from 1998.

在奧馬，真愛爾蘭共和軍在一個和談過程之中

In Omagh, bomb went off, Real IRA,

引爆了炸彈。

middle of a peace process.

這意味著匪徒不能真的因此而被起訴

That meant that the culprits couldn't really be prosecuted

基於許多考量，主要與和談過程有關

for lots of reasons, mostly to do with the peace process

和當時正在進行的程續，公眾利益等

and what was going on, the greater good.

這也意味著，如果你可以這樣想像，

It also meant, then, if you can imagine this,

那個人炸死了你的孩子

that the people who bombed your children

和你的丈夫，卻仍然可以走在你日常生活會去的

and your husbands were walking around the supermarket

那個市場。

that you lived in.

有些受害者站出來說: 真的受夠了。

Some of those victims said enough is enough.

我們提出了私人訴訟，感謝上帝，10 年後，

We brought a private action, and thank God, 10 years later,

我們實際上贏得了訴訟。仍有一小塊上訴

we actually won it. There is a slight appeal on

目前還在進行中，所以我要稍微謹慎一點，

at the moment so I have to be a bit careful,

但我很有信心。

but I'm fairly confident.

為什麼這樣做會有效？

Why was it effective?

這會有效，並不只是因為正義被伸張了

It was effective not just because justice was seen to be done

其實這裡有一個巨大的空白。

where there was a huge void.

這是因為真愛爾蘭共和軍和其他恐怖團體，

It was because the Real IRA and other terrorist groups,

他們整體實力是基於一個事實: 他們是

their whole strength is from the fact that they are

弱者。而當我們把受害者作為弱者