일단 앞선 브리핑들에서 나온 이야기들은 좀 생략하면서 페이스를 끌어올릴까 합니다.
언제나 그렇듯이 번역에 태클걸어주시면 오히려 대환영입니다!
(사실 태클걸리길 바랄 지경입니다. 그래야 생산적일테니까요.)
-
https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-february-22-2023/
* 이번 브리핑에서는 미 국무부 Global Criminal Justice의 Ambassador Beth Van Schaak가 동석하였음. 전세계 사법에 관한 부서이다보니 이스라엘, 북한, 러시아를 엮은 질문들이 나왔음.
AMBASSADOR VAN SCHAAK: Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. As you’ve heard, Vice President Kamala Harris announced – at the Munich Security Conference – Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s determination that members of Russia’s forces and other Russian officials have committed crimes against humanity.
This determination follows extensive analysis by the department, including my office, which is the office of Global Criminal Justice, of information indicating that members of Russia’s forces: committed execution-style killings of Ukrainian men, women and children; tortured civilians in detention, including through beatings, electrocutions, and mock executions; raped women and girls; and, alongside other Russian officials, deported hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian civilians, including children.
The key element is this widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population, and this is what generally distinguishes crimes against humanity from other international crimes. In the case of Ukraine, the Secretary determined that the attack against the Ukrainian civilian population was both widespread and systematic. And he also noted that “We reserve crimes against humanity determinations for the most egregious crimes.”
Russia is committing against the Ukrainian people.” The United States, together with the international community, is committed to holding those responsible – both the direct perpetrators and the architects of violence – to account, no matter how long this might take. This includes supporting existing pathways to accountability in Ukrainian courts, in the International Criminal Court, in the International Court of Justice – and in courts around the world, once they establish jurisdiction over individuals accused of committing international crimes in Ukraine. This is a new Nuremberg moment, and the world must remain united in support of justice.
AMBASSADOR VAN SCHAACK: So, there generally are three now active pathways to justice; one is the off to the prosecutor general in Ukraine, which is actively pursuing cases. Their courts are open and operative, and they’ve brought a number of cases already. The State Department is supporting the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group, which is deploying experts drawn from the world’s war crimes tribunals to Kyiv to support their counterparts in that effort.
The second pathway to justice is of course the International Criminal Court(* ICC, 국제형사재판소), seized of jurisdiction by virtue of Ukraine’s consent to jurisdiction. And then, finally, you have a number of European law enforcement offices joining together to form a joint investigative team. They’re sharing information about potential cases with an eye towards bringing cases in European courts. And there are a number of investigations that are happening around the world as well. Our own Department of Justice has produced – has created the War Crimes Accountability Team, the so-called WARCAT. They’re focused on this new legislation that Congress has given us.
지금부터 아래에 나오는 내용들은 '미국이 러시아의 전쟁범죄나 제노사이드에 대해서 그렇게 할거라고? 그럼 다른 나라에는 어쩔건데?'라는 내용 두 개와 러시아에 대한 내용이 있습니다.
1. 이스라엘에는 어쩔건데?
MR PRICE: Said.
QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. Thank you, Madam Ambassador. Just to clarify, neither Ukraine nor the U.S. are signatories to the Rome protocols, for instance. So where would they take it to? That’s one. And second, I have a question on the Palestinian territories. I mean, much of what you have described occurs day-in and day-out in the Palestinian occupied territories(* 이전 브리핑에서 Said기자는 팔레스타인은 점령상태하에 있다는 대답을 얻은바 있음). The Israelis do this day-in and day-out, including today. They killed 10 people and injured a hundred others. Many of them, lots of them are civilians. So, there’s home demolitions and so on. But you discouraged the Palestinians from pursuing a course that you are recommending for Ukraine. And my question to you is: Why not? Since we see events like summary executions, home demolitions, forced defections, and so on.
---> 이전 브리핑에서 이미 적었듯이 Said는 팔레스타인인 기자입니다. 또한 미국 대학의 겸임교수이기도 합니다. Said는 미 국무부 브리핑에서 팔레스타인인의 입장에서 질문하기로 알려져 있습니다. 팔레스타인이 점령당한 상태속에서 이스라엘은 거주구역을 급습하여 사람들이 죽이고 있는데, 왜 팔레스타인에게는 우크라이나와 같은 조치가 없느냐는 겁니다.
