Today I find myself living in one of the safest cities in the world, Singapore. But the truth is, even here in Singapore, security cannot be taken for granted. It is a small nation that has no natural resources to speak of, even something as basic as water is constantly threatened to be cut off by Malaysia.
The ubiquitous Al-Qaeda network in the form of Jemaah Islamiyah is on this tiny island as well, a plot to bomb American soldiers near Yishun MRT was uncovered by the Singapore authorities months after the September 11 attacks on US soil.
Singapore captured those men, but since then bombs have gone off in Manila, Zamboanga and Bali most likely perpetrated by the same group. So do we really believe we can find all the terrorists, not only of today but of the future？
The United Nations （and its previous incarnations） has tried for more than a century to architect peace for the world. But it has clearly failed. The grand scale horrors of the World Wars may have stopped but only in the forms they had existed before.
When the enemy is unseen and there are no front lines, when death can be ingested, touched or merely inhaled, have we in fact created a more peaceful and secure place？
Where have we gone wrong？ This time even our hindsight is not perfect. Perhaps it is because the international body has never understood that peace was, is and never will be something it can engineer nor administer.
Not recognising this truth, the remedies it provides are often ephemeral and sometimes even dangerous. Solutions for threatening situations tend to be doled out in formulaic economic and political reforms.
Often the reform requires the “delinquent”country to be more like America or Britain and its idealised democratic society. The UN fails to consider, however, that hundreds of years of evolution, not sudden imposition, gave rise to these strong democracies.
Thus, almost always, the result of intervention has not been an empowered people but further corruption and chaos. Worse for them. Worse for all of us.
Of course the installment of UN peacekeepers to prevent further violence is not always unwelcome. East Timor, Bosnia and Cambodia are grateful for the help in stopping the bloodshed. Neither has each effort by the international body failed.
So in place of artificial, temporary measures such as economic sanctions and imposed political reformation, the UN should instead busy itself in building institutions that are respectful of the world's many social and cultural differences.
There needs to be the creation of dialogue and forums and circumstances that allow opposing sides to find common goals and interests. And it cannot be at the political level； it cannot be among leaders of countries. These institutions of education, affirmation and inspiration should rise where the people live.
For truly, although a government or international body cannot possess peace to give away or apportion, there are those who do possess it. Those who own peace are us, as individuals who cherish life, not our own, but all others. The act of achieving peace lies in us when we choose to respect our differences and appreciate that all our lives are fragile.
Foreign Minister of Israel Shimon Peres who resigned recently puts it this way； “Peace is a matter of an agreement, not a matter of imposition, not a matter of a one-sided act, not a matter of power. A good neighbour is always better than the best of guns that you can acquire.”
In a world increasingly helpless and desperate, looking towards the government or international bodies to right the wrong in the world today, the policy and power of peace and security in fact belongs to the individual. The government cannot stop a lone terrorist from killing. However, a compassionate neighbour can. At the end of the day, no place is safe, unless we, as individuals, decide to make it so. The day we learn to guard and cherish each other is the only day that security can make its home.
