[오..누네띠네]2023.1.5. 미 국무부 언론 브리핑 中 (1)

[cjs5x5]

아. 오늘 브리핑은 다뤄야할 량이 많습니다. 그리고 그놈의 CD작업도 해야합니다. 가독성 문제도 있고해서 둘로 쪼개서 봐야할 거 같습니다. 그냥 복붙해서 뻘겋고 퍼런 줄만 그으면 될 테지만 제 성미가 그걸 허용하질 않네요.

언제나 그렇듯이 번역에 태클걸어주시면 오히려 대환영입니다!

(사실 태클걸리길 바랄 지경입니다. 그래야 생산적일테니까요.)

-

https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-january-5-2023/

Department Press Briefing – January 5, 2023 - United States Department of State

1. 다음주 워싱턴 미 국무부에서 미일 외교.국방장관 2+2회담 개최.

MR PRICE: Good afternoon, everyone. Happy Thursday. I have one very brief item at the top, and then we’ll turn to your questions.

Secretary Blinken and Secretary of Defense Austin will co-host the 2023 U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee meeting with Japanese Foreign Minister Hayashi and Japanese Defense Minister Hamada on January 11th here at the Department of State.

The U.S.-Japan alliance remains the cornerstone of a free and open Indo-Pacific region. The United States and Japan will discuss our shared vision of a modernized alliance that will tackle 21st century challenges in the Indo-Pacific and around the world.

With that —

QUESTION: Well, that was brief.

MR PRICE: I told you it was brief.

QUESTION: Very brief. So they won’t talk about North – I don’t want to get in – I have other questions. I mean, they’ll talk about North Korea, right?

MR PRICE: Yes, Matt, I can assure you that North Korea will be a topic of discussion.

---> 말 그대로 다음주 워싱턴 미 국무부에서 미일 외교.국방장관이 2+2회담을 개최한다고 합니다.

https://www.voakorea.com/a/6906679.html

국무부 “미일 외교·국방장관 회담 다음 주 개최…북한 위협도 주요 의제”

--->그리고 프라이스 대변인은 북한이 의제에 오를거라는 Matt Lee의 말을 확인해줬습니다. 그리고 미일동맹은 여전히 connerstone에 머물러 있습니다. 반면에 한미동맹은 linchpin이라는 표현이 사용되어왔습니다.

cornerstone

linchpin

* 한참 뒤의 문답이지만 가독성을 위해 미리 당겨옴.

QUESTION: If I could just follow up on the U.S.-Japan 2+2 meeting next week.

MR PRICE: Sure.

QUESTION: Could you share what the U.S. is hoping to achieve during those meetings? And will the Secretary be discussing his upcoming trip to China with the foreign minister?

MR PRICE: We’ll have more on this when – as the timing for the 2+2 approaches. But this is an annual opportunity for the – our counterparts from our treaty ally to convene to speak to the broad set of interests that we have – diplomatic, political, economic, security, defense – and the broader set of regional interests as well. Of course, our bilateral relationship with Japan is the cornerstone of a free and open Indo-Pacific, so we’ll have an opportunity to go beyond that bilateral relationship and to speak to some of the challenges and opportunities to that shared vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific region. I would expect that there will be discussion of the challenges that are presented by the PRC.

As we’ve had occasion to say even in recent days, our approach to the PRC is in many ways – in many ways rests on alignment with allies and partners around the world, and of course that includes our allies in the Indo-Pacific. We face a threat and a series of challenges from the DPRK that will of course be on the agenda as well, including especially as the DPRK has accelerated its provocations, may have plans for additional provocations in the days and weeks ahead.

So it will be a full agenda; it will be a very full day. But we’ll have more to say as the ministerial approaches.

---> 미일 2+2회담에 대한 내용을 말 그대로 brief하게 전달해주고 있습니다. 평소에는 아예 조개처럼 입을 다물어버리거나 어떻게든 다른 내용으로 흘려버리는 양반이 말입니다. 그래서 저는 의아함을 느끼고 있습니다. 아무튼 간에 내용을 정리해보자면...

---> 주요의제는 두 개로 보입니다. 하나는 인도-태평양 지역문제 = 중국문제. 또 하나는 북한문제.

