|
부지런히 따라가봅니다.
언제나 그렇듯이 번역에 태클걸어주시면 오히려 대환영입니다!
(사실 태클걸리길 바랄 지경입니다. 그래야 생산적일테니까요.)
-
https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-january-18-2023/
다시 네드 프라이스 대변인입니다. 링크타고 들어가보시면 유튜브 썸네일이 뜨는데 프라이스 대변인이 많이 늙어버린거 같네요;;
1. Pragmatic words? Empty words?
QUESTION: I want to start with the Palestinian issue.
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: Can you comment on the embassy issue in Jerusalem? It is alleged that it is being built on land that was confiscated from the Palestinians. There was a big op-ed yesterday in The New York Times. I wonder if you saw it.
---> 기자는 어제 뉴욕타임즈에서 팔레스타인 측이 미 대사관 부지를 압수했다고 했는데 이에 대한 사항을 물어봤습니다. 이 건에 대해서 이해하려면 사전지식이 필요합니다. 2017년 트럼프 행정부는 주이스라엘 미국 대사관을 기존의 텔 아비브에서 예루살렘으로 이전하라는 결정과 이스라엘의 수도를 예루살렘으로 인정한다는 파격적인 결정을 내린바 있습니다.
https://www.bbc.com/korean/news-42261926
---> 이러한 트럼프 행정부의 결정에 대하여 2017년 당시에 많은 국가들, 특히 미국의 동맹국들도 반대의사를 표한바 있습니다. 하지만 새로운 중동전략에 따라 이스라엘과 밀접한 관계를 유지하려는 바이든 행정부도 트럼프 행정부의 이 결정들을 무르지 않고 계속 유지하고 있습니다.
---> 그래서 현재 주이스라엘 미국 대사관은 2개로 쪼개진 상태입니다. 하나는 이전부터 대사관이었던 텔 아비브의 분관(Branch Office)이고 또 하나는 대사와 일부 직원만 예루살렘의 Arnona로 떨어져 나온 건물(Embassy)입니다.
MR PRICE: I did see it, and I appreciate the opportunity to comment on it – primarily because there has been some misinformation or some misimpressions about our plans. To be very clear, we have not decided on which site to pursue. A number of factors, including the history of the various sites that are in contention will be part of that very site selection process. We are committed, as you know, Said, to keeping the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem. The United States recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
---> 일단 완전한 대사관 건물 부지는 아직 정해진게 없다. 그리고 미합중국은 예루살렘을 이스라엘의 수도로 인지하고 있다.
(생략. 한마디로 줄이자면 완전한 대사관 건물 부지는 아직 여려가지 조건들을 고려하고 있다.)
QUESTION: So let me ask you, in retrospect – I mean, this has been since 2017 when the former administration recognized Jerusalem as capital. No one really has followed through, none of your allies – not the British, not the Germans – nobody did. Was it a mistake, perhaps, maybe you can nullify this and go back to Tel Aviv until the Jerusalem issue is resolved? I mean, there is an international status for Jerusalem that you could – that you have followed for a very long time – for decades – but you could redo the same thing.
---> 이에 기자는 아직도 예루살렘을 이스라엘의 수도로 인정하는 나라는 동맹에서 조차 없다는 상태를 지적하면서, 그냥 예전의 결정을 무력화시키고(nullify) 예루살렘 분쟁이 해결될때까지 텔 아비브로 돌아갈 수 있지 았느냐고 물어보았습니다.
MR PRICE: Said, Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. The last administration recognized that; this administration recognizes that. But what has not changed is the fact of the status of Jerusalem as a final status issue. This issue – the final status of the Holy City – is to be determined between and by the parties themselves, Israelis and Palestinians.
---> 이에 프라이스 대변인은 단호하게 대답한 것으로 보입니다. 예루살렘 분쟁은 이스라엘과 팔레스타인 양측 당사자에 의해 해결되어야 하는 상황임에도 불구하고, 예루살렘은 바이든 행정부에서도 이스라엘의 수도라고 말입니다.
QUESTION: One more —
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: One more question on this issue. This year has been very bloody for the Palestinians, as has the last year. More than 14 or 15 Palestinians – many of them kids, teenagers, and so on – have been killed. Are you concerned that maybe the Israeli occupation army has been too trigger happy, that they shoot and then find out what was – what’s going on? And would you call on them perhaps to pull back from this shoot first policy?
---> 이에 기자는 다른 질문을 던졌습니다. 아직 1월 18일임에도 불구하고 14명에서 15명의 어린 팔레스타인 인들이 사망했는데 이게 대체 무슨 일이냐고 말입니다.
