드디어 미 국무부 언론 브리핑을 재개하게 되었습니다. 다만, 저도 알바일정이 있는터라 대개 격주로 작업을 해나갈거 같습니다.
그리고 적시성이 떨어지는 문제를 어떻게 해결할까 고민해봤습니다. 그래서 3월초까지의 분량은 최대한 간략하게, 하루에 2편을 올리며 페이스를 따라잡으려 합니다. 그냥 다 생략하고 3월 13일자부터 할까 했는데 윤석열 행정부의 일본에 관한 건이 있기 때문에 생략하진 않기로 결정했습니다.
언제나 그렇듯이 번역에 태클걸어주시면 오히려 대환영입니다!
(사실 태클걸리길 바랄 지경입니다. 그래야 생산적일테니까요.)
-
https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-february-27-2023/
1. 북한. 미합중국이 우릴 적대적으로 대한다면 전쟁으로 간주할 것이다.
QUESTION: On North Korea, North Korea has declared that if the United States continues to treat them hostilely, it will be considered war. How would you comment on this?
---> 제목 그대로입니다. 북한이 만약 미합중국이 계속 우릴 적대적으로 대한다면 전쟁으로 간주하겠다고 발언했다는데 그에 대한 미 국무부의 코멘트를 구하고 있습니다.
MR PRICE: I’m sorry, it would be considered —
QUESTION: Yeah, if the U.S. continued to treat them hostilely, it would be considered war.
MR PRICE: Janne, you know that we don’t respond to provocations and we don’t respond to propaganda. We have made our position on the DPRK, I think, crystal clear. We have a policy of seeking to bring about the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The DPRK’s nuclear weapons, its ballistic missile programs pose a threat not only to Americans in the region, but of course to our treaty allies, to whom we have an ironclad security commitment. It is the DPRK that, time and again, at a – in an unprecedented rate, has engaged in provocations, including multiple tests of ICBM systems, other ballistic missiles, and other provocative activities that have posed a threat to peace and security in the Indo-Pacific and, in some ways, even well beyond.
---> 이러한 도발들에 대한 미 국무부의 코멘트는 없다고 딱 잘라말하면서 미국의 북한에 대한 입장을 다시한번 반복하고 있습니다.
Even as we have pointed out the threat that we and our partners in the region face from these programs and these dangerous provocations, we have made very clear that we have no hostile intent towards the DPRK. That is also why for more than a year now we have made very clear our willingness to engage in direct talks with the DPRK without pre-conditions to help bring about, to advance the prospects of the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. That remains our policy. It is the DPRK that, on the other hand, has only engaged in provocation after provocation, and has rejected our diplomatic overtures time and again.
---> 그리고 도리어 미합중국은 한반도의 완전한 비핵화라는 정책을 유지하면서 북한에 대한 적의가 없는데, 북한측에서 계속 도발만 반복하며 미측의 외교적 접근을 거부해오고 있다고 합니다.
Nevertheless, our diplomatic overtures remain. We would like an opportunity to discuss these issues face to face, if that’s the preference. But we believe in diplomacy, even as we have made clear, in word and in deed that we are going to stand by the security commitments that we have to our treaty allies, to Japan, to the Republic of Korea, to our allies around the world.
---> 제가 보기엔 이렇습니다. 미국이 동맹국에 대한 안보공약을 지키기 위해 하는 행동들이 북한에게는 아픈 기억을 건드리고 있다고 말입니다.
---> 그렇다면 북한의 아픈 PTSD를 건들고 있는 한미연합훈련은 북한과의 외교를 위해 유보될 만한 가치가 있을까요? 불행히도 그렇지 않습니다. 북한은 외교적으로 너무 많이 나쁜 전례들을 남겨왔습니다. 북한을 믿고 기대한다는 것만큼이나 자기지지 기반을 잃어버리기 좋은 바보같은 짓도 없을 겁니다. 너무나도 수지가 안맞는 결정이죠.
---> 그리고 한미, 아니 정확히는 한미일의 이와같은 훈련들은 북한에 의해 시행되고 있습니다. 하지만 이 훈련으로 인해 수확할 과실은 다른곳에도 쓰일 수 있습니다. 다시 반복하지만 북한은 대중국 전선을 형성하기에 너무나도 좋은 구실이 되어주고 있습니다.
2. 중국. 우리가 러시아에 뭘하건간에 간섭하지 마!
QUESTION: Lastly, China countered that the United States should not interfere with whether or not it provides arms to Russia. How would you react to this?
---> 중국이 미합중국에게 우리가 러시아에게 무기를 제공하건 말건 간섭하지 말라고 반박했다고 합니다. 이에 대한 미 국무부의 코멘트를 구하고 있습니다.
