으아. 아직도 1달 정도 뒤쳐지고 있습니다. 어째 뭔일 생기면 1달 밀리고, 어떻게든 따라잡고, 그러다 일이 생겨서 또 밀리고의 반복같은데... 어떻게든 해야죠 뭐.
이번에는 중국, 러시아, 북한 이야기가 많네요. 즉, 이번도 분량이 많다는 겁니다.
언제나 그렇듯이 번역에 태클걸어주시면 오히려 대환영입니다!
(사실 태클걸리길 바랄 지경입니다. 그래야 생산적일테니까요.)
-
https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-january-24-2023/
1. 일본을 포함한 G7국가들. 우크라이나에 전력망 관련 지원
MR PRICE: All right, good afternoon, everyone. Happy Tuesday. One item at the top and then I’ll take your questions.
Secretary Blinken and Japanese Foreign Minister Hayashi convened this morning a meeting of G7 foreign ministers, Ukraine’s foreign minister, key European partners, and multilateral institutions to reaffirm our collective support for Ukraine and its energy sector, which remains under a brutal assault by Russia’s missile and drone strikes. Since October, the Department of State has been leading efforts with the rotating G7 – with the rotating G7 Presidency to coordinate and accelerate the delivery of critical energy infrastructure equipment from our allies and partners to Ukraine.
---> 한마디로 말하자면 G7국가 및 주요 유럽국가들이 드론과 미사일 공격속에 놓인 우크라이나 전력망을 유지시키기 위해 지원하고 있고, 그를 위한 회의를 브리핑 당일인 1월 24일 아침에 미 국무장관 블링컨과 일본 외무상 하야시가 주재했다는 겁니다.
This group of foreign ministers last met November 29th of last year on the margins of the NATO Ministerial, where the Secretary announced over $53 million in U.S. emergency support for Ukraine’s electricity grid. Since then, the United States has delivered two plane loads of critical equipment, with another delivery scheduled soon. Further efforts include procuring high-voltage autotransformers and industrial-scale mobile gas turbine generators to support essential public services.
---> 위에서 언급한 우크라이나 전력망 유지를 위한 지원의 일환으로 미합중국은 비행기 2대 분량의 주요 장비들을 우크라이나에 전달했고, 앞으로는 고전압 자동변압기(autotransformers)들과 산업규모의 이동식 가스터빈 발전기들도 보내겠다는 겁니다.
In today’s meeting, the Secretary highlighted the newest $125 million package we announced on January 18th, which will also be used to procure autotransformers and other priority grid equipment. Since the start of the war, the United States has provided $270 million in assistance to help repair, maintain, and strengthen Ukraine’s power sector in the face of continued attacks. The Secretary applauded the tremendous efforts by our allies and partners to coordinate complicated logistics, procurement, and delivery of critical equipment to help Ukraine repair its electricity system and maintain energy sector resilience.
---> 그리고 1월 24일 회의에서 블링컨 미 국무장관은 우크라이나의 전력망과 에너지 분야의 회복성을 유지시키기 위한 동맹 및 파트너 국가들의 지대한 협력(tremendous efforts)에 대하여 찬사를 보냈습니다(applauded).
The group also condemned Russia’s continuing brutal attacks against Ukrainian energy infrastructure and its cruel consequences for Ukrainian civilians. The Secretary and partners also emphasized the importance of continuing to provide air defense systems, which have helped Ukraine defend effectively against Russian attacks.
---> 우크라이나 전력망을 지원하고 있는 국가들은 러시아의 우크라이나 에너지 인프라에 대한 공격과 그에 따른 우크라이나 민간인에게 가해진 잔혹한 결과들을 규탄하였고, 블링컨 국무장관들과 그 파트너들은 우크라이나에 계속 방공체계를 제공해주는 것의 중요성을 강조했다고 합니다.
