附上原文， 我一点也不觉得这是什麽精彩对话 只看到一个听不懂人家说话的记者。 QUESTION: My question is Taiwan leader Chen Shui-bian announced in Taipei a decision to stop the operation of the National Unification Council and the application of National Unification guidelines. What's your response to his decision? MR. ERELI: Well, it won't surprise you to learn that our policy on Cross-Strait relations has not changed. Our one China policy is based on the three communiqués and the Taiwan Relations Act. We are, of course, opposed to any unilateral change to the status quo by either side and we do not support Taiwan independence. I would note today that President Chen reaffirmed his continuing commitment to the pledges he made in his 2000 inaugural address not to change the status of the status quo across the Straits and we continue to stress the need for Beijing to open a dialogue with the elected leadership in Taiwan. On the question of the National Unification Council, it's our understanding that President Chen did not abolish it and he reaffirmed Taiwan's commitment to the status quo. We attach great importance to that commitment and we'll be following his follow-through carefully. Yes. QUESTION: Do you think (inaudible) either change to the status quo? Is it -- and what's the U.S. definition of the changes to the status quo? MR. ERELI: I think President Chen has said that he is committed to the status quo and that he is committed to his -- the pledges in his inaugural speech. We believe that the -- we attach great importance to those commitments and we will be following events closely. QUESTION: Okay. What steps U.S. is following closely and what steps will the U.S. take to curb -- to (inaudible)? MR. ERELI: Well, we continue to stress the importance, as I did in my comments earlier, of dialogue between Beijing and Taiwan on Cross-Strait issues. It is important, we believe, that resolution of this issue avoid unilateral steps and focus on dialogue and that's the tact that we encourage both sides to take. QUESTION: I just want to get this right. So, you don't consider this as a change of status quo? MR. ERELI: You know, I'm not going to define it further than I already have. It has not been abolished; it's been frozen. He himself has said that he is committed to the status quo and that he is committed to his inaugural pledges and that is an important statement of policy. QUESTION: And you are committed to the status quo, too, aren't you? MR. ERELI: And we are committed to a one China policy. QUESTION: Well, but that's pretty status -- QUESTION: Based on the three -- MR. ERELI: Based on the three communiqués –and -- class? QUESTION: (Cross-talk) MR. ERELI: The Taiwan Relations Act. QUESTION: What do you think they're going to be talking about? MR. ERELI: Resolving their differences. QUESTION: But you believe there's only one China. Is there any other major difference? MR. ERELI: Come on, Barry. Let's -- QUESTION: Okay, but I mean -- it's gotten to be sort of boilerplate. MR. ERELI: Yes. Exactly. That's why -- QUESTION: And this is a big event, so I thought maybe there's something a little more that the State Department could -- MR. ERELI: I think -- QUESTION: When it comes to China, State Department gets very quiet. MR. ERELI: Sir. QUESTION: Yes. President Chen, of course, in his announcement, used the expression that the Unification Council ceases to function and also the guideline ceases to apply. You're saying, by using the phrase, you know, "cease to function," he's not actually abolishing the Council. MR. ERELI: Our understanding -- QUESTION: I'm