오..누네띠네 2023.1.4. 미 국무부 언론 브리핑 中

[cjs5x5]

이번 브리핑은 이것저것 내용도 많고 그것에 이어서 연계되는 내용도 많습니다. 그래서 제대로 옮겨냈을지 의문입니다. 편하게 작업하려면 그냥 죄다 긁어와서 색깔만 찍찍 칠해주면 되지만 그래가지고선 아무런 가치가 없으니까요. 이미 완역도 힘이 딸려서 포기한 마당에 그렇게까지 해버리면...

언제나 그렇듯이 번역에 태클걸어주시면 오히려 대환영입니다!

(사실 태클걸리길 바랄 지경입니다. 그래야 생산적일테니까요.)

-

https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-january-4-2023/

Department Press Briefing – January 4, 2023 - United States Department of State

1. 프라이스 대변인의 서두

- 미합중국 정부 차원의 '글로벌 여성 경제 안보' 전략 + 30년간의 근속이후 은퇴하는 Philip T. Reeker 대사.

MR PRICE: Happy Wednesday, everyone.

QUESTION: Happy Wednesday.

MR PRICE: We have two elements at the top before we turn to your questions. First, this morning, Secretary Blinken, Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Gender Policy Council Klein, and the United States Agency for International Development Administrator Power launched the first-ever whole-of-government U.S. Strategy on Global Women’s Economic Security. This strategy aims to support women and girls around the world, in all their diversity, to fully, meaningfully, and equally contribute to and benefit from economic growth and global prosperity.

This strategy has four priority lines of effort. First is promoting economic competitiveness and reducing wage gaps through well-paying, quality jobs; second is advancing care infrastructure and valuing domestic work; third is promoting entrepreneurship and financial and digital inclusion, including through trade and investment; and fourth is dismantling systemic barriers to women’s equitable participation in the economy.

The Department of State worked with eleven departments and agencies to develop this strategy. All of them will each formulate corresponding action plans and regularly report progress on implementation of this strategy.

---> 이 부분은 이후에 Matt Lee에 의해 아프가니스탄 인권상황 이야기로 이어지게 됩니다.

---> 엉뚱하긴 하지만 우리나라 대통령은 대선때 페이스북에 '여가부 폐지'란 단어를 써놓았던게 생각나네요.

Next and finally, today we announce the retirement of Ambassador Philip Reeker from his role as the senior advisor for Caucasus negotiations, from the Foreign Service, effective tomorrow, January 5th. For over thirty years, Ambassador Reeker has epitomized dedication and service to the department and the people of the United States of America, including as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs and as our chargé d’affaires at our embassy in London.

Ambassador Reeker’s work as the senior advisor for Caucasus negotiations accelerated engagement and helped build a structured process to bring peace to a troubled region. His contribution reaffirms the importance the United States places in helping Armenia and Azerbaijan negotiate a bilateral sustainable peace, as well as our goal of supporting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia, as lead of our delegation to the Geneva International Discussions. Since the beginning of Ambassador Reeker’s appointment in August of last year, it was always understood and expected that he would serve in this position on a short-term basis until the end of last year.

Ambassador Reeker’s departure in no way undermines the United States’ commitment to promoting a secure, stable, democratic, prosperous, and peaceful future for the South Caucasus region. The United States continues to engage bilaterally with likeminded partners, like the European Union, and through international organizations, like the OSCE, to facilitate direct dialogue between Azerbaijan and Armenia and to find solutions to all outstanding issues related to or resulting from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Ambassador Reeker’s extraordinary career at the department has focused on the most challenging of our diplomatic endeavors. From his work on peace agreements to his tireless efforts to negotiate the release of detainees, to his work at this very podium, Ambassador Reeker’s efforts have stemmed the tides of conflict and changed lives for the better. On behalf of the department, we thank Phil for his service and wish him the best in the next chapter of his career. We will all miss him very much.

---> 본문에서 제가 표시한 대로 Philip T. Reeker는 30년이상 외교현장에서 헌신해온 전업 외교관으로 보입니다. 2019년 5월부터 2021년 7월에는 유럽 및 유러시아담당 국무부 차관보를 지내기도 했습니다.

2. 또다시 Matt Lee vs Ned Price

- Matt Lee는 위에서 프라이스 대변인이 서두를 떼었던 '글로벌 여성 경제 안보 전략' 이야기를 하면서 화제를 아프가니스탄으로 옮김. 화기애애하게 '그분 일 많이 했어요. 대변인님은 좀 더 축하드릴 필요가 있어요'라는식으로 환담하다가 바로 본문으로 들어가는게 능구렁이 같네요. 