MR PRICE: Said, you made reference to the tragic loss of life that we’ve seen on the part of Palestinians and Israelis over the course of the latter part of last year and then this year. Today, of course, is the 18th of January. We’re only 18 days into this month, and already, since the beginning of this year alone, 15 Palestinians have been killed. Several Israelis have been injured in the West Bank. We are deeply concerned by the situation in the West Bank. The preceding period has seen a sharp and alarming increase in Palestinian and Israeli deaths and injuries, including many children among them.
---> 요르단강 서안지구에서의 총격에 대해서 국내 언론에서는 이렇게 보도했습니다. 지금 글을 쓰는 2월 17일까지도 이스라엘과 팔레스타인간의 총격사건이 계속 일어났습니다.
https://www.hankyung.com/international/article/202301218341Y
We continue to emphasize to both parties, Israelis and Palestinians, that we want to see a de-escalation of tensions. We want to see constructive engagement. We continue to emphasize to both Israelis and Palestinians that they both equally deserve to have equal measures of security, stability, justice, dignity, and democracy. It is alarming to see the pace of violence, the rate of deaths, of injuries. It is also incumbent on the parties to take steps themselves to see a diminution in the tensions that have spiked in recent weeks and months.
---> 이러한 비극적인 상황에 대한 프라이스 대변인의 답변은 '우리 미국은 이스라엘과 팔레스타인 모두에게 긴장을 완화하고 건설적으로 서로에게 관여하라는 것이다. 양측 모두 평등한 대우를 누릴 자격이 있다. 최근 양측이 너무 날이 서있다.'는 것입니다.
---> 뭐랄까. 당연히 원론이지만 저에게는 아무것도 없는 말껍데기로 느껴지네요.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on Jerusalem?
MR PRICE: Sure.
QUESTION: As you know, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Brett McGurk are in Israel now. They expect also to meet with President Abbas. You know that, right?
MR PRICE: I am aware.
QUESTION: You look a bit surprised. (Laughter.)
MR PRICE: I am aware. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Okay. So basically, John Kirby told me today that the purpose of the visit was to emphasize the U.S. position vis-à-vis the two-state solution, and also to encourage the parties, as you said, to not to undermine that prospect. So is the U. S. current policy – is to keep the status quo in the Palestinian areas or not to be involved in any peace prospect, not to encourage the Israelis and Palestinians to get into any peace process or negotiation considering the – Netanyahu may have government being right wing – I mean, are there ways like basically we will be happy just to keep things as they are and not to initiate anything new?
---> 짧게 줄이자면 그래서 미합중국이 이스라엘과 팔레스타인 사이에서 무엇을 하고 있는 거냐는 질문입니다. 현재 미합중국의 정책은 이스라엘과 팔레스타인을 평화의 과정 혹은 협상으로 끌어들이는게 아니라, 그냥 현상유지를 하는 것이냐고 말입니다.
MR PRICE: Our policy is fundamentally a pragmatic one. At the present moment – and this goes back to Said’s question – we recognize the deeply concerning trends that have taken place and, in some ways, accelerated in recent months, but also over the course of several years now. Those are the very trends that, over the course of last year and then earlier this year, have led to extraordinarily high, far too high numbers of deaths and injuries, both on the part of Palestinians and Israelis.
---> 역시 한마디로 말하자면 우리 미국은 팔레스타인과 이스라엘이 서로 죽어가는 속에서 아무것도 안하는게 아니라는 겁니다.
So task number one, as we see it, is to do what we can to help de-escalate tensions, to see to it that this alarming rate of violence is diminished, that tensions are eased, and to encourage both sides to refrain from steps that only further exacerbate tensions. Our first priority at the present moment is doing just that, is seeing if we can be a constructive voice, a constructive partner in helping the two sides de-escalate and put an end to this cycle of violence.
---> 일단 최우선으로 하는 것은 폭력의 굴레를 끝내기 위해 양측의 긴장을 완화하는 것이라고요.
Now, of course our longer-term approach continues to be support for a negotiated two-state solution, a negotiated two-state solution that will bring into existence what we ultimately hope to see: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side equally, enjoying equal measures of stability, of security, of democracy, of dignity, of prosperity as well. Now, of course, this is a moment in some ways of triage. Our end goal is one that is quite far off. We recognize that at the moment. No one at the moment is speaking to the possibility of near-term constructive dialogue culminating anytime soon in a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians. We acknowledge that; we appreciate that. That’s why our approach is practical, it’s pragmatic, it is focused on what Palestinians need at the moment and what Israelis need at the moment.