not sure I would agree with you because, you know, linguistically and semantically, "cease" is the same thing as abolishing. MR. ERELI: Sir, all I can say is that President Chen has said he is committed to the status quo, he is not changing the status quo and he is committed to his inaugural pledges. The NUC -- he also -- the NUC exists and so we're going to hold him to those pledges. QUESTION: Well, he has said this countless times in the past and do you still have confidence in him when he says something that he had said before, though? MR. ERELI: I think our views -- I've stated them as clearly as I can. QUESTION: Adam, did the United States encourage him not to take the step? MR. ERELI: I think the United States has made it clear to the Taiwanese leadership on any number of occasions that we are opposed to unilateral moves and we urge strongly that he remain consistent with his commitments in the inaugural pledge of 2000 and that he not take any unilateral moves. I would note that he has said that this action is not a unilateral move. QUESTION: Would you agree a cessation is a unilateral move? MR. ERELI: Pardon? QUESTION: Is his action, from the U.S. view, a unilateral move? MR. ERELI: I think that I would just leave it at what President Chen said and hold him at that, which is it is not a unilateral move. QUESTION: And in spite of all the communication between the U.S. and Taiwan, Chen stick to his decision. So is there any actions the U.S. side is going to take? MR. ERELI: I think we will continue to -- as I said earlier, we will continue to hold President Chen by his commitments not to take unilateral moves and to remain committed to his inaugural pledges of 2000. QUESTION: Can I ask you something else? QUESTION: Do you consider this episode closed for now? MR. ERELI: For us, the episode is closed or the issue is closed when Taiwan -- when parties on both sides of the Straits resolve their differences. And that's what we continue to urge both sides to do: engage in a dialogue so that issues and discussions like we're having today are a thing of the past. Yes. QUESTION: Adam, at first the United States actually has tried to persuade President Chen to give up his plan to abolish the Council and the guidelines. What made you soften your stand, you know, moving from urging him not to do it to actually working out the specific wording? In Chinese, it is actually "terminate." It's not even "cease to apply." You know "zhongzhi" is terminate. I don't understand the difference between termination and abolishment. MR. ERELI: Not being a Chinese speaker, I don't know either. What I can tell you is our understanding is that the NUC has not been abolished; it has been frozen, number one. Number two, that President Chen has stated that this does not alter the status quo and; number two, he has said he is committed to not take unilateral actions which would alter the status quo, all of which are positions that we have very strongly advocated and which have been reaffirmed. QUESTION: Adam, we didn't hear him actually reaffirm his pledges or assurance to adhere to his inaugural address commitment. Did you hear it somewhere else? Because we didn't really hear it. One other question, Adam. Do you really think the U.S. policy is working? I mean, you know, when you say to abolish or to terminate the Council and the guidelines may seem, you know, to be steps to change -- unilaterally change the status quo, and then a week later, you know, you're saying, hey, President Chen actually is not changing the status quo. I don't