---> 일단 이번 2+2회담은 갑자기 잡힌 일정이 아니라 정례적인(annual)이고 장관차원의(ministerial) 일정인듯 합니다. 단순히 국방만 다루는게 아니라 외교, 정치, 경제, 안보, 국방 등등 인도-태평양 지역에 관련된 폭넓은 의제들을 의논하는 동시에, 단순한 미일 양국관계가 아닌 그 이상의 차원까지(go beyond that bilateral relationship) 의논할 것으로 보입니다. 이전에 제 글에서 적었듯이 남한과 일본은 미국에게 특별취급받고 있는 중대한(critical) 동맹입니다. 그러니 미국은 일본과 일반적인 양자관계들보다 더 중대한 의제를 의논핳 것입니다.

---> 그 중대한 의제는 본문에도 적혀있듯이 인도-태평양 지역에서의 폭 넓은 이익사항들(broader set of regional interests)입니다. 그리고 이러한 이익사항들은 당연히 중화인민공화국과 결부되어 있습니다. 프라이스 대변인도 아예 대놓고 "나는 중화인민공화국에 의해 제기되고 있는 도전들에 대한 의논이 있을 것이라고 예상하는 바입니다"라고 말했을 지경으로요.

---> 바이든 행정부는 미국 혼자만이 아니라 동맹과 파트너들과 함께 정렬된 접근(alignment)을 중국을 향해 하고 싶어함도 언급되었고, 이번 미일 2+2회담에서 최근 북한이 취한 일련의 도발행위들과 도전도 다뤄질거라고 하네요.

QUESTION: And then just quickly following up, last month Japan announced their new security strategy. They also announced increase in their defense budget. So do you anticipate those will have any effect as far as will the U.S. be seeking to discuss any new roles that Japan might play in the alliance?

---> 일단 예전에도 썼듯이 기시다 정권은 내년부터 5년간 방위비를 이전보다 50% 더 많이 증액할 것을 지시했습니다.

https://www.yonhapnewstv.co.kr/news/MYH20221206011000038

기시다, 방위비 412조원 확보 지시…"결국 빚내서?"

---> 이러한 사실로 인해 미국의 동맹관계속에서 일본에게 새로운 역할이 주어지는 것 아니냐고 기자가 중대한 질문을 던졌습니다. 

MR PRICE: Well, the announcement of the new doctrine was something that we heartily welcomed, we commended from Washington. You heard that from the senior-most levels of the government. Secretary Blinken put out a statement in his name as well. You saw and you see in the new Japanese documents really a doctrine and a strategy that is entirely complementary to ours, and I think what many of us called out was the emphasis that the Japanese security strategy places on partners and alliances, and the recognition of the fact that everything we seek to do to promote our vision – our shared vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific region – is better advanced when we have partners by our side.

That is true of when the U.S. and Japan work together – when we work together bilaterally; when we work together trilaterally in the context of the DPRK; when we work together through various blocs and groupings, whether that’s through the Quad, whether that’s through IPEF, whether that is through any other formulation that we’ve exercised in over the past couple years.

So we’ll have more to say to all of this as the 2+2 approaches.

Yeah.

---> 일단 프라이스 대변인은 일본의 방위비 증액 소식에 대해서 매우 환영(heartily welcomed)한다, 기시다 행정부의 새로운 독트린과 전략도 미국의 '자유롭고 열린 인도-태평양 지역'이라는 비전과 상호보완적이다는 바이든 행정부의 입장을 명확히 밝혔습니다.

---> 그렇지만 일본의 새로운 역할이 주어지는지 여부에 대해서는 역시 말을 돌리며 명확히 이야기해주질 않았습니다. 미합중국과 일본은 늘 어떤 형태로든 함께 일해왔다는 말을 하면서요. 하지만 순전히 제 감으로는 일본이 새로운 역할을 맡는거 같진 않고 그냥 기존의 역할이 더욱 강화되었다는 뉘앙스로 들립니다. cornerstone이라는 표현이 유지된 것을 보면 말입니다.

---> 뭐랄까... '웅이는 늘 밥을 해줬어'라는 밈처럼요.

-

2. 푸틴의 휴전선언은 bullshit. 

QUESTION: The President already spoke to this, I realize, but maybe you have a more formal response on the ceasefire that was announced by President Putin. Does the United States have a reaction to this? Could it be a good thing in some ways? Are you skeptical about the intentions?