AMBASSADOR VAN SCHAACK: Yeah, so with respect to the Palestinian Authority, the question arises as to whether or not it’s sufficiently a state in order to invoke ICC jurisdiction.
---> 이에 대해서 쉬아크 대사는 팔레스타인이 국제형사재판소의 관할이 닿는 국가냐는 논쟁이 제기된다고 대답하였습니다.
QUESTION: I’m sorry, but not the Palestinian Authority. We’re talking about an occupied territory. There is a military occupation force that really controls these territories.
---> 이에 대해서 Said는 질문을 고쳐합니다. 팔레스타인 당국이 아니라 강제로 점령상태하에 놓여있는 점령지에 대해서 말하는 것이라고요.
AMBASSADOR VAN SCHAACK: But only states can invoke the ICC jurisdiction, and I think that’s the open question that would have to ultimately be litigated by the court itself. When it comes to Ukraine, states can voluntarily submit themselves to jurisdiction, and that’s what Ukraine has done – although it has not ratified the statute, as you note; nor has the United States. And we’ve always said that it’s a sovereign decision of any state to decide whether or not to ratify a treaty and to join the ICC. And we have no objection to states doing that, or to exercising their right to consent on an ad hoc basis to jurisdiction, which is what Ukraine has done.
---> 기본적으로 국제형사재판소의 <로마규정>에 비준되어 있는 국가들은 서로를 ICC에 기소할 수 있습니다. 하지만 국가인지 여부가 문제가 된다면?
---> 아. 한마디로 망국의 설움이라는게 이런 식으로 구현되는가 봅니다. 오직 국가만이 주권이 있으므로 국가가 아니면 국제형사재판소에 제소조차 할 수 없다는 겁니다(Only states can invoke the ICC jurisdiction). 유대인들은 2천년동안 나라가 없었다고 합니다. 그리고 그 설움을 2천년뒤의 팔레스타인 사람들에게 떠넘기는 꼴이네요.
---> 국제형사재판소의 <로마규정> 제13조 나.항에 의하면 UN안보리가 결의하면 로마규정 비가입국조차 ICC에 회부될 수 있긴 합니다. 하지만 미국이 그래줄까요? 자국의 파병군인을 기소당하지 않게 하려고 자기들조차 서명을 철회중인 상태인데.
https://www.unikorea.go.kr/nkhr/current/international/icc/generalize/
회부 절차
ICC는 당해 행위가 발생한 영역국(만약 범죄가 선박이나 항공기에서 발생한 경우에는 그 선박이나 항공기의 등록국), 범죄 혐의자의 국적국 중 1개국 이상의 로마규정 당사국 또는 ICC의 관할권을 수락한 국가가 소추관에게 관련 상황을 회부하거나 소추관이 독자적으로 수사를 개시하는 경우에 관할권 행사가 가능하다.
그러나 로마규정의 당사국이거나 ICC의 관할권을 수락한 국가가 아니라고 하더라도 유엔 안전보장이사회가 관련 상황을 소추관에게 회부한 경우에는 관할권 행사가 가능하다. 다만, 유엔 안전보장이사회의 ICC 회부는 5개 상임이사국을 포함한 9개 이사국의 찬성이 필요하며, 상임이사국이 거부권을 행사하 는 경우에는 회부를 할 수 없다.
2. 북한에는 어쩔건데?
MR PRICE: A final question. Janne.
QUESTION: Yes. Something different. Do you think North Korean leader Kim Jong-un should be reported to the ICC?
---> 김정은은 국제사법재판소에 기소되어야 한다고 생각하세요?
AMBASSADOR VAN SCHAACK: Well, there was an effort, if I’m remembering correctly, back in 2014 to consider whether or not the Security Council would refer the matter of North Korea to the ICC; and as I recall, that effort was blocked by some permanent members of the Security Council. So absent North Korea referring itself, which of course would not happen, the only way to assert jurisdiction would really be through the Security Council.
---> 한마디로 말해서 현재 북한은 <로마규정>에 비준해있지 않으므로 북한을 ICC에 기소하려면 UN안보리 결의를 통해서 해야한다는 말입니다. 하지만 2014년에도 이미 UN안보리 차원에서 북한의 기소를 고려했으나 몇몇 상임이사국의 반대로 인해 무산되었다고 합니다. 그러므로 현재로썬 북한이 스스로 자신을 기소하지 않으면 ICC 관할권은 발동되지 않을 것이라네요.