---> 아무래도 갑자기 방공체계 이야기가 나온건 아닐것입니다. 우크라이나의 전력망을 유지시키는 행위는 단순히 인도적 차원만 있는게 아니라 전쟁수행의 일환이라는 생각이 듭니다. 즉, 전기가 없으면 싸우지 못한다는 겁니다.
The group reinforced its commitment to stand with Ukraine as long as it takes and discussed the importance of this G7+ coordination mechanism beyond emergency response, to include long-term reconstruction towards a modern, distributed, clean, and efficient Ukrainian energy system fully integrated with Europe. The Secretary committed to continuing State Department leadership, in partnership with Japan, to convene and coordinate the G7+ group at the leadership and working levels going forward.
---> 또한 단순히 우크라이나의 전력망을 복구하는 것에 그치지 않는거 같습니다. 장기적으로는 현대적이고, 분산되고, 꺠끗하고, 효과적인 전력망을 유럽에 완전히 통합(integrate)시킨다고 적고 있습니다. 이 부분은 좀 더 다른 것들도 봐야하겠지만 뭔가 많은 것을 담은 문장으로도 보입니다.
* 바로 뒤에 독일이 레오파르트2 전차를 지원하느냐 마느냐는 부분이 전날 브리핑에 이어서 쭉 이어지지만 이미 독일은 지원하기로 결정했기 때문에 생략.
2. 주미 러시아대사 안토노프와 주러시아 미국대사 트레이시의 접촉
QUESTION: Same topic, one question?
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: Russian Ambassador in D.C. Anatoly Antonov met with the new chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Moscow Lynne Tracy here at his residence. Do you have any readout on what kind of discussions —
---> 주미 러시아대사 안토노프가 그의 공관에서 신임 주러시아 미국대사 트레이시와 만났다고 합니다. 이에 대해서 어떠한 종류의 성명문이 있냐고 물어본 질문.
MR PRICE: We – this is not the type of a meeting that we would typically formally read out, but I can confirm that Ambassador Tracy did meet with Russian Ambassador Antonov. This was an opportunity for her to have a discussion with her counterpart here in D.C. As you know, Ambassador Tracy was confirmed – overwhelming confirmed – by the Senate on a bipartisan basis late last year. We expect Ambassador Tracy will be departing for the Russian Federation, where she will present her credentials in the coming days. We expect her to be in place later this month. She’s currently in the process of having consultations with desks and individuals here in Washington, and in this case she had an opportunity to have a discussion with Ambassador Antonov.
---> 프라이스 대변인은 뭔가 성명문 같은게 나올만한 형식을 갖춘(formally) 만남은 아니었지만, 아무튼 두 사람이 만났다고 확인은 해주었습니다. 다만, 그 만남의 성격은 신임대사이다보니 워싱턴에서 관련자들과 카운터파트들을 만나고 있고 그중에 안토노프 대사도 있었다는 것으로 큰 의미를 부여하고 있지 않습니다.
QUESTION: Ned, this meeting suggests that they’re all, like – diplomatic channels are on with Russia and that you are – you’re being engaging with Russia. Obviously, the Ukraine is the most important thing to discuss with them. So what you see that – what kind of demands Russia have to stop this war? I mean, obviously, they are saying something. They want this, and you can – they can stop this war. I mean, what kind of demands they are making to stop this whatever’s happening in Ukraine?
---> 이런 식으로 큰 의미를 부여하고 있지 않은 프라이스 대변인의 답변에 대하여 기자는 '그래도 그 사람들은 우크라이나 전쟁에 대하여 뭔가 할 수 있지 않은 사람들이지 않은가, 우크라이나 전쟁을 멈추기 위해서 그들은 무엇들을 요구(demands)했었는가'라고 다시 묻고 있습니다.