MR PRICE: This is really a better question for President Zelenskyy, and that’s because, of course, it was Russia that invaded his country, that invaded Ukraine. But I can offer our perspective on this. From our perspective, there is one word that best describes that, and it’s “cynical.” It’s “cynical” in large part because it comes just days after Moscow perpetrated these New Year’s Day attacks on Ukraine civilian infrastructure, its civilian centers, following repeated days of attacks against similar targets. And I hesitate to even call them targets because, again, these are civilian centers in many cases.

---> 푸틴의 휴전선언에 대한 공식 입장을 말해달라는 질문에 대변인답게 bullshit을 "cynical"이라는 고급어휘로 바꿨습니다. 푸틴은 정교회 성탄절을 구실로 휴전을 선언해놓고 바로 우크라이나의 민간시설을 공격했다면서요. 

So as you can tell, we have little faith in the intentions behind this announcement. Our concern – it’s a concern that you heard from Secretary Blinken in his end-of-year press conference a couple weeks ago – is that the Russians would seek to use any temporary pause in fighting to rest, to refit, to regroup, and ultimately to reattack. And so in that sense, it can’t be considered a ceasefire if the intent is to train their fire with even more vengeance, with even more ferocity, with even more lethality against the people of Ukraine.

If Russia were truly serious about peace, about ending this war, it would withdraw its forces from the sovereign territory of Ukraine. That is what constitutes an end to this war. It is what we have called on Russia to do. It is what the Ukrainians have called on Russia to do. It is what much of the world has called on Russia to do.

---> 여기에 더해서 프라이스 대변인은 푸틴의 휴전선언의 의도에 대해서 첨언weigh in했습니다. 바로 재공격을 위한 재보급과 휴식일뿐 정전으로 여길 수 없다고 말입니다.

---> 그리고 우크라이나 전쟁에 대하여 미국의 중요한 입장도 표명되었습니다. 러시아가 종전을 원한다면 우크라이나의 주권이 미치는 영토에서 병력을 퇴거시키라는 입장 말입니다.

QUESTION: A follow-up —

QUESTION: Ned, but couldn’t this be taken at face value, that they are actually celebrating Christmas? I mean, I remember – I’m the Vietnam War generation. We used to have a Christmas truce.

MR PRICE: Said, I think we know better than to take anything we see or hear from Russia at face value. Unfortunately, they have given us no reason to take anything that they offer at face value. You’ll recall the process we went through in the days and weeks leading up to February 24th, when the decision seems to have been preordained that President Putin would go in to Ukraine with the brutality that we have since seen over the course of the past 11 months. At every juncture in this war, they have given us no reason to give them even a single shred of doubt. Were they to change that, of course we would welcome that. It’s just not something we’ve seen.

Andrea.

QUESTION: Do you have concerns that this is going to be a propaganda benefit to Vladimir Putin?

MR PRICE: It is, of course, possible that in addition to the practical impact of this – the ability of its forces to refit, to regroup, to rest, and ultimately to reattack – that President Putin seeks to fool the world, to fool the world in a new and different way, that he seeks to divide public opinion, to perhaps induce the rest of the world into thinking that perhaps there’s a reason to give them a shred of doubt. But there is not. When we’ve seen previous announced ceasefires in the past, of course, especially in the early days of this war, we heard these announcements. They were heralded by the Kremlin. They were followed by brutal strikes in places like Mariupol against fleeing civilians.

Whether this so-called ceasefire over the Orthodox Christmas will hold, that of course is a question that only Russia knows the answer to at this point. But to us, this is not – this does not appear to be a change in the tide of the war. It does not appear to be a strategic change in Russia’s plan or its approach. It appears to be a bid to continue to do what it has inflicted upon the Ukrainian people for nearly a year now, as it seeks to rest, refit, regroup, and ultimately reattack.

---> 또다른 기자는 푸틴의 휴전선언에 대하여 선전전의 효용이 있느냐고 물어보았고, 프라이스 대변인은 다시 한번 푸틴의 휴전선언은 재공격을 위한 재보급과 휴식일 뿐임을 강조했습니다. 그리고 사람들의 인지의 차원에서 푸틴은 기만행위를 하고 있다고도 첨언하였구요.

QUESTION: And have you seen any sign of willingness by Russia, back channel or otherwise, to negotiate, to sit down diplomatically?