QUESTION: Speaking of Afghanistan, your first opening statement talked about the Global Women’s Economic Security. And yet in the Secretary’s speech, there was one – a one-word mention of Afghanistan in a one-sentence part of it. Why not highlight this a little bit more, considering you have expressed deep concern and reservations about the situation for women and girls in Afghanistan?

---> 당신 아프간 인권상황에 대해서 깊은 우려(deep concern)를 가지고 있다고 표현한적 있잖아? 당신 상관도 글로벌 여성 경제 안보 이야기하면서 아프간도 이야기했고. 그런데 왜 서두에 아프간 이야기는 빼먹었냐는 겁니다.

MR PRICE: Of course.

QUESTION: And this seemed – this would have seemed like a good opportunity to say something a little bit more than a clause.

MR PRICE: So a couple things on this, Matt. The event this morning was to launch the U.S. Strategy on Global Women’s Economic Security. This is an agenda that, as I detailed at the top, has several proactive and affirmative elements. Unfortunately, our work when it comes to supporting the women and girls of Afghanistan right now is focused, first and foremost, on seeking to mitigate the harms that the Taliban has inflicted on the women and girls of Afghanistan. This is a strategy that applies to women and girls around the world – to developed countries, developing countries alike. It is with a great degree of remorse that we say that women and girls in Afghanistan are, unfortunately, in a category unto their own.

---> 일단 '글로벌 여성 경제 안보'는 어젠다로써 예방적이고 확언적인 요소들을 가지고 있다고 합니다. 아프가니스탄 여성들에게 적용될떄에 있어서는 탈레반의 인권저해를 완화하는 방법을 모색하는 것에 초점을 두고 있다는게 프라이스 대변인의 대답입니다. 다만, 대단한 정도의 죄책감(great degree of remorse)도 표현하고 있습니다.

And there is one actor that is responsible for placing them in that category. That is the Taliban. The steps, successive steps, that the Taliban has taken over the course of recent months – first with the edict banning girls from receiving secondary education, most recently with the edict banning international NGOs working with female humanitarian aid workers – these are steps that the Secretary has weighed in on in his own voice. These are actions that the Secretary, of course, is engaged on. The department as a whole is also engaged on them. As I mentioned yesterday at some length, we are working with our partners throughout the government and also with likeminded partners around the world to devise an appropriate set of consequences that register our condemnation for this outrageous edict on the part of the Taliban, while also protecting our status as the world’s leading humanitarian provider for the people of Afghanistan.

---> 아프가니스탄 내 여성인권을 좌우하는 한 행위자로써 프라이스 대변인은 탈레반을 말하고 있습니다. 탈레반은 여성들의 중고교 교육을 금지했고 국제 NGO들의 활동에서 여성 활동가들의 참여를 금지했습니다.

https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1007038784 

탈레반, 여성 대학교육 이어 NGO 활동도 금지

---> 이러한 탈레반 정권의 조치에 프라이스 대변인은 미 국무장관 블링컨은 물론이고 미 국무부 전체가 이 문제에 관여하고 있다고 말하고 있습니다. 또한 탈레반의 이러한 조치를 용납할 수 없는 조치(outrageous edict)라며 규탄했습니다.

We were very quick to condemn this, as were a number of our allies and partners around the world. This happened on Christmas Eve. We did not let the day go by before we lent our voices to condemning this. We’re now working on that policy response, and we’ll have more to say at the appropriate time.

---> 프라이스 대변인은 탈레반의 이 같은 조치를 또다시 규탄하면서, 미 국무부는 이미 대응하고 있고 적절한 때에 더 많이 발언하겠다고 밝히고 있습니다.

QUESTION: Okay, fine. But going back to when the announcement was made, when the administration announced that it was going to withdraw and then the actual withdrawal, you guys were saying all the time we have leverage over the Taliban because they want international recognition. They want foreign investment. They want respectability in the world. And there were people – a lot of them, including me from sitting right here —

---> 하지만 Matt은 결코 놓아주질 않습니다. '니네 다 철군했잖아? 매일같이 탈레반을 움직일 방안이 있다고는 말하는데, 대체 뭘 어떻게 하겠다는거냐?'

MR PRICE: That was my thought.

QUESTION: Yeah. Who said, what gives you any reason to think that they do? And now you still say that. But they have done absolutely the opposite, as they did back in the 1990s. What can you do? What are your plans? If you really care, if human rights are really like at the forefront of this administration’s foreign policy agenda, and if you really care about Afghanistan post-withdrawal, what are you going to do?