---> 2014년에도 UN안보리 상임이사국인 러시아와 중국은 북한의 ICC에 비토권을 행사한바 있습니다. 그리고 지금도 달라보이진 않네요.
https://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/18/world/asia/un-north-korea-vote/index.html
The five permanent members at the core of the Security Council, including China and Russia, wield veto powers.
Opponents of the resolution – including China, Russia and Cuba – said the measure was politically manipulated and would set a precedent for other nations to be targeted in the future.
3. 러시아에는 어쩔건데?
MR PRICE: If you could indulge one final question.
AMBASSADOR VAN SCHAACK: Sure. Yeah.
QUESTION: You have said that – you mentioned Russian forces and Russian officials. Are their names compiled to be prosecuted, or are we talking about the entire chain of command?
---> 러시아군과 러시아 당국자들을 언급했는데 구체적으로 누굴 기소할것인지 지목해 놓았느냐 아니면 지도부 전체를 기소할 것이냐는 질문.
AMBASSADOR VAN SCHAACK: Yes, thank you. A number of names have been identified, including through the Conflict Observatory, which was mentioned. Many of these individuals are already subject to a sanctions determination, including Maria Lvova-Belova, the so-called “child’s rights” commissioner, which really has to be in air quotes. These individuals are already subject to sanction. But they are also potentially subject to criminal prosecution.
---> 일단 구체적으로 누굴 기소할지 리스트가 있는가 봅니다. 현재는 제재중이나 나중엔 ICC에 기소될 수 있다고 하네요.
MR PRICE: I’m really going to press my luck, but Iain, final, final question.
QUESTION: I was just wondering if there’s – if you could give any thoughts on how the pursuit of criminal justice in this might play into the eventual diplomatic negotiations that people hope will bring an end to the conflict in Ukraine. Obviously, in some cases in the past with the ICC, there’s been some thought that and debate about the fact that if you pursue certain people who are still in power, they may not step down or there – it may encourage them to keep going. So, I’m just wondering if any of that – if you have any thoughts on that debate in this particular situation.
---> 한마디로 말해서 전쟁의 종료와 자신의 불기소를 거래하려는 사람들에 대해서 어떻게 할 거냐는 질문.
AMBASSADOR VAN SCHAACK: Indeed, it is a – it’s a perennial debate, and we’ve seen in previous situations where individuals who have been subjected to accountability processes have been able to be excluded from peace arrangements such that peace can prevail with respect to more moderate leaders. And so, I think that would be the thinking here, is that there would have to be individuals who would be willing to commit to a pathway of negotiations and diplomacy in order to instantiate any kind of realistic or just peace.
There have been plenty of openings now for President Putin to do that, and he has always rebuffed those openings. We’re now having a special session at the General Assembly this week, with the goal of bringing the world together to encourage the instantiation of a real and genuine peace, one that is fair to the sovereignty of Ukraine. And so, it remains to be seen whether Russia will take that opening.
---> 이렇다 저렇다라고 말해주진 않았습니다. 하지만 그 점이 오히려 협상의 여지를 남겨두는걸로 들리네요. 저에겐.
4. 북한 결의안에 중국과 러시아가 자꾸 비토를.
QUESTION: Thank you. I have two question. Thank you, Ned. First question is North Korea. North Korea fired a Hwasong-15 ballistic missile and a super-large multiple rocket launcher a few days ago, and also UN Security Council failed to adopt condemnation statement due to opposition from China and Russia. Also, China and Russia opposed additional sanctions against North Korea at the UN Security Council. What is the U.S. position on repeatedly in China and Russia vetoes?
---> 북한이 화성-15 ICBM을 발사했고 UN안보리가 제재안을 채택하려 시도했지만 중국과 러시아의 반복되는 비토로 인해 실패했다. 이러한 행태에 대해 미국은 어떠한 입장인가?
MR PRICE: Well, let me make very clear what our position is on the most recent provocations, the most recent dangerous provocations that we’ve seen from the DPRK. We condemn the DPRK’s ballistic missile launches and its preparing for – and we are preparing for all contingencies with our allies and partners in the aftermath of the latest ICBM launch. These launches, alongside the DPRK’s February 18th ICBM test, are in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. And they pose a threat to the DPRK’s neighbors and to the international community as well.
---> 일단 북한의 ICBM 시험발사는 여러건의 UN결의안을 위반했음을 명시해두고 있스빈다.