MR PRICE: We have not.

---> 여러분도 그렇게 생각하듯이 프라이스 대변인이 이토록 명확하게 수식어 없이 단답형으로 대답한건 처음봤습니다. '공유할 사항이 없다'가 아니라 그냥 '러시아가 협상이든 대화든 외교적으로 해법을 찾는 징후따윈 없다'. 이런건 그냥 말 그대로 받아들이면 될 거 같습니다.

QUESTION: May I follow up on this one? I mean, the President said he thinks that Putin was trying to find some oxygen. Can you please help us unpack that? Did the President mean some kind of offramp or rest area for Putin? Do you think Putin is trying to manipulate the West, assuming that we have been playing into his games when we announced, telegraphed, what we were not going to do until now?

MR PRICE: Repeat the last part of the question.

---> 비슷한 답변이 또 오니까 아예 제껴버리네요.

* 이 아래에도 우크라이나 관련 이야기들이 이어지는데 별 영양가는 없어 보여서 생략했습니다.

3. 자포리자 원전에 UN평화유지군을 보내라?

QUESTION: Can I have one more on Ukraine, please?

MR PRICE: Okay.

QUESTION: Ukraine said the UN should send peacekeepers to Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, even without Russia’s agreement. Is the United States behind this initiative? Do you support that?

---> 정확히 말하자면 우크라이나 원전 국영기업인 Energoatom의 회장 Petro Kotin이 UN은 자포리자 원전에 평화유지군을 보내야한다고 주장한 바 있습니다.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-official-says-time-un-peacekeepers-nuclear-plant-2023-01-04/

Ukraine official says time for U.N. peacekeepers at nuclear plant

---> 그리고 IAEA와 UN사무총장은 각각 자포리자 원전을 보호구역과 비무장지대로 설정해야한다고 촉구한 상황입니다. 젤렌스키 대통령은 이러한 주장에 대해 원전 비무장화 구상이 있다면 지지한다는 뜻을 밝혔고, 러시아측은 우리가 우크라이나측에 대항하여 원전을 보호 및 방어하고 있다는 입장을 내놓고 있습니다.

https://m.hani.co.kr/arti/international/international_general/1057852.html

IAEA “자포리자 원전, 핵안전 보호구역으로… 주변전투 중단을”

MR PRICE: So we are absolutely behind the IAEA. The ZNPP and its energy belong to Ukraine. Russia’s seizure of the plant and abuse of its Ukrainian civilian operators are causing tremendous instability and dangerous conditions at this nuclear power plant. Russia should withdraw from the plant, return it to Ukrainian control. We support any effort that improves stability and decreases threats to the plant’s integrity, returns full control back to Ukrainian authorities, and avoids catastrophic nuclear incident. The IAEA has been engaged on this. It has spoken to its efforts to establish a nuclear safety and security protection zone around the ZNPP. We have full faith and confidence in the IAEA in their efforts to do that. Those are efforts that we support.

---> 프라이스 대변인은 명백하게 미국은 IAEA의 보호구역안을 지지한다고 밝혔습니다. 그리고 자포리자 원전의 소재는 어디까지나 우크라이나의 것이며 러시아측은 원전에서 퇴거하여 우크라이나에게 통제권을 돌려줘야한다고도 명백하게 밝혔습니다.

QUESTION: When you say “in their efforts” you also mean – that includes peacekeeping missions? And is the United States willing to take a part if the IAEA decides to send —

MR PRICE: Again, the IAEA has put forward a plan to establish a nuclear safety and security protection zone around the ZNPP. That is something that we support. Ultimately, we have called on Russia to vacate its positions at the ZNPP. This is a plant that belongs to Ukraine, because it is soil that belongs to Ukraine. Not only the plant but everything around it is Ukrainian territory.

---> 미국이 평화유지군을 보낼 의향이 있느냐는 질문에 대해서는 딱 잘라서 대답을 회피했습니다. 다만, 다시 한번 자포리자 원전은 우크라이나의 것이니 러시아는 방 빼라고 강조했네요.

-----

남은 부분은 중국 및 남중국해와 우크라이나전에서의 터키 에르도안 이야기입니다. 그건 서두에 써두었듯이 내일이어서 쓸까 합니다.

[_Arondite_]

조흔 요약에 매번 감사드립니다.