---> 그리고 장기적 관점에선 바이든 행정부도 '두 국가 해법'을 계속 지지한다고 밝혔습니다. 다만, 지금 현재로써는 양측이 두 국가 해법으로 대화할 가망이 없어보이고 미국도 이를 인지하고 있다고도 밝혔습니다.
---> 그렇다면 여기서 왜 '두 국가 해법'이 지금 현재 이스라엘과 팔레스타인 모두에게 지지받지 못하고 있느냐를 검토해봐야 할 것입니다. 불행히도 저는 거기까지는 모르겠습니다. 다른 논문이나 그외의 자료들이 많이 있을 것입니다.
In delivering that, what we are trying to do is to set the stage so that the parties can, over the longer term, make progress towards what remains our goal, what has remained the goal of Israelis and Palestinians over successive decades, and that is a two-state solution to this longstanding conflict.
QUESTION: I want to ask you about Yemen unless somebody want to ask about Israel.
MR PRICE: Anything else on Israel?
QUESTION: Just one more on this Israel-related trip. Are you in a position to confirm the media reports that the U.S. has moved munitions stored in Israel to Ukraine for use in Ukraine? If so, can you speak to the significance of that, and also what other steps do you expect from Israel given the fact that there’s a negotiation going on?
---> 마지막으로 미합중국이 이스라엘에 보관되어있는 탄약을 우크라이나에 보냇다는 언론기사를 확인해줄수 있냐는 질문이 왔지만...
MR PRICE: I’m not in a position to speak to that report. I would refer you to DOD if they’re in a position to speak to those types of tactical movements. That’s not something we would speak to from here. I suspect it’s also not something that our partners throughout the government would speak to in any detail as well.
---> 그런 사항은 국방부나 다른나라 정부에 물어보라는 답변이 돌아왔습니다. 이건 정말 모르거나 권한이 없어 보이네요.
2. 북한은 핵 국가인가요?
Janne?
QUESTION: On the Turks —
QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you. Let’s do a – different issues, please. Thank you. Yeah, I have two questions for the North Korea. North Korea refuted the message from the UN Security Council that it should return to denuclearization negotiations. At the same time, the North Korean foreign ministry announced that their status as a nuclear power was a stark reality. Do you think North Korea declared itself a nuclear state? How do you see this?
---> 역시 잔느이고, 북한질문이고, Matt에 비하면 너무나도 친절한 방식의 질문입니다.
MR PRICE: Well, it doesn’t change our overarching goal, and that remains the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Of course, the DPRK has demonstrated its capabilities when it comes to its illegal nuclear weapons program, when it comes to its ballistic missile program. We continue to be concerned that the DPRK may make additional provocations, and “provocations” is probably too euphemistic of a term for it. Each and every one of the DPRK’s ballistic missile launches – certainly each and every one of the DPRK’s six tests of its nuclear weapons – pose a profound and, in some cases, grave threat to international peace and security, certainly to the security and to the peace of the Indo-Pacific region.
---> 남한과 북한에 대해서는 매일 같은 말이 반복reiterate되고 있습니다. 한반도의 완전한 비핵화까지.
So despite the comments that we’ve heard from the DPRK, despite the provocations that we’ve seen from the DPRK and that we may yet see, our approach will remain steadfast. It’s an approach that we honed early on in this administration, but just as importantly if not more importantly, it’s an approach that we’ve adopted jointly with our treaty allies – in this case, Japan and the ROK.
---> 그리고 이러한 접근은 한, 미, 일 각국 차원이 아니라 한미일 3국차원에서 이루어 질 것이라는 포인트도 잊지 않고 있습니다.
We are committed to the security of our treaty allies. We will take steps as appropriate in response to any additional provocations by the DPRK, and we’ll continue to work with partners and allies around the world to see to it that the DPRK is held accountable for its unlawful programs – its ballistic missile program, its nuclear weapons program – and to do everything we can to see to it that especially members of the UN Security Council uphold the commitments that they’ve made – the binding commitments that they’ve made in successive UN Security Council resolutions – to impose cause and – costs and consequences on the DPRK for these illegal acts.
---> 그리고 북한에게 불법적인 무기 프로그램들에 대한 대가를 치르게 하겠다. 이것도 반복되는 말입니다.
QUESTION: The last one – this is very serious issues; maybe you (inaudible). Recently, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has purged many North Korean officials who led the dialogue between the United States and North Korea in the past, including the North Korean foreign minister and the highest-ranking officials. How do you see the future prospect for dialogue between the United States and North Korea?
---> 최근에 김정은이 북미대화를 이끌었던 당국자들을 많이 숙청했다. 앞으로 북미간의 대화가 어떻게 될 것으로 보냐는 질문.