understand that. You know, is your policy working? And also, you are calling for China to talk to President Chen. What was the incentive that you think China would get out of this? If China did not agree to talk to him yesterday, what is the incentive that will make China talk to him today? MR. ERELI: I can't speak for China. What I can speak for is the United States and the fact that we've got, I think, a very clear and consistent policy that is focused on preventing either side from taking unilateral actions that affect the status quo. In this case, in this latest case, there were pledges made in 2000 that we thought were important to respect. President Chen has reaffirmed today, our understanding, the fact that the steps that he has taken do not constitute a change in the status quo and he reaffirmed his commitment to those 2000 pledges. That is important, because what -- you can't -- as you suggested in your question, you can't promote dialogue if there isn't the confidence between both sides that the other one isn't taking unilateral steps. So, it's very important, the public statements that we've heard from Chen today, and it's very important that based on those public statements and based on what the leadership of Taiwan has said is a commitment not to change the status quo, that you move beyond the news of the day and talk about the real issues that are causing problems. QUESTION: One more? MR. ERELI: One more. QUESTION: We understand the U.S. policy remains the same and remains firm, very firm, but are there any policy implications because of this – for U.S. policy? You know, obviously, when the decision-makers in this building come to the building today, it's a different day. It's different from yesterday. MR. ERELI: Yes, I will agree with that. (Laughter.) And that I think the focus of our policy, even though one day is different than the next, is continuity and that's why I began this long discussion by reminding you that our policy remains consistent based on -- QUESTION: "One China." (Laughter). MR. ERELI: Based on the three communiqués and the Taiwan Relations Act. QUESTION: Has it changed? MR. ERELI: Okay, I guess -- QUESTION: Can I make one more try? MR. ERELI: One more try. QUESTION: One more try, okay. I would like to know if there's some kind of understanding that the U.S. side has been given permission to construe President Chen's decision to let the council to cease to function as not abolishing -- your word. Is there some kind of -- and Taiwan will not challenge whatever you say at this podium about, particularly, your language, not abolishing -- actually, you know, my colleague back there just pointed out the word -- the expression -- in Chinese "zhongzhi" simply means terminating, which is like abolishing. So, that's why I want to know, is there some kind of an understanding, agreement between the two sides that the U.S. can interpret this in the way as abolishing -- not abolishing? MR. ERELI: I would -- sir, I just -- QUESTION: Whereas Taiwan is saying, you know, it's abolishing -- MR. ERELI: Let me just -- I'd refer you to President Chen's public comments and his reaffirmation that this is not a unilateral step to change the status quo and that's a statement of Taiwanese policy and that's an important reaffirmation of Taiwanese policy and we certainly look forward to them fulfilling those commitments. QUESTION: Will he pay a price for this? MR. ERELI: I don't -- you know, I don't know what that means. QUESTION: (Inaudible) pay a price for this? MR. ERELI: The United States is working to promote resolution of Cross-Strait differences and that's the objective that we're going to continue to focus on. QUESTION: Could I turn to something else? QUESTION: What is the PRC’s reaction so far? We know Mr. Yang Jiechi’s visit here, he raised Taiwan questions. So far, did you get other -- MR. ERELI: I've got nothing new to report for you on that. ※ 引述《hirokofan (笠原弘子 命！)》