MR PRICE: Well, let me say this. I’m not going to speak to what Ambassador Tracy discussed with Ambassador Antonov, but I can pretty clear about what she didn’t discuss: didn’t discuss any form of a negotiated settlement over Russia’s brutal war with Ukraine. That’s not for us to do. It is not for us to do in Washington. It is for our Ukrainian partners to do with, as appropriate, our support. And we stand ready to support them, if and when the time comes for meaningful dialogue and diplomacy. We know that our Ukrainian partners are for that. We’ve heard a pretty well articulated vision for a just and durable peace that President Zelenskyy presented to the world last November and has since rearticulated, as have other members of his government.
---> 이 부분에 대해서 프라이스 대변인은 딱 잘라 말했습니다. 그 두 사람은 우크라이나 전쟁에 대하여 그 어떤 형태의 합의(settlement)도 협상하지 않았다고 말입니다. 미국은 우크라이나를 지원할 준비태세를 갖추고 있으며, 우크라이나가 의미있는 대화와 외교를 원한다면 미국도 그것을 알 것이라고 딱 잘라 말했습니다.
---> 다르게 말하자면 우크라이나가 러시아와의 대화와 외교를 원할때까지는 미국이 독자적으로 러시아와 대화 및 외교를 진행하진 않겠다는 말이기도 합니다.
Setting that issue aside, because it’s not an issue for us to discuss with Russia, we have been clear about a desire to maintain open channels of communication with Russia. We have an embassy in Moscow. It’s under duress because of the pressure and the limitations that the Kremlin has imposed on it. But because – I mentioned Ambassador Antonov a moment ago – the Russians have an embassy here, we have the ability to pick up a phone in – when that is warranted and appropriate, as Secretary Blinken has done, as Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, has done, as the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and others have done.
So there are open channels of communication. We use these channels to convey where we are on issues that are of the upmost priority to us. In our case, it’s been on wrongfully detained American citizens; it has been on the costs and consequences of potential Russian escalation – at worst the use of a nuclear weapon, other weapons of mass destruction – but other issues that are of primary bilateral importance to the United States.
---> 다만 그럼에도 불구하고 미국은 러시아와의 대화채널을 열어두고 있겠다는 의사도 밝히고 있습니다. 왜냐하면 미국과 러시아간의 양자관계에 있어 필요하니 말입니다.
* 이 뒤로는 스웨덴과 핀란드의 나토가입과 터키에 대한 이야기들이 나오지만... 영양가가 없는 이야기들 같아서 생략.
3. 이란의 기름, 러시아의 기름
Yes, in the back. Yeah, Guita.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. Special Envoy Rob Malley has said that the U.S. has been pushing China not to buy oil from Iran. Would you shed some light on that, please, and what the Chinese response may have been?
---> 미국의 이란 특사인 Rob Malley가 미국은 중국으로 하여금 이란산 원유를 구입하지 말라고 해왔다고 합니다. 이에 대한 프라이스 대변인의 코멘트를 구하고 있는 질문입니다.
MR PRICE: Sure, Guita. So we have been clear and consistent about the need for countries around the world to enforce sanctions that are on the books and, as appropriate, to increase pressure on the Iranian regime in response to its intransigence. We are regularly and robustly engaged with the day-to-day business of enforcing our sanctions, including with regular and effective communications with allies and partners about those attempting to evade our sanctions.
---> 한 마디로 말해서 미국은 동맹과 파트너로 하여금 대이란 제재를 준수할 것을 분명히 요청하고 있다는 겁니다.
As Iran’s largest oil customer, the PRC remains a top focus for our sanctions enforcement. We regularly engage with the PRC and other countries to discourage them from taking steps vis-à-vis Iran that – from taking steps vis-à-vis Iran that have the potential to undermine U.S. sanctions. We don’t preview potential sanctions actions, but we continue to monitor Iran’s oil exports and to engage Iran’s trading partners about the possibility of exposure to U.S. sanctions.
---> 그리고 중국은 이란의 가장 큰 원유 구매자로써 주요한 제재 대상으로 남아있다는 겁니다. 그리고 미국은 계속 이란의 원유 수출을 감시(monitor)하고 있으며, 이란의 무역 파트너들에게 미국 제재를 위반할 가능성에 대해 상기시키고 있다고도 하네요.