We remain committed to a diplomatic approach to the DPRK and we call on the DPRK, as we consistently have, to engage in constructive dialogue. Our commitment, at the same time, to the defense of the Republic of Korea and Japan – that remains ironclad, and we continue to seek serious and sustained dialogue with the DPRK without preconditions, but as you know, the DPRK refuses to engage.
---> 북한에 대한 건에서 계속 반복되며 강조(raiterate)되는 말들. 이런 말들은 설명을 생략하겠습니다.
We are taking an approach that ultimately is responsible. We are standing by our ironclad security commitments, standing by our allies, making clear that we are ready to engage in dialogue and diplomacy towards that ultimate goal of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. There are other countries who are not acting responsibly. Of course, the DPRK would be at the top of that list, and you see the provocations that they’ve undertaken in recent days. But we’ve made no secret of the fact that permanent members of the UN Security Council – all member-states, of course, but especially permanent members of the UN Security Council – have a special obligation to fully implement the resolutions that have emanated from the UN Security Council itself. These are countries that – that have themselves raised their hands, voted for each resolution that has passed from the Security Council chamber, and it’s therefore incumbent on these countries to uphold these resolutions and in turn to hold the DPRK accountable for its flagrant violations of multiple UN Security Council resolutions.
In our engagement with the PRC, for example, this is a regular point of discussion. The DPRK’s ballistic missile program, its nuclear program, it is not only a threat to the United States and our people; it’s not only a threat to our treaty allies – Japan and the ROK in this case; but it is a threat to peace and security across the region, and that is not something that the PRC likes to see. It is not something that the PRC should seek to encourage, and we would like to see all countries, including the permanent five – Russia and China in this case – again, not ignore but uphold the resolutions that they themselves have passed.
---> 그리고 미국은 북한의 도발과 준동에 대해서 중국도 원치않는 것이라고 말하고 있습니다. 언뜻봐서는 이해가 안됩니다. 중국도 원치 않는다면 왜 UN안보리에서는 계속 비토를 행사할까요. 이미 나온 말이긴 하지만 앞으로 무슨 의미일지 그 단서가 나올까 지켜봐야할 대목으로 보입니다.
5. 푸틴의 New START 중단. 미국의 입장은?
QUESTION: On Russia, on – Russian President Putin recently mentioned about that it would stop participating in the nuclear disarmament treaty with the United States. What is your reaction on this?
---> 제곧내입니다. 핵감축 협정인 New START를 푸틴이 중단한다고 일방적으로 발표했습니다. 그에 대한 미국의 입장을 묻고 있습니다. 사실 전에 나왔던 이야기인데 또 나왔네요.
MR PRICE: Well, we’ve spoken to this over the past couple days. This announcement is unfortunate, but even more so, it is irresponsible. And I say that because as nuclear powers – the United States and Russia – we have a responsibility to our own people but also to people around the world to engage in the very practices that have since the dawn of the nuclear age prevented an exchange between nuclear powers: arms control talks, strategic stability talks. These are the bedrock of the global nonproliferation regime, and New START has been a vital, important tool over the course of many years now. We’ll be watching very carefully to see what Russia actually does, in the aftermath of this announcement. We’ll of course make sure that in any event we are postured appropriately for the security of our own people, of our own country, for our allies around the world should Russia take any steps that would warrant a change in our own posture.
--> 한마디로 당장 미합중국과 러시아 국민들뿐만 아니라 전세계 사람들에게 무책임한 처사였다고 합니다.
When this administration started, it was one of the first big announcements, policy rollouts we made. We extended this very treaty – the New START Treaty – because it was clearly in the national security interests of our country. It was in the national security interests of Russia as evidenced by Russia’s willingness to extend the treaty by five years. It was in the national security interests of our allies and partners, as well. And I think that only underscores what an irresponsible action this was.
We, of course, remain ready to talk about strategic arms limitations at any time with Russia – irrespective of anything else going on in the world or in our relationship. It is an understatement to say that we are now in a period of heightened tensions between the United States and Russia, but these are issues that matter to the United States, these are issues that matter to Russia, these are issues that matter to people around the world – it is what the rest of the world expects of us as responsible powers, responsible nuclear powers in this case. But as – again, this decision, it was unfortunate, it was irresponsible, and we’ll continue to monitor and see what Russia actually does.