---> Matt은 이젠 뭐 아예 단도직입적으로 들이댑니다. '철군해버렸는데 뭐 어쩔건데?'. 어쩌면 기자단 사이에서 껄끄러운 질문은 이 양반이 총대를 잡는 걸로 합의된 걸지도 모르겠습니다.

MR PRICE: Matt, a couple of things. We have made no bones about the fact the Taliban have failed. They have either been unable or unwilling to live up to the commitments that they have made to the United States, but more importantly to —

QUESTION: Look, Ned, the problem is that they never intended to and you guys should have known that based on —

MR PRICE: — the people of Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Based on their past history, you should have known that.

MR PRICE: Matt, look, we have never been under any illusions about the nature of the Taliban, what they seek, and how they seek to go about doing that. But it is not the fact that we have been baselessly claiming that the Taliban wants better relations with the rest of the world. The Taliban, including yesterday the acting commerce minister, publicly asked for countries around the world to invest in Afghanistan, to engage in foreign direct investment inside of Afghanistan. That is a clear a signal as any that the Taliban seeks better relations with the rest of the world, that —

---> 일단 프라이스 대변인은 미 국무부는 탈레반이 곱게 굴거란 환상은 가지고 있지 않았다고 항변합니다.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, that’s just – that – what they are doing, in terms of policies, not in terms of wishes – yes, if I had my own country —

MR PRICE: And the Taliban – the —

QUESTION: — I would like to have a ton of foreign investment and would want to have billions in —

MR PRICE: The Taliban – the Taliban may still be under the faulty illusion that they can have it both ways, that they can seek better relations with the world —

---> 그리고 프라이스 대변인은 탈레반이 자신들의 방식을 고수하면서도 전 세계와 관계개선을 추구할 수도 있지만, 그건 잘못된 환상일 뿐이라고 잘라말하고 있습니다.

QUESTION: Well, then why don’t you prove to them that they can’t have it both ways?

---> 오, 그래? 그러면 탈레반에게 그 두개를 동시에 가져갈 수는 없다고 증명해보지 그래?

MR PRICE: So we have taken a series of steps so far. We are considering what additional steps we can take to make very clear to the Taliban precisely where the United States stands. But we’re going to do this in a coordinated way with the rest of the world so the Taliban hears, continues to hear, a unified chorus from the rest of the world, a chorus of condemnation and a series of steps that are coordinated that make very clear where we stand.

---> 이에 프라이스 대변인은 이미 여태까지 그러한 작업을 해오고 있다, 미 국무부는 탈레반에게 미합중국의 기준을 매우 분명히 할 몇가지 단계들을 고려중이다. 하지만 우리 미국만 단독으로 행동하진 않고 다른 국가들과 함께 조율된 조치를 취할 것이라 말했습니다.

2. 철군한 미군은 아프간내 테러조직들을 어떻게 관리할 것인가?

QUESTION: Can I follow up? Thank you so much. Depriving Afghan people from their basic rights is a big problem, but harboring the terrorist groups is another major concern, especially for the neighboring countries. What measures are being taken to take out the hideouts of – terrorist hideouts in Afghanistan?

MR PRICE: So this is a concern for us as well. When I made the point to Matt that the Taliban has proven itself unable or unwilling to fulfill the commitments it has made, this is certainly one of those commitments. In the U.S.-Taliban agreement, the Taliban made a commitment to see to it that international terrorists would not operate freely within Afghanistan. The United States has in the operation that we undertook a few months ago that eliminated the leader of al-Qaida – who was living inside, in Kabul – made very clear that the Taliban had not lived up to that commitment.

---> 일단 미합중국과 탈레반은 아프간 국경내에서 국제 테러조직들이 자유롭게 활동하지 못할 것을 공약했다고 합니다. 하지만 불과 몇달전에 미국이 알카에다 지도자(Ayman al-Zawahiri)를 카불에서 제거한 것으로 보아 탈레반은 이 공약을 지키고 있지 않음이 분명하다는 현실인식부터 제기되었습니다.

But this is a shared concern we have. It is a concern we share with Afghanistan’s neighbors, including Pakistan. In this case, Pakistan, of course, has suffered tremendous violence owing to the threats that are – that have in many cases emanated from Afghanistan. So we are committed to working with partners, but President Biden also has a commitment to act unilaterally if and when necessary as we did just a few months ago with Ayman al-Zawahiri to take out threats that emerge in Afghanistan that potentially present a threat to the United States, to our allies, and to our interests.

---> 그리고 또한 아프간내 테러조직에 의해서 위협받는 인근 국가들도 있으며, 바이든 대통령은 파트너들에게 공약했듯이 필요하다면 미국이 일방적으로(unilaterally) 조치하겠다고 합니다. 바로 몇달전 카불에 소재하던 알카에다 지도자인 Ayman al-Zawahiri를 드론으로 공격하여 사살하였듯이.