---> 찾아보니 어제자로 이란이 미국의 제재로 인해 2018년부터 한국에 동결된 석유대금의 동결을 해제하라고 요구했다고 하네요.
https://moneys.mt.co.kr/news/mwView.php?no=2023022101408070580
And that possibility of exposure is not just an academic question or a hypothetical. We, during the course of this administration, have levied multiple tranches of designations targeting Iran’s illicit petroleum and petrochemical trade over the past year or so. Some of these have included PRC-based entities or actors. In September of last year, for example, we sanctioned two PRC-based entities for operating crude oil storage facilities for Iranian petroleum products and a shipping company that had transported Iranian petroleum products, along with affiliated entities in other countries. In June of last year, 2022, we sanctioned a network of Iranian petrochemical producers and front companies in the PRC, UAE, and Iran.
---> 이러한 맥락속에서 이란의 석유류 혹은 석유에서 가공한 화학물질의 불법거래에 관련된 여러건의 채권이 징수된 것을 바이든 행정부에서 포착하였고, 그 채권들중의 일부는 중화인민공화국의 실체들 혹은 개인들과 연루되어 있다는 겁니다. 그리고 이란산 유류품들을 저장하고 운송한 중공의 실체 2개를 미국이 제재먹이기도 했고요.
QUESTION: On the – Russia and Pakistan. A few days ago, Russia said that it’s nearing a deal to sell oil to Pakistan, which of course traditionally hasn’t been a major importer of Russian oil but has some very serious economic problems. Does the United States have a stance on that – on this? Has there been any dialogue with Pakistan about whether to move forward or not?
---> 러시아가 거의 파키스탄에 원유를 판매하려한다는 소식이 들려왔다면서, 본래 파키스탄은 러시아산 원유의 고객이 아니었는데 무슨 일이냐. 미국은 어떠한 입장을 가지고 있느냐는 질문이 왔습니다.
MR PRICE: Well, our approach to this is – has been laid out in the price cap mechanism that we worked out with other countries around the world, including the G7. And the virtue of the price cap is that it allows energy markets to continue to be resourced while depriving Moscow of the revenue it would need to continue to propagate and fuel its brutal war against Ukraine.
---> 프리이스 대변인의 답변은 서방세계의 러시아산 원유에 대한 '가격 상한제'가 작동한 결과라고 말하고 있습니다. 서방세계의 가격상한제의 요점은 러시아산 원유의 유통은 계속 시키되(어차피 못막으니까), 최고가격을 제한하여 러시아가 이윤을 보지 못하게 하는 것에 있습니다.
---> 가격 상한제에 대한 사항은 12월 12일자 브리핑 참고.
https://cafe.daum.net/shogun/OCbn/530
We have made the point that we have very intentionally not sanctioned Russian oil. Instead, it’s now subject to the price cap. So we have encouraged countries to take advantage of that, even those countries that have not formally signed on to the price cap, so that they can acquire oil in some cases at a steep discount from what they would otherwise acquire from, in this case, Russia.
---> 가격 상한제는 러시아산 원유에 대한 제재조치는 아닙니다. 그래서 오히려 서방세계가 아닌 국가들도 가격 상한제의 혜택을 받을 수 있습니다.
We have been very clear that now is not the time to increase economic activity with Russia. But we understand the imperative of keeping global energy markets well resourced, well supplied, and the price cap, we believe, provides a mechanism to do that.
---> 가격 상한제의 골자를 다시 설명해주고 있습니다. 계속 세계 에너지 시장이 돌아가게 하되 이윤만 못보게 하겠다.
4. 미 국무부 북한인권특사 임명
QUESTION: One on China?
MR PRICE: Let me move around. Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. I want to ask regarding Ms. Julie Turner, nominee for special envoy on North Korea human rights issues. Can you add some more details about her career and competence as a diplomat? And also what’s the reason for nominating her two years after the inauguration of Biden administration?