---> 하지만 북한의 숙청소식은 걸러들을 필요도 있습니다. 왜냐하면 죽었다던 사람이 다시 살아온게 한 두번이 아니니까요. 숙청의 타이밍도 늦다고 생각됩니다. 숙청을 할거였다면 지금이 아니라 2019년 10월 스톡홀름 북미 실무협상 직후가 되었어야 합니다.
https://www.donga.com/news/Inter/article/all/20191006/97746208/1
MR PRICE: I’ve seen those reports; I’m not in a position to confirm them. But the latter part of your question is really a better question for the DPRK, because we have a vision for what could be if only the DPRK would agree to engage in the pragmatic, practical discussion and dialogue that we’ve put on the table for months and months now. We have made no secret of the fact we wish to engage with the DPRK on the basis of the ultimate denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula to discuss how we might – again, with practical, pragmatic steps – advance that vision that we’ve put forward that would be in the interests of the United States, of our partners and allies, of the broader region, and, we think, in the interests of the DPRK itself.
---> 미국은 '한반도의 비핵화'를 목표로 북한에게 관여하길 원한다고 드러내왔습니다. 그리고 말뿐인 관여가 아닌 실용적이고 실질적인 단계들을 거치면서 말입니다.
Of course, the DPRK has to date shunned those offers. It has responded to our repeated statements that we harbor no hostile intent towards the DPRK, to our repeated offers to engage in dialogue, with only more provocations and more threats. That is a dynamic that we are using various tools at our disposal to seek to change. It’s a dynamic that we would like to see changed.
---> 물론 북한의 대답은 거부였고 오직 도발과 위협만을 더해왔습니다. 그래서 프라이스 대변인은 변화를 추구하기 위해 미국은 다양한 도구들을 구비해놓고 있다고도 첨언하네요.
3. 중국과 펜타닐 문제 협력
Yes.
QUESTION: A China question?
MR PRICE: Okay, one more —
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: China? China?
MR PRICE: China, and then I’ll come back.
Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes. Last week we heard a lot about what the U.S. and Mexico can do to stop fentanyl to arrive to the Western Hemisphere. But we didn’t hear that much about what the U.S. and Mexico are doing to press China on the illegal exportation of precursor chemicals to produce fentanyl. Can you describe what’s the current status of any dialogue between the U.S. and China on precisely this issue, the illegal exportation of fentanyl precursors?
---> 미합중국과 멕시코는 펜타닐 유입을 막기로 힘을 합쳤다고 들었는데, 미합중국과 중국간에 불법 펜타닐 유통에 대한 대화는 어떻게 진행되고 있는지를 물었습니다.
https://www.munhwa.com/news/view.html?no=2023012601031609223001
// 미국 내 ‘펜타닐 원천봉쇄’가 사실상 불가능해지자 미국은 중국과 멕시코 등 펜타닐의 주요 공급국에 협조를 구하고 있다. 조 바이든 미국 대통령이 북미 3국 정상회의에서 펜타닐 근절을 위한 협력을 주요 의제로 삼은 데 이어, 내달 중국을 방문하는 토니 블링컨 미 국무장관 역시 친강(秦剛) 외교부장과의 회담 테이블에 해당 안건을 올릴 예정이다. 하지만 해당국들이 “미국 내 수요가 문제”라며 뒷짐을 지고 있는 데다, 미·중 관계가 점차 더 경색돼가며 외교 문제로 비화할 수 있다는 관측이 나온다. //
MR PRICE: Sure. Let me start by saying that this is a priority of Secretary Blinken. He consistently brings up to his senior team the threat that fentanyl poses to the international community but, in very real terms, poses to the American people. It is the leading killer of Americans between the age – ages of 18 to 49. It presents a clear and present danger to our people but, to your question, to people around the world. This is the very definition of a transnational challenge because it is a drug whose precursors originate in various places around the world. its manufacturing takes place in very places – various places around the world, and it kills far too many people around the world as well.
That is why he has directed his team to do everything we can, often in concert with our partners in the U.S. Government – whether that’s the DEA, whether that’s customs – the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border enforcement, whether that is other partners as well – to address the challenge that fentanyl poses.
---> 말 그대로 펜타닐이 18세에서 49세 사이의 미국인을 많이 죽이고 있으므로, 블링컨 국무장관의 팀에서 가능한 모든 수단을 다 쓰고 있을 정도라는 겁니다.