之铭言： : ※ [本文转录自 a-bian 看板] : 作者: hirokofan (笠原弘子 命！) 站内: a-bian : 标题: Re: 这就是我们的驻美记者 : 时间: Tue Feb 28 20:44:24 2006 : ※ 引述《Lumania (小糠榔)》之铭言： : : 以下就是台湾的驻美记者与国务院发言人的对话， : : 完全没有看到中立的一面。引导发言人，想得到自己要的答案。 : : ------------------------------------------------------------------------ : : 陈总统是否已废统？美国务院记者会精彩问答 寄给朋友 　 友善列印 : : 【中央社 】 : : （中央社记者刘坤原华盛顿二十八日专电）陈水扁总统有没有废除国统会和国统纲领？美 : : 国国务院发言人艾瑞里说没有，陈总统只是将它们冻结了。记者告诉他，不管英文的 : : cease或中文的「终止」，都是废除的意思，明明已经废除了，为什麽美国要硬拗说没有 : : ？艾瑞里说，因为陈总统重申不会改变现状。 : : 以下是台湾终止国统会和国统纲领的运作和适用後，艾瑞里与驻华府记者二十七日在国务 : : 院例行记者会上的问答精彩片段摘译： : : 记者问：台湾领导人陈水扁已在台北宣布终止国统会的运作和国统纲领的适用，美国有何 : : 反应？ : : 答：我没有什麽好让你意外的，我们的两岸政策没有改变。我们的一个中国政策是基於三 : : 个公报和台湾关系法。当然我们反对任何一方片面改变现状，而且我们不支持台湾独立。 : : 我今天要特别提出，陈总统重申了他二○○○年就职演说中所提不改变台海现状的持续承 : : 诺。而我们也强调北京有必要与台湾民选领导阶层展开对话。 : : 至於国统会的问题，根据我们的理解，陈总统并没有废除它，而他重申了台湾维持现状的 : : 承诺。我们认为这个承诺非常重要，我们会密切注意後续情况。 : OS：喵的这是第几次告洋状了啦？每次碰到你们都要重复一次，讲了会烦耶 : : 问：你是否认为陈水扁的动作是一种现状的改变？美国对现状的定义是什麽？ : : 答：我想陈总统已经说过他对现状的承诺，也就是他在就职演说中的承诺。我们对他这项 : : 承诺非常重视，也会继续密切注意後续发展。 : OS：喵的刚刚我才说维持现状，这些台湾记者到底有没有听懂？ : : 问：美国会采取什麽办法去密切注意，并阻止陈水扁的行动？ : : 答：我们继续强调北京和台北之间展开对话的重要性。重要的是问题的解决必须避免片面 : : 动作，而必须着重於对话，这也是我们所鼓励的。 : OS：阻止行动？喵的挖洞给我跳呀！ : : 问：所以你不认为（陈水扁的动作）是一种现状的改变？ : : 答：我已经回答过了，我不想再更进一步下定义。（国统会）并没有被废除，它只是被冻 : : 结。他自己说他信守承诺，也就是他在就职演说中所作的承诺，那是一个很重要的政策宣 : : 示。 : OS：喵的这些台湾记者以为我在说火星话呀！ : : 问：而美国也对现状有所承诺，对不对？ : : 答：我们承诺一个中国政策，基於三个公报及台湾关系法。 : OS：喵的碰到你们这群台湾记者，这几句跟「波若波罗密」一样得拼命念 : : 问：你要北京和台北对什麽话？ : : 答：解决他们之间的歧见。 : OS：喵的不然要打仗呀！ : : 问：你知道吗？cease to function和cease to apply与abolish其实是一样的意思。我不 : : 晓得你同不同意，在语言学和语意学里，cease和abolish根本是同一个意思。 : : 答：我而能告诉你的就是，陈总统对现状有承诺，他维持他就职演说的宣示。 : OS：喵的台湾记者教我怎麽说话？ : : 问：他已经说他要遵守承诺数不清的次数了？你还对他有信心吗？ : : 答：我想我已经尽可能表明我们的观点了。 : OS：喵的我回答同样问题的次数也数不清了。 : : 问：但是，是不是美国鼓励他这样做呢？ : : 答：美国已经多次对台湾领导人表明，我们反对片面行动，并敦促他谨守两千年就职演说 : : 的承诺，那就是不片面改变现状。我要特别提出，他已说这次行动不是片面行动。 : OS：喵的波若波罗密 : : 问：那美国认为那是不是片面行动？ : : 答：我想是不是片面行动，还是由陈总统自己说比较好。他已经说不是片面行动。 : OS：喵的又挖洞给我跳 : : 问：经过那麽多沟通，陈最後还是坚持他的决定，美国是否准备采取什麽动作？ : : 答：我已经说过，我们将继续相信陈总统不改变现状的承诺。 : OS：喵的这是第几次啦！ : : 问：请问这次事件是否就这样落幕了？ : : 答：对我们而言，当两岸解决了他们的歧见的时候，事件就落幕了。这也就是为什麽我们 : : 一直呼吁双方展开对话。 : OS：希望你的问题也能够落幕了 : : 问：一开始，美方事实上努力地在说服陈总统放弃计画，为什麽後来你们态度软化了？从 : : 要求他放弃，到後来一起研究如何用字。其实，中文的「终止」，英文应翻译为 : : terminate，而不是cease to apply。终止就是terminate。我真不懂termination和 : : abolishment有什麽不同？ : : 答：我不是讲中国话的人，我也不懂。我能够告诉你的就是，一、国统会没有被废除；二 : : 、陈总统表示他没有改变现状；三、他承诺不会片面改变现状。 : OS：喵的那些事情都是你们说的！这些中国人....波若波罗密！ : : 问：我们并没有听到他重申遵守就职演说中的承诺，你们在其他地方听到他重申承诺了吗 : : ？ : : 另一个问题是，你们真的认为美国的政策行得通吗？你们才说废除或终止国统会是片面改 : : 变现状，一个星期後，现在你们说，陈总统真的没有改变现状。我实在不了解你们的政策 : : 可行吗？ : : 而且，你们叫中国和陈水扁对话，你们有什麽诱因叫中国出来对话？如果中国昨天不同意 : : 跟他对话，今天有什麽诱因让他出来对话？ : : 答：我没办法代表中国发言。我只能代表美国讲话。我们的政策非常一贯，那就是防止任 : : 何一方采取片面改变现状的行动。而这次事件，陈总统今天重申了他在两千年就职演说时 : : 所作的承诺。这是非常重要的，因为正如你说的，如果一方不相信对方不会采取片面行动 : : ，那就无法推动对话。 : : 所以，我们今天听到陈总统公开承诺不会改变现状，那是很重要的。 : OS：喵的我要说几遍才行？直接去问阿共不是比较快？你听了也比较爽不是吗？ : : 问：我们了解美国的政策是非常坚定。不过这件事情对美国政策会不会产生什麽影响？你 : : 知道，当一个决策者今天走进这栋建筑物的时候，那已是另外一天，跟昨天不一样了。 : : 答：没错，我同意。不过，即使是另外一天，但它是昨天的延续，我们的政策也是一样。 : OS：喵的波若波罗密 : : 问：你认为陈总统会为此付出代价吗？ : : 答：我不了解你是什麽意思。美国致力於促进两岸解决歧见，那是我们继续努力的目标。 : OS：喵的那是你们家的事情，我倒想知道你这样问会得到什麽好处？ : : 问：中国至目前为止有什麽反应吗？我们知道杨洁箎目前正在华府，他提出了台湾问题。 : : 到目前为止，中国有何反应？ : : 答：我没有听到任何可以向你报告的消息。950228 : OS：喵的发言人不是包打听 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 220.135.3.133