---> 줄리 터너라는 인물이 북한인권특사로 임명되었습니다. 이 인물에 대한 질문입니다. 찾아봐도 많이 나오질 않네요.
MR PRICE: Sure. So first, let me just say that we congratulate Julie Turner on her nomination as the U.S. special envoy on North Korean human rights issues, and we look forward to the Senate confirming her, we hope, swiftly. She is uniquely qualified for this position, having worked for nearly two decades on North Korean human rights and other regional issues in the State Department and at the National Security Council staff. There are few people with the depth of knowledge, experience, and relationships that she brings to bear on North Korean human rights issues.
---> 20년간 북한 인권에 대하여 일하여 왔고, 다른 지역의 이슈에 대하여 미 국무부와 NSC에서 일한 경력이 있다고 합니다.
This administration, as you know, is committed to placing human rights at the center of our foreign policy. And for decades the United States has championed efforts to improve respect for human rights and dignity of North Koreans and we’ll continue to promote accountability for the DPRK Government, for its egregious human rights records, including through the appointment of the special envoy for North Korean human rights.
---> 바이든 행정부는 인권을 대외정책의 중심에 놓겠다고 공약했으며, 미국은 계속 조선민주주의 인민공화국 정권의 악명높은 인권관련 전적에 책임을 지우려한다고 말하고 있습니다. 그리고 북한인권특사는 그러한 미국정책의 일환이라는 겁니다.
Even has this position has been vacant – and of course, it’s a position that wasn’t filled by the previous administration, so it’s been some time since we’ve had a Senate-confirmed individual in this position – State Department officials at all levels, from the Secretary on down, have been actively engaged on issues of North Korean human rights. This engagement has included working with the international community to raise awareness of these issues and introducing resolutions in multilateral bodies, documenting violations and abuses through our annually Congressionally mandated reports, and supporting efforts to increase the flow of information into, out of, and through the DPRK.
---> 비록 미 국무부의 모든 차원에서 북한인권에 관련된 일들에 관여해왔으나(have been actively engaged on issues of North Korean human rights), 지난 트럼프 행정부부터 2년간 자리가 공석이었다고 합니다(다 합해서 6년간 공석이었음).
Julie Turner’s appointment reflects our priority in addressing the DPRK’s deplorable human rights situation.
---> 이번 북한인권특사의 지명은 중국의 통탄할 인권 상황에 대한 바이든 행정부의 우선순위를 반영한 것이라고 설명을 마치고 있습니다.
Kylie.
QUESTION: Just a quick one on that.
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: So by nominating her, the administration doesn’t plan to elevate its focus on North Korea human rights abuses?
---> 모두가 궁금해 할 직설적인 질문이 나왔습니다. '그래. 특사는 지명한다쳐. 그렇다고 뭐가 달라질게 있어?'
MR PRICE: She will be the special envoy for North Korea human rights issues, of course. She will fulfill a position that, as I mentioned before, was vacant for the entirety of the last administration, hasn’t had a Senate-confirmed individual in place for a number of years now. I would add, however, that even in the absence of a Senate-confirmed individual in this role, it’s been a focus of ours. We are very pleased to see Julie Turner’s nomination and, again, we hope that she is swiftly confirmed by the Senate so she can be in place formally in this role before long.
---> 어쩌면 이렇게도 해석될 수 있고 어쩌면 저렇게도 해석될 수 있는 말이 나왔습니다. 인권특사가 없었어도 북한 인권문제는 우리 모두의 관심대상이었다.
---> 싱겁게 해석하면 그냥 우리 국무부 일이 많다보니까 이것만 전담해서 분담할 사람이 필요했다. 즉, 딱히 큰 변화 없다. 또다른 해석은 우리 국무부는 이전부터 이 주제에 관심을 가져왔다. 그러므로 북한인권에 대한 더욱 집중된 케어가 있을 것이다.