When it comes to the PRC, since the PRC scheduled fentanyl and related substances as a – as a class in 2019, the PRC is no longer a major source of fentanyl flowing into the United States. We continue to see PRC-origin precursor chemicals being used in illicit fentanyl production. Though its past action has helped to counter illicit synthetic drugs, we continue to urge the PRC to take additional meaningful concrete action to curb the diversion of precursor chemicals and equipment used by criminals to manufacture fentanyl and other synthetic drugs.
---> 그리고 2019년부터 중국은 펜타닐 및 그와 관련된 물질들을 a 클래스로 분류하여 관리하기 시작했기 때문에 더이상 미국으로 유입되는 펜타닐의 주요 공급처가 아니게 되었으며, 앞으로도 계속 중국과 함께 펜타닐의 제조와 다른 합성마약의 통제에 협조하겠다고 합니다.
We are committed to working with the PRC. We often talk about the areas in which the United States and the PRC can work together constructively to deepen that collaboration to the betterment of our two peoples but also to the betterment of people around the world. This is very much one of those areas. It is a challenge for the Chinese people, it is a challenge for the American people, and we hope that we can continue to collaborate effectively and constructively with the PRC to take on this challenge.
---> 저는 펜타닐로 인해서 미국과 중국이 척진다는 생각을 하고있었습니다. 그런데 오히려 펜타닐이라는 분야에서는 중국과 미국의 협조가 잘 이뤄지려나 봅니다.
4. 중국의 코로나19 데이터
Yes, Ian.
QUESTION: Over the last week there’s been a little bit more data sharing from China on COVID after a back and forth with the WHO. Is the U.S. satisfied with the level of transparency in recent days from China on COVID, or would you like to see more transparency over data on illnesses and infections and deaths?
---> 지금까지 중국당국이 코로나19에 대해 공개한 데이터들에 대해 미합중국은 만족하냐는 질문이 들어왔습니다.
MR PRICE: So this is really a better question for the WHO. The WHO is in the best position to judge the level of transparency that the PRC is exhibiting. They’ve made various statements. There was a session between WHO officials and PRC officials early this year. In the aftermath of that session, the WHO issued a public statement. Over the weekend, I believe it was, the PRC provided additional data, and that was welcomed by the WHO. We continue to urge transparency on COVID-19 data, including from the PRC. Our position is the position of scientists; public health experts around the world that without this data, it will be difficult for public health officials to ensure they will be prepared to reduce the spread and identify any new potential variants.
---> 이에 대해 프라이스 대변인은 중국의 투명성을 평가하는건 미합중국이 아니라 WHO라는 대답을 돌려주고 있습니다. 비록 중국이 데이터를 좀 더 내놓아서 환영하지만 언제나 중국으로부터 더 많은 데이터를 필요로 한다는 말도 함께요.
So we continue to urge the PRC to be fully transparent. The measures that we put in place, the measures that we announced just before the new year and put into place earlier this year, the pre‑departure testing for individuals traveling from the PRC to the United States also made this point. Those measures are based on both the prevalence of COVID in the PRC, but also what we were seeing at the time – or namely what we were not seeing at the time – the lack of transparent data distribution from the PRC, principally to the WHO, including the genomic sequencing so that the WHO could have an early warning should any new variants develop and be spreading beyond the PRC’s borders.
---> 그렇지만 앞으로 중국 국경 너머로 퍼질 수 있는 변종에 대해 WHO가 일찍 대응하기 위해서, 그리고 과학의 관점에서 데이터는 늘 필요하므로 미국은 중국으로 하여금 완전한 투명성을 요구할 것이라고 합니다.
QUESTION: And has that lack of data colored any of the discussions between the U.S. and China in the leadup to the – to Blinken’s visit in February? Has it —
---> 본래는 2월 4일에 있었어야 할 블링컨 국무장관의 방중때 미합중국과 중국 사이에 이건에 관련된 의논이 있을 것이냐는 질문.
---> 2월 4일 예정되어있던 블링컨 국무장관의 방중은 정찰풍선을 계기로 무기한 연기되었음.
MR PRICE: If by colored, do you mean has it derailed, has it disrupted the planning? I’ll say that Secretary Blinken fully expects to travel to Beijing next month. That is something that we are still planning for on a daily basis, including – we’re working closely with our counterparts in the PRC to see to it that this trip is constructive, it is productive, that it’s substantive as well.
---> 그래서 프라이스 대변인의 답변은 Yes였습니다. 성사되진 못했지만.
-
이번 브리핑은 분명히 써야했는데 쓰지 않은 부분이 있을 겁니다. 특히 터키쪽은 다른게 많아서 생략하기도 했고요.
그런데 다른 일도 있고해서 여기서 줄이고 내일이나 언제 시간날떄 이어가야 하겠습니다.
|