（The writer, an expatriate living in Singapore, has studied and worked in the US.）
我目前住在新加坡,一個(gè)可說(shuō)是非常安全的都市。不過(guò),就算在這兒,人們也不能視安全為理所當(dāng)然。新加坡是一個(gè)沒有天然資源的小國(guó),連基本的水供也時(shí)常面對(duì)被馬來(lái)西亞切斷的威脅。
似乎無(wú)所不在的卡伊達(dá)恐怖組織,也以回教祈禱團(tuán)的形式在這里出現(xiàn)?；亟唐矶\團(tuán)在義順地鐵站放置炸彈,炸死美國(guó)軍事人員的陰謀,在九一一事件發(fā)生后幾個(gè)月,被新加坡*揭發(fā),一些成員也被捕。
然而,連串爆炸事件過(guò)后在馬尼拉、三寶顏和峇厘島發(fā)生,它們很可能是回教祈禱團(tuán)所干。
我們真的相信可以逮捕現(xiàn)有和未來(lái)的所有恐怖分子嗎？
聯(lián)合國(guó)（和它的前身）嘗試為世界創(chuàng)造和平已經(jīng)超過(guò)一個(gè)世紀(jì),但它明顯的失敗了。像兩次世界大戰(zhàn)那么大規(guī)模的慘劇雖然沒有重演,但改變的可能只是形式而已。
當(dāng)我們看不到敵人,戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)也沒有前線,而死亡可能在接觸、吞食或呼吸的瞬息間發(fā)生,我們可以說(shuō)已經(jīng)制造了一個(gè)更和平和安全的世界嗎？
我們哪里做錯(cuò)了？這回就算事后孔明也沒有令人滿意的解釋。可能國(guó)際組織一直不明白,通過(guò)操縱的方式永遠(yuǎn)不能帶來(lái)和平。
它們往往提供短暫甚至危險(xiǎn)的補(bǔ)救辦法,也認(rèn)為解決危機(jī)的良方是經(jīng)濟(jì)和政治改革。所謂的改革一般上是要求“問(wèn)題國(guó)家”變得更像美國(guó)或英國(guó),或者他們理想中的民主社會(huì)。聯(lián)合國(guó)似乎沒有考慮到,美國(guó)和英國(guó)的民主制度是經(jīng)過(guò)幾百年的時(shí)間逐步發(fā)展形成,同樣的制度不能強(qiáng)加于其他國(guó)家。
國(guó)際社會(huì)干預(yù)的結(jié)果幾乎都是造成更多的貪污和*,受干預(yù)國(guó)家的人民并沒有因此獲得更多的權(quán)力。情況對(duì)他們來(lái)說(shuō)比以前更糟,對(duì)世人來(lái)說(shuō)也一樣。
當(dāng)然,幫助制止更多暴力事件的聯(lián)合國(guó)維和部隊(duì),并不是到處不受歡迎。東帝汶、波斯尼亞和柬埔寨都非常感激和平部隊(duì)協(xié)助他們停止國(guó)內(nèi)的血腥沖突。聯(lián)合國(guó)的努力也不是每一回都以失敗收?qǐng)觥?BR> 聯(lián)合國(guó)應(yīng)該致力于建設(shè)尊重不同國(guó)家的社會(huì)和文化習(xí)俗的機(jī)制,取代施加經(jīng)濟(jì)制裁和政治改革等不切實(shí)際和非長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)的措施。
不同意見的各方,需要有商談和討論的空間,尋找共同的利益和目標(biāo)。這樣的溝通不應(yīng)該局限于政治層面和國(guó)與國(guó)之間。另外,公眾也應(yīng)該有機(jī)會(huì)接受教育、肯定自己和發(fā)揮理想。
政府和國(guó)際組織雖然不能給予人們和平,但是,人們卻能讓自己享有和平。人們不但應(yīng)該珍惜自己的生命,也應(yīng)該珍惜他人的生命。當(dāng)我們選擇尊重彼此間的不同,意識(shí)到生命的脆弱,我們便能取得和平。
最近剛提交辭呈的以色列外長(zhǎng)佩雷斯曾說(shuō)：“和平是一種協(xié)議,不能強(qiáng)行施加,不是單方面的行為,也不是權(quán)力的表現(xiàn)。一個(gè)好鄰居永遠(yuǎn)比你所能獲得的威力槍支來(lái)得強(qiáng)。”
世界局勢(shì)越來(lái)越顯得絕望和無(wú)助,人們實(shí)際上肩負(fù)維持和平和安全的責(zé)任。政府不能阻止一個(gè)獨(dú)來(lái)獨(dú)往的恐怖分子濫殺無(wú)辜,一個(gè)充滿同情心的鄰居卻可能阻止悲劇的發(fā)生。
歸根結(jié)底,除非每個(gè)人都選擇并確保和平,天底下沒有任何地方是安全的。只有當(dāng)我們學(xué)會(huì)珍惜和維護(hù)彼此,我們才能長(zhǎng)久的享有和平。
The ubiquitous Al-Qaeda network in the form of Jemaah Islamiyah is on this tiny island as well, a plot to bomb American soldiers near Yishun MRT was uncovered by the Singapore authorities months after the September 11 attacks on US soil.