---> New START는 미국뿐만 아니라 러시아에게도 안보적으로 이익이었고, 미국은 여전히 러시아와의 전략무기 감축을 고대하고 언제든지 대화에 나설 준비가 되어있다고 말하고 있습니다. 그러면서 특히 지금과 같이 미합중국과 러시아의 긴장이 고조된 상황속에서 푸틴의 결정은 핵무장국으로써 전세계 사람들에게 무책임한 처사였다고 다시 힐난.
---> 그리고 러시아가 실제로 무엇을 하고 있는지 계속 지켜볼 것이라고 합니다. 뭐 간단한 수사로도 보이지만 미국은 정말 그렇게 할 능력이 있다는 생각이 드네요.
6. 왕이 외사판공실 주임과 푸틴의 회담
QUESTION: — relations. This week we saw the meeting with top diplomat, Wang Yi. Putin told Wang Yi that he looks forward to seeing Chinese Leader Xi. He might be visiting soon. So, what’s your reaction to that? And also, during these meetings, both Russia and China pledged to strengthen their ties despite growing international pressure. Is the State Department concerned about the two nuclear powers coming – drawing closer together? And is there a strategy in place to stop them?
---> 일단 두 사람의 만남에 대하여 어떤 입장을 가지고 있느냐는 질문과 중국과 러시아라는 두 핵무장국이 친밀해져가는데 그것을 막을 전략같은게 있느냐는 질문.
MR PRICE: Broadly, we’ve consistently voiced concern about the nexus and the deepening partnership we’re seeing between the PRC and Russia. And we are concerned not, again, because of any underlying animus towards either country – we are concerned because these two countries share a vision. They share an intent. It is not a vision of a rules-based order, of a liberal order, of democracies living peacefully side by side. It is a vision that harkens back to a previous era, an era in which big countries could bully small countries, borders could be redrawn by force – an era in which might could make right.
---> 일단 깊이가 있어보이는 말을 꺼내고 있습니다. 일단 미국은 중국과 러시아가 친밀해지는 현상에 대해 꾸준히 우려를 표명하고 있었다고 합니다. 그리고 그 이유로써 두 국가가 같은 비전을 공유하기 때문이라고 말하고 있습니다.
---> 그리고 그 비전의 시대는 큰 국가가 작은 국가들을 괴롭힐 수 있는 시대라고 말하고 있습니다. 영토가 힘에 의해 다시 그려질 수 있는 시대. 힘(might)이 곧 정의(right)인 시대라고 말입니다.
---> 하지만 힘이 곧 정의인 사례는 팔레스타인도 그러하지만 우리도 겪고 있긴 합니다. 그러므로 정도의 문제로 받아들여야할 표현일 겁니다. 그나마 아주 조금 정의가 힘에 비벼볼수나 있는 곳으로요.
This goes back to the rules-based order that was produced in the aftermath of the Second World War, in order to prevent a third; a rules-based order that governed relations between states, set a series of principles and norms that, because countries have by and large respected them, we’ve seen unprecedented levels of security, of stability, of prosperity, of opportunity for people around the world. This was not an order that the United States authored. This was an order that countries came together – including at the UN, in the UN Charter, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in international law – came together and ultimately put together.
---> 한마디로 2차대전 이후 성립된 규범에 기반한 세계질서가 지금의 평온함과 번영을 주었다는 이야기.
We see China and Russia in different ways challenge that order; and that’s what concerns us about this burgeoning relationship between these two countries. Look, I’m not going to weigh in too much on the visit from the – Wang Yi’s visit to Russia. I will just say that his travel there on the eve of one year of Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine, is further evidence that the PRC continues to align itself with Moscow, even as Moscow wages this brutal war. I’ve said this before, but China is trying to have it both ways. China is trying to broadcast and disguise itself in this veneer of neutrality, even as it deepens its engagement with Russia in key ways – politically, diplomatically, economically, and potentially in the security realm as well.
---> 하지만 중국과 러시아는 그 규범에 기반한 세계질서에 각자의 방법으로 도전하고 있다고 합니다. 러시아는 지난 1년간 우크라이나에서 벌인 전쟁으로, 그리고 중국은 전쟁을 벌인 러시아에게 다가감으로써.
---> 비록 중국은 중립을 가장하고 있지만 중요한 분야들에서 러시아와의 관여를 더 깊게 하고 있다는 말도 첨언.
-