---> 그런데 아직도 미 상원에서 임명안이 통과되지 않은듯 합니다. 아마 좀 있으면 국내에서 짧게 뉴스가 나오지 않을까 합니다.
5. 펜타닐과 중국에 대한 재질문
Yeah, Dylan?
QUESTION: Yes. You said twice in the last week or so that China is no longer a major source of fentanyl coming into the United States. Joe Biden, President Biden’s, top official working on the overdose crisis through said just this past weekend that it’s still a major source of a components of fentanyl flowing into the United States. I know you’ve mentioned those when you were talking about the subject, but isn’t that a bit of a distinction without a difference to say – to commend China for restricting the flow of fentanyl itself when it’s still distributing all the components needed to make fentanyl, is still a major source of that?
---> 한마디로 줄이자면 대변인은 1월 18일 언론브리핑에서 중국은 더이상 미국으로 유입되는 펜타닐의 주요공급처가 아니라고 말했는데, 막상 바이든 행정부 고위 관계자는 반대의 말을 하지 않았느냐는 질문입니다. 프라이스 대변인이 문제의 발언을 할때 구분(distinction)을 잘 못한거 아니냐는 겁니다.
---> 참고사항은 여기.
https://cafe.daum.net/shogun/OCbn/555
MR PRICE: I think it’s a distinction that I laid out very clearly yesterday, when I was last asked about this. Made the point that the PRC scheduled fentanyl and related substances as a class in 2019, but we continue to see the PRC-origin precursor chemicals used in illicit fentanyl production. Don’t want to discount – and in fact, I pointed out earlier this week, yesterday I believe it was – that we have a concerted focus on fentanyl at this department because it is a leading killer of Americans between the ages of 18 and 49. The Secretary is determined to see to it that we are doing everything that we can from the equities of this department to be responsive to addressing this challenge, working with countries around the world, working with our partners in the Executive Branch to see to it that there’s no stern – stone unturned. And when we travel around the world, this is an issue that he routinely raises.
---> 프라이스 대변인은 구분의 문제가 있던거 같다고 대답했습니다. 비록 중국이 2019년에 펜타닐 관련 물질들을 A class로 분류하였음에도 불구하고 중국으로부터 유래된 불법 펜타닐 제조원료들을 계속 주시해야한다고 마했던 거라고 말입니다.
When it comes to the PRC, of course it’s a complex, multifaceted relationship. One of those facets is the potential for deeper cooperation in some areas. We would like to see that. We would like to see greater cooperation between the United States and the PRC on fentanyl, specifically on these precursor elements that, as you alluded to, do still make their way to third countries and ultimately form the basis of so much of the fentanyl that arrives in the United States and kills our citizens.
---> 중국과 관계된 일은 복잡하지만 그럼에도 불구하고 어떤 분야들(facets)들은 잠재적으로 양국간 협력을 심화시킬 수 있으며, 그 분야중의 하나가 바로 펜타닐이라는 말입니다.
This is not a challenge that affects Americans alone – far from it. That’s why it is incumbent on countries like ours – in this case, the United States and the PRC – to work together where we can – and we believe we can, in this case – to take on a challenge that is such a threat to our citizens and citizens of the world. This is precisely what the rest of the world, what the international community expects of the United States and the PRC, to do everything we possibly can to tackle a challenge like this.
---> 역시 위 문단과 같이 펜타닐은 중국과 미국이 협력할 수 있는 분야라는 말이 나오고 있습니다.
QUESTION: You did say yesterday also that there hasn’t been much engagement on this issue in recent months. And now you’re saying that it’s a top priority, of course, and that the Secretary mentions it often. So does that mean that the PRC are the ones that are holding up that engagement, are the ones not engaging on the issue?
---> 어제는 펜타닐 관련하여 중국과 별다른 관여가 없다고 하더니 오늘은 또 최우선 과제라고 하지 않느냐. 어느말이 맞느냐고 되묻고 있습니다.