Singapore captured those men, but since then bombs have gone off in Manila, Zamboanga and Bali most likely perpetrated by the same group. So do we really believe we can find all the terrorists, not only of today but of the future？
The United Nations （and its previous incarnations） has tried for more than a century to architect peace for the world. But it has clearly failed. The grand scale horrors of the World Wars may have stopped but only in the forms they had existed before.
When the enemy is unseen and there are no front lines, when death can be ingested, touched or merely inhaled, have we in fact created a more peaceful and secure place？
Where have we gone wrong？ This time even our hindsight is not perfect. Perhaps it is because the international body has never understood that peace was, is and never will be something it can engineer nor administer.
Not recognising this truth, the remedies it provides are often ephemeral and sometimes even dangerous. Solutions for threatening situations tend to be doled out in formulaic economic and political reforms.
Often the reform requires the “delinquent”country to be more like America or Britain and its idealised democratic society. The UN fails to consider, however, that hundreds of years of evolution, not sudden imposition, gave rise to these strong democracies.
Thus, almost always, the result of intervention has not been an empowered people but further corruption and chaos. Worse for them. Worse for all of us.
Of course the installment of UN peacekeepers to prevent further violence is not always unwelcome. East Timor, Bosnia and Cambodia are grateful for the help in stopping the bloodshed. Neither has each effort by the international body failed.
So in place of artificial, temporary measures such as economic sanctions and imposed political reformation, the UN should instead busy itself in building institutions that are respectful of the world's many social and cultural differences.
There needs to be the creation of dialogue and forums and circumstances that allow opposing sides to find common goals and interests. And it cannot be at the political level； it cannot be among leaders of countries. These institutions of education, affirmation and inspiration should rise where the people live.
For truly, although a government or international body cannot possess peace to give away or apportion, there are those who do possess it. Those who own peace are us, as individuals who cherish life, not our own, but all others. The act of achieving peace lies in us when we choose to respect our differences and appreciate that all our lives are fragile.
Foreign Minister of Israel Shimon Peres who resigned recently puts it this way； “Peace is a matter of an agreement, not a matter of imposition, not a matter of a one-sided act, not a matter of power. A good neighbour is always better than the best of guns that you can acquire.”
In a world increasingly helpless and desperate, looking towards the government or international bodies to right the wrong in the world today, the policy and power of peace and security in fact belongs to the individual. The government cannot stop a lone terrorist from killing. However, a compassionate neighbour can. At the end of the day, no place is safe, unless we, as individuals, decide to make it so. The day we learn to guard and cherish each other is the only day that security can make its home.