MR PRICE: Well, I – we react to it by expressing our concern. And this is the concern that you heard Secretary Blinken articulate a couple weeks ago now, after his meeting with Wang Yi in Munich. We are concerned that the PRC is contemplating providing lethal assistance to Russia for Russia’s use in Ukraine for a number of reasons, including for the impact it would have on the battlefield inside Ukraine, but also because the PRC has attempted to maintain this veneer of neutrality.
---> 이에 프라이스 대변인은 중국은 중립을 가장하고 있으나 러시아가 우크라이나에서 사용할 살상지원에 대해 고려하고 있다는 점에 우려하였다고 말했습니다.
The PRC has told the world that, essentially, it is not taking a position, but rather it has tried to portray itself as an honest broker. In word and in deed, however, the PRC has been anything but an honest broker. Leaving aside the question of lethal assistance – which we don’t believe the PRC has provided yet, but we do believe it is considering – leaving that aside, the PRC has already provided important forms of assistance to Russia, including in the context of its aggression against Ukraine. It’s provided Russia with diplomatic support, with political support, with economic support, with rhetorical support, including by parroting Russia’s dangerous propaganda, dangerous lies, and disinformation on the world stage.
---> 그리고 중국은 이미 러시아의 우크라이나 전쟁수행에 있어서 주요한 지원들을 해왔다고 합니다. 외교적, 정치적, 경제적 지원을 제공하고, 러시아의 정보조작(disinformation)을 국제사회에서 앵무새마냥 되뇌이면서요.
That should be a concern, of course, to all of those who are standing with Ukraine and standing against Russia’s aggression. It should be a concern to all of those who are standing with the UN Charter, the principles that are at the heart of the UN system, the principles that are at the heart of international law.
---> 그리고 이러한 중국의 행동은 UN헌장을 준수하는 모든 이들이 우려해야만 하는 것이라고도 첨언.
The PRC, of course, issued a so-called peace plan in recent days. The first tenet in that peace plan was to call for the respect – respect for the sovereignty of all countries. If the PRC were to abide by that first tenet, it would fall clearly on the side of the UN Charter. It would fall clearly on the side of international law. It would fall clearly on the side of all of those who are standing with Ukraine, who are standing against Russia in Russia’s war of territorial conquest, Russia’s attempted land grab in Ukraine.
So we hope that the PRC uses – begins to use its influence in a constructive way. There are countries around the world that, if they sought to bring this war to an end, would have a significant amount of leverage with the Russian Federation, with other key countries. The PRC certainly falls within that category. But to date, at least, despite the PRC’s protests to the contrary, we have seen them very clearly take a side in this war.
---> 사실 중국은 이번 전쟁을 끝낼 수도 있는 주요한 지렛대가 될 수 있는 국가이지만, 현재로썬 이 전쟁속에서 한쪽편을 들고 있는것이 명백하다고 하네요.
(한참 뒤 문단)
QUESTION: And given that, it’s my understanding that it’s your position that China has no credibility in inserting itself as a peacemaker at any point.
---> 그러니까 내가 이해하기로는 지금 현재로썬 중국이 스스로를 피스메이커로 만들거란 신뢰가 없다는 거네요?
MR PRICE: Well, look, I don’t want to be categorical about it because there are countries around the world that have leverage with Russia that we just don’t have. It is undeniable that the PRC has a relationship with Russia that the United States does not have at this moment, it didn’t have prior to February 24th of last year, it hasn’t had in recent years. When it comes to the PRC and Russia, that’s a relationship that has been deepening in recent years.
So if China were serious about seeking to bring an end to this war, it would have influence, it would have leverage over the government in Moscow that we would hope it would use in a constructive way. It does give us pause, concern, that Russia – excuse me – that the PRC has engaged with Russia, including with high-level visits, Wang Yi’s visit to Moscow just within recent days, even while the PRC is not engaged symmetrically with Ukraine.
---> 정말 중국이 전쟁을 끝낼 방법을 모색했다면 이미 모스크바에게 건설적인 방식으로 영향을 행사했을 것이라는 내용.
That speaks, to us, to the fact that this may not be a serious proposal, but it all really boils down to the fact that if this were a serious proposal and if the PRC were serious about the 12 ideas that it put on the table, there’s only one that would call for the PRC to stand against what is very clearly a war of aggression, what is very clearly a war of territorial conquest, and that’s the very first point: the point in the PRC plan that calls for the respect of the sovereignty of countries around the world. Russia is not respecting that, and we certainly wish the PRC would use that influence to encourage Russia to adhere to that first principle.
---> 중국은 국제사회에 대하여 주권에 대한 존중을 요청하고 있는데(* 남중국해에서) 러시아는 우크라이나에 대하여 그러고 있지 않고 있다. 중국은 러시아에 대하여 자기 자신의 주장을 요청했으면 좋겠다는 내용.
---> 그리고 이 소식에 관련해서 3월 18일에 일본 교도통신은 우크라이나 전쟁에서 중국산 탄약이 사용되었다는 보도를 냈습니다. 하지만 그 뒤로 후속보도는 나오고 있지 않습니다.
-