3. 북한의 러시아 전쟁수행 지원 그리고 9.19 남북군사합의 파기에 대하여

QUESTION: Thank you. I have two questions. Russia and North Korea and South Korea (inaudible).

MR PRICE: Sure.

QUESTION: It was reported that Russia sent a letter of appreciation to North Korea for supporting a special military operation in the war with Ukraine. Can you share any information on what North Korea specifically supported to North Korea – I mean, supported to Russia? I’m sorry.

MR PRICE: Yes. So we have made no secret of the fact – and in fact, we have provided information that speaks to the support that the DPRK has provided to Russia, apparently at Russian – at Russia’s request. The DPRK has provided needed security assistance, sending this assistance through third countries. We released information at the end of last year, speaking to the DPRK’s provision of security assistance to the Wagner Group in particular.

---> 프라이스 대변인은 러시아가 북한에 대해 전쟁지원에 대해 감사해한 것에 대하여, 미국은 이미 작년부터 북한이 바그너 그룹에게 보급품(provision)을 제공하였다고 이미 말한바 있다고 말했습니다.

The fact is that because of the sanctions, because of the export controls that the United States and dozens of countries around the world have levied against Moscow, Moscow has been forced to look for nontraditional security partners – countries like Iran, countries like the DPRK. In some cases, Moscow has not had a robust security relationship with these countries. That in and of itself has posed a challenge to Russia, attempting to integrate this type of assistance that it has been forced to seek out.

---> 그리고 이러한 북한과 러시아의 협력관계는 러시아에 가해진 제재조치로 인한 것이라고 말하고 있습니다. 제재조치는 러시아로 하여금 이란, 북한과 같은 전통적이지 않은 안보 협력관계를 모색하도록 강제했다는 겁니다.

And because of all of this, the Ukrainians are and have been able to demonstrate their efficacy on the battlefield. They have been putting to extraordinary use the weapons and the supplies that the United States and our partners around the world have provided to them. We’ve seen evidence of that success and efficacy even in recent days.

---> 반면에 우크라이나측은 미국뿐만 아니라 전세계 각국의 (* 물적)지원을 받고 있습니다. 이게 우크라이나가 최근에 보인 성과의 원인중 하나라고 프라이스 대변인은 말했습니다.

QUESTION: Is there any evidence that North Korean special forces supported to Russia except – beside arms?

MR PRICE: I don’t have anything to add on that.

---> 하지만 '그래서 무기말고 북한 특수부대가 러시아를 지원했냐는 증거는 가지고 있냐?'는 말은 칼같이 끊네요.

QUESTION: Okay. One more on South Korea. South Korean Government announced that it was considering suspending the September 19 military agreement with North Korea because North Korea violated the agreement 17 times after signing the 9/19 agreement. Can you share the U.S. view on this?

---> 기자는 이번 윤석열 행정부에서 9.19 남북군사합의를 폐기할 것을 고려하고 있는데, 미합중국은 이를 어떻게 보냐고 물었습니다.

MR PRICE: Well, I can share our view on what you raised. We are concerned about the DPRK’s apparent disregard of the 2018 Comprehensive Military Agreement and calls – and we call on it to end its irresponsible and escalatory behavior. The DPRK has continued to engage in a series of provocations, including the ones that you alluded to. Regarding a possible abrogation of this Comprehensive Military Agreement, we’d have to refer you to the ROK Government on that.

---> 왠일로 이렇다 저렇다고 말해주려는줄 알았는데 아니네요. 미국은 북한의 9.19 남북군사합의를 확실히 무시(apparent disregard)하고 있으며, 이러한 북한의 안하무인적이고 긴장을 고조시키는 행태(irresponsible and escalatory behavior)는 끝나야 한다고 말했습니다.

---> 그러면서도 결국 질문의 핵심인 군사합의의 폐기가 어떠냐 저쩌냐는 대한민국 행정부에 물어보라고 하네요.

이 뒤로는 1월 3일자와 마찬가지로 미국의 중국발 입국자 음성확인서 제출 의무화와 그에 대한 중국의 반응에 대한 이야기가 나왔습니다. 분량이 길긴한데 제가 보기에는 1월 3일에 나온 이야기들의 반복이라 굳이 싣지는 않았습니다. 그저 차이라면 WHO뿐만 아니라 CDC이야기가 나온 것 정도랄까요.

아무튼 핵심은 똑같습니다. WHO와 CDC는 과학의 상징으로 남아야 한다.

-----