（The writer, an expatriate living in Singapore, has studied and worked in the US.）
我目前住在新加坡,一個(gè)可說(shuō)是非常安全的都市。不過(guò),就算在這兒,人們也不能視安全為理所當(dāng)然。新加坡是一個(gè)沒有天然資源的小國(guó),連基本的水供也時(shí)常面對(duì)被馬來(lái)西亞切斷的威脅。
似乎無(wú)所不在的卡伊達(dá)恐怖組織,也以回教祈禱團(tuán)的形式在這里出現(xiàn)?；亟唐矶\團(tuán)在義順地鐵站放置炸彈,炸死美國(guó)軍事人員的陰謀,在九一一事件發(fā)生后幾個(gè)月,被新加坡*揭發(fā),一些成員也被捕。
然而,連串爆炸事件過(guò)后在馬尼拉、三寶顏和峇厘島發(fā)生,它們很可能是回教祈禱團(tuán)所干。
我們真的相信可以逮捕現(xiàn)有和未來(lái)的所有恐怖分子嗎？
聯(lián)合國(guó)（和它的前身）嘗試為世界創(chuàng)造和平已經(jīng)超過(guò)一個(gè)世紀(jì),但它明顯的失敗了。像兩次世界大戰(zhàn)那么大規(guī)模的慘劇雖然沒有重演,但改變的可能只是形式而已。
當(dāng)我們看不到敵人,戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)也沒有前線,而死亡可能在接觸、吞食或呼吸的瞬息間發(fā)生,我們可以說(shuō)已經(jīng)制造了一個(gè)更和平和安全的世界嗎？
我們哪里做錯(cuò)了？這回就算事后孔明也沒有令人滿意的解釋。可能國(guó)際組織一直不明白,通過(guò)操縱的方式永遠(yuǎn)不能帶來(lái)和平。
它們往往提供短暫甚至危險(xiǎn)的補(bǔ)救辦法,也認(rèn)為解決危機(jī)的良方是經(jīng)濟(jì)和政治改革。所謂的改革一般上是要求“問(wèn)題國(guó)家”變得更像美國(guó)或英國(guó),或者他們理想中的民主社會(huì)。聯(lián)合國(guó)似乎沒有考慮到,美國(guó)和英國(guó)的民主制度是經(jīng)過(guò)幾百年的時(shí)間逐步發(fā)展形成,同樣的制度不能強(qiáng)加于其他國(guó)家。
國(guó)際社會(huì)干預(yù)的結(jié)果幾乎都是造成更多的貪污和*,受干預(yù)國(guó)家的人民并沒有因此獲得更多的權(quán)力。情況對(duì)他們來(lái)說(shuō)比以前更糟,對(duì)世人來(lái)說(shuō)也一樣。
當(dāng)然,幫助制止更多暴力事件的聯(lián)合國(guó)維和部隊(duì),并不是到處不受歡迎。東帝汶、波斯尼亞和柬埔寨都非常感激和平部隊(duì)協(xié)助他們停止國(guó)內(nèi)的血腥沖突。聯(lián)合國(guó)的努力也不是每一回都以失敗收?qǐng)觥?BR> 聯(lián)合國(guó)應(yīng)該致力于建設(shè)尊重不同國(guó)家的社會(huì)和文化習(xí)俗的機(jī)制,取代施加經(jīng)濟(jì)制裁和政治改革等不切實(shí)際和非長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)的措施。
不同意見的各方,需要有商談和討論的空間,尋找共同的利益和目標(biāo)。這樣的溝通不應(yīng)該局限于政治層面和國(guó)與國(guó)之間。另外,公眾也應(yīng)該有機(jī)會(huì)接受教育、肯定自己和發(fā)揮理想。
政府和國(guó)際組織雖然不能給予人們和平,但是,人們卻能讓自己享有和平。人們不但應(yīng)該珍惜自己的生命,也應(yīng)該珍惜他人的生命。當(dāng)我們選擇尊重彼此間的不同,意識(shí)到生命的脆弱,我們便能取得和平。
最近剛提交辭呈的以色列外長(zhǎng)佩雷斯曾說(shuō)：“和平是一種協(xié)議,不能強(qiáng)行施加,不是單方面的行為,也不是權(quán)力的表現(xiàn)。一個(gè)好鄰居永遠(yuǎn)比你所能獲得的威力槍支來(lái)得強(qiáng)。”
世界局勢(shì)越來(lái)越顯得絕望和無(wú)助,人們實(shí)際上肩負(fù)維持和平和安全的責(zé)任。政府不能阻止一個(gè)獨(dú)來(lái)獨(dú)往的恐怖分子濫殺無(wú)辜,一個(gè)充滿同情心的鄰居卻可能阻止悲劇的發(fā)生。
歸根結(jié)底,除非每個(gè)人都選擇并確保和平,天底下沒有任何地方是安全的。只有當(dāng)我們學(xué)會(huì)珍惜和維護(hù)彼此,我們才能長(zhǎng)久的享有和平。