MR PRICE: I didn’t intend to suggest – and I don’t think I did – that there hasn’t been a priority in this building. The point I made is that engagement on these issues has been limited in recent months. We’re actively seeking to engage the PRC to accelerate the engagement on this particular issue with them in that bilateral relationship.
---> 이에 대하여 프라이스 대변인은 자신의 요점은 최근 요 몇달동안은 펜타닐 이슈에 대하여 중국과의 관여가 없다고 말했을뿐, 미국은 계속 중국과의 양국관계속에서 펜타닐 이슈에 대하한 관여를 가속하고 있다고 잘라 말하네요.
6. 풀타임이 곧 정책에 대한 관심도를 반영하는가?
Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. Follow-up on North Korea. When it come to the North Korean issue, I think Ambassador Sung Kim is still concurrently serving as special representative for the DPRK. If you are seriously looking for the diplomatic path with DPRK, why don’t you guys just appoint a full-time special representative for DPRK?
---> 제 글에서도 여러번 언급되었던 성김 대북특별대표에 대한 질문이 나왔습니다. 미국이 북한에 대해 그토록 외교를 중시한다면 왜 풀타임 대북특별대표를 임명하고 있지 않느냐는 질문.
---> 현재 성김 대북특별대표는 인도네시아 대사도 겸임하고 있습니다. 그래서 나온 질문.
MR PRICE: When it comes to Sung Kim, who is serving concurrently as our special envoy to the DPRK and as our bilateral ambassador to Indonesia, he is an extraordinary talent. There is – there’s few people, if anyone, who has his level and depth of knowledge when it comes to the issues that are at play with the DPRK. He’s been involved with this for many years. We want to make sure that we’re leveraging that experience, that knowledge, that expertise as well.
---> 프라이스 대변인의 대답은 간단합니다. 성김은 대북정책에 있어서 특별한 자질을 가지고 있다. 미국은 그의 경험과 지식과 전문성을 필요로 한다.
---> 미 국무부 언론브리핑에서 한 사람에 대해서 이렇게까지 extraordinary한 형용사를 붙여준 예는 본적이 없는거 같네요.
Now, there’s a very practical issue at play. We’ve made very clear that we seek to engage directly with the DPRK to see if we can arrive at practical, pragmatic steps we can take towards what is our ultimate objective of the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The DPRK, unfortunately, has demonstrated no interest or willingness or ability to engage with us on these questions. So it may be a different story were there active diplomacy ongoing with the DPRK, were there active dialogue ongoing.
---> 현재 미국은 매우 분명하게 한반도의 완전한 비핵화라는 최종 목표를 위한 실용적이고 실질적인 단계들을 추구하기 위해 조선민주주의인민공화국과 직접 관여하고 있다. 하지만 그럼에도 북한은 미국의 관여에 아무 대답도 하지 않고 있다. 이러한 맥락부터 말한뒤에...
In the absence of that, Sung Kim has been very focused on working with our Japanese allies, on our South Korean allies, other allies in the Indo-Pacific, other allies and partners around the world. That is a significant amount of work, and if we are to arrive at a position where it does make sense to have an individual singularly focused as special envoy for the DPRK, we can cross that bridge, but right now Sung Kim has been doing a really tremendous job as our ambassador and as our special envoy.
---> 북한의 대답이 없는 상황에서 성김 특별대표는 일본과, 남한과, 인도-태평양의 다른 동맹들과, 전세계의 다른 동맹 및 파트너들과 일하는데 매우 집중하고 있다고 합니다. 이러한 작업은 굉장한 양의 작업들을 요하며 지금 현재 성김 특별대표는 정말 어마어마한 일을 해왔다는게 프라이스 대변인의 답변입니다.
---> 제가 생각해도 한반도라는 방정식은 작업의 측면에선 정말 끔찍한 방정식일거 같습니다. 하지만 그만큼 사람을 불타오르게 만드는 방정식도 없을거 같네요.
-