이번 브리핑에선 눈에 띄는 것들이 별로 없었습니다. 뭔가 놓친거 같은데 눈에 들어오질 않네요.
언제나 그렇듯이 번역에 태클걸어주시면 오히려 대환영입니다!
(사실 태클걸리길 바랄 지경입니다. 그래야 생산적일테니까요.)
-
https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-march-7-2023/
1. 서방의 무기가 크림반도 러시아 민간인에게 쓰인다면?
QUESTION: And if I could just get one quick on Ukraine that wasn’t mentioned.
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: Zelenskyy has vowed to retake Crimea, where Russian civilians have lived for almost a decade now. And he said he’s going to launch the spring offensive when Western tanks arrive – or someone in Ukraine, an advisor has. Are you guys concerned about Western weapons being used against Russian civilians in Crimea?
---> 젤렌스키가 크림반도를 되찾겠다고 맹세했닥도 합니다. 그리고 춘계공세때 서방의 전차가 도착하는데 미국은 서방의 무기가 크림반도 러시아시민에게 쓰이는 사태를 걱정하느냐고 물어보고 있습니다.
MR PRICE: A couple points. First, and most importantly, Crimea is Ukraine. That has been the position of the United States and the vast majority of the global community since 2014. Only a small handful of countries have offered anything to the contrary. Crimea is Ukraine. It will be Ukraine going forward. That will not change.
---> 프라이스 대변인은 또다시 크림반도는 우크라이나의 영토임을 명시하고 있습니다. 그게 2014년부터 미합중국과 전세계의 대부분의 입장이라고 말입니다.
When it comes to the decisions that President Zelenskyy and his government will make, there’s – those are their decisions. We are supporting Ukraine, our partners in Ukraine, to take on the battle where it is raging. Right now, it’s raging in the east. It’s raging in the south. We’re providing our Ukrainian partners with what they need to defend themselves, to defend their territory, to defend their democracy, and ultimately to be effective in the battle where it is at the moment.
---> 그리고 젤렌스키 정부의 결정은 그들의 결정이고 미국은 그들이 필요로 하는 것들을 지원할 것이라고 하네요.
QUESTION: But if it were to – if civilians were to take casualties, what would the U.S. position, you know —
---> 하지만 만약 민간인들이 피해를 입고 그 중에 미국의 비중이 있다면...
MR PRICE: Again, that’s a hypothetical. Ukraine is going to make its own decisions. It will define what it seeks to accomplish. But we are supporting Ukraine as it is taking on Russian invaders where the battle is raging right now. That’s in the south, that’s in the east.
---> 프라이스 대변인은 가상의 이야기에 대한건 씹고 우크라이나가 동쪽으로 가든 남쪽으로 가든 전투를 지원할 것이라고 하네요.
2. 틱톡을 막았잖아요? 그럼 중국 단말기는?
QUESTION: There was a TikTok – I have a question to – America made ban for TikTok, and was there any discussion with the Chinese side about this? I’m just wondering what is the current assignment for Chinese devices?
---> 제목 그대로 입니다. 틱톡은 막았는데 중국 단말기는 안막냐는 겁니다.
MR PRICE: What is our current —
QUESTION: Assessment for Chinese devices.
MR PRICE: Well, we don’t paint with a broad brush, but I think you’ve heard my colleagues from the White House and from other partners across the government express the concern that we have for technologies like TikTok, technologies that we recognize that foreign governments could use to pose a threat to the privacy, the personal security to American citizens, or to pose a more systemic threat to the United States and our interests. These are challenges that we’re attuned to, but ultimately, this is a matter that is under review by the relevant authorities in this country and we’re not going to get ahead of that review.
QUESTION: Thank you.
---> 그래서 프라이스 대변인은 우리는 목적에 맞는 수단을 사용한다(we don't paint with a broad brush)라고 운은 뗐지만 중국 단말기에 대한 건은 현재 관계 부처에서 평가중에 있다고 답변해주었습니다(this is a matter that is under review).
3. 매카시 하원의장의 대만방문에 대해 이번 행정부는 걱정하는가?
MR PRICE: Dylan.
QUESTION: Yeah, I know you said yesterday that it would ultimately be up to Speaker McCarthy to decide what he’s going to do as far as traveling to Taiwan or not. Part of the reporting that covered that also said that there was concern on both sides, including in the administration, about China’s reaction to such a visit. Can you speak to that? Is that true? Is there concern within the department, within the administration about how China would react to that visit if it happened?
---> 뭔가 질문이 중언부언이라서 요약하기 거시기하네요. 아무튼 간에 매카시 하원의장의 대만방문에 대해 국무부나 바이든 행정부내에 우려하는 기색이 있느냐는 겁니다.
MR PRICE: Dylan, Congress is an independent, coequal branch of government. The Speaker, any member of Congress is going to make his or her own decision about the meetings that they take or choose not to take or how they take those meetings or where they take those meetings. We routinely engage with members to share information that we have.
--> 일단 원론을 꺼냈습니다. 하원의원과 의회 구성원은 누구를 회담할지, 안 회담할지, 어떻게 회담할지, 어디서 회담할지를 선택할 수 있다는 겁니다.
Look, our broader concern, leaving aside the reports that have been out there about Speaker McCarthy and a potential engagement, is the fact that the PRC has consistently sought to undermine the prevailing status quo, the status quo that has upheld decades of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.
We saw the PRC in the aftermath of Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan attempt falsely to claim that her visit was a change to the status quo and to use that as a pretext to undermine the prevailing status quo. Our charge and our goal, unlike that of the PRC, is not to undermine the status quo; it is to reinforce, it is to strengthen the status quo, because we recognize that the status quo across the Taiwan Strait has undergirded peace and security, it’s enabled commerce, it has contributed to the vision we share with so many of our partners of a free and open Indo-Pacific. We are concerned that the PRC and its deeds, its words has sought to undermine that, and that’s something that we’re continuing to watch very closely.
---> 다만, 중국은 대만해협에서의 현상유지를 깨려고 하며. 대만과 미국측이 현상유지를 깨려한다고 거짓주장을 하는데 펠로시의 대만방문을 이용했다고 합니다. 미국의 목표는 중국과 달리 대만해협의 현상유지를 깨지않으려하는 것임에도 말입니다.
-