附上原文， 我一點也不覺得這是什麼精彩對話 只看到一個聽不懂人家說話的記者。 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！)》之銘言： : ※ [本文轉錄自 a-bian 看板] : 作者: hirokofan (笠原弘子 命！) 站內: a-bian : 標題: Re: 這就是我們的駐美記者 : 時間: Tue Feb 28 20:44:24 2006 : ※ 引述《Lumania (小糠榔)》之銘言： : : 以下就是台灣的駐美記者與國務院發言人的對話， : : 完全沒有看到中立的一面。引導發言人，想得到自己要的答案。 : : ------------------------------------------------------------------------ : : 陳總統是否已廢統？美國務院記者會精彩問答 寄給朋友 　 友善列印 : : 【中央社 】 : : （中央社記者劉坤原華盛頓二十八日專電）陳水扁總統有沒有廢除國統會和國統綱領？美 : : 國國務院發言人艾瑞里說沒有，陳總統只是將它們凍結了。記者告訴他，不管英文的 : : cease或中文的「終止」，都是廢除的意思，明明已經廢除了，為什麼美國要硬拗說沒有 : : ？艾瑞里說，因為陳總統重申不會改變現狀。 : : 以下是台灣終止國統會和國統綱領的運作和適用後，艾瑞里與駐華府記者二十七日在國務 : : 院例行記者會上的問答精彩片段摘譯： : : 記者問：台灣領導人陳水扁已在台北宣佈終止國統會的運作和國統綱領的適用，美國有何 : : 反應？ : : 答：我沒有什麼好讓你意外的，我們的兩岸政策沒有改變。我們的一個中國政策是基於三 : : 個公報和台灣關係法。當然我們反對任何一方片面改變現狀，而且我們不支持台灣獨立。 : : 我今天要特別提出，陳總統重申了他二○○○年就職演說中所提不改變台海現狀的持續承 : : 諾。而我們也強調北京有必要與台灣民選領導階層展開對話。 : : 至於國統會的問題，根據我們的理解，陳總統並沒有廢除它，而他重申了台灣維持現狀的 : : 承諾。我們認為這個承諾非常重要，我們會密切注意後續情況。 : OS：喵的這是第幾次告洋狀了啦？每次碰到你們都要重複一次，講了會煩耶 : : 問：你是否認為陳水扁的動作是一種現狀的改變？美國對現狀的定義是什麼？ : : 答：我想陳總統已經說過他對現狀的承諾，也就是他在就職演說中的承諾。我們對他這項 : : 承諾非常重視，也會繼續密切注意後續發展。 : OS：喵的剛剛我才說維持現狀，這些台灣記者到底有沒有聽懂？ : : 問：美國會採取什麼辦法去密切注意，並阻止陳水扁的行動？ : : 答：我們繼續強調北京和台北之間展開對話的重要性。重要的是問題的解決必須避免片面 : : 動作，而必須著重於對話，這也是我們所鼓勵的。 : OS：阻止行動？喵的挖洞給我跳呀！ : : 問：所以你不認為（陳水扁的動作）是一種現狀的改變？ : : 答：我已經回答過了，我不想再更進一步下定義。（國統會）並沒有被廢除，它只是被凍 : : 結。他自己說他信守承諾，也就是他在就職演說中所作的承諾，那是一個很重要的政策宣 : : 示。 : OS：喵的這些台灣記者以為我在說火星話呀！ : : 問：而美國也對現狀有所承諾，對不對？ : : 答：我們承諾一個中國政策，基於三個公報及台灣關係法。 : OS：喵的碰到你們這群台灣記者，這幾句跟「波若波羅密」一樣得拼命唸 : : 問：你要北京和台北對什麼話？ : : 答：解決他們之間的歧見。 : OS：喵的不然要打仗呀！ : : 問：你知道嗎？cease to function和cease to apply與abolish其實是一樣的意思。我不 : : 曉得你同不同意，在語言學和語意學裡，cease和abolish根本是同一個意思。 : : 答：我而能告訴你的就是，陳總統對現狀有承諾，他維持他就職演說的宣示。 : OS：喵的台灣記者教我怎麼說話？ : : 問：他已經說他要遵守承諾數不清的次數了？你還對他有信心嗎？ : : 答：我想我已經盡可能表明我們的觀點了。 : OS：喵的我回答同樣問題的次數也數不清了。 : : 問：但是，是不是美國鼓勵他這樣做呢？ : : 答：美國已經多次對台灣領導人表明，我們反對片面行動，並敦促他謹守兩千年就職演說 : : 的承諾，那就是不片面改變現狀。我要特別提出，他已說這次行動不是片面行動。 : OS：喵的波若波羅密 : : 問：那美國認為那是不是片面行動？ : : 答：我想是不是片面行動，還是由陳總統自己說比較好。他已經說不是片面行動。 : OS：喵的又挖洞給我跳 : : 問：經過那麼多溝通，陳最後還是堅持他的決定，美國是否準備採取什麼動作？ : : 答：我已經說過，我們將繼續相信陳總統不改變現狀的承諾。 : OS：喵的這是第幾次啦！ : : 問：請問這次事件是否就這樣落幕了？ : : 答：對我們而言，當兩岸解決了他們的歧見的時候，事件就落幕了。這也就是為什麼我們 : : 一直呼籲雙方展開對話。 : OS：希望你的問題也能夠落幕了 : : 問：一開始，美方事實上努力地在說服陳總統放棄計畫，為什麼後來你們態度軟化了？從 : : 要求他放棄，到後來一起研究如何用字。其實，中文的「終止」，英文應翻譯為 : : terminate，而不是cease to apply。終止就是terminate。我真不懂termination和 : : abolishment有什麼不同？ : : 答：我不是講中國話的人，我也不懂。我能夠告訴你的就是，一、國統會沒有被廢除；二 : : 、陳總統表示他沒有改變現狀；三、他承諾不會片面改變現狀。 : OS：喵的那些事情都是你們說的！這些中國人....波若波羅密！ : : 問：我們並沒有聽到他重申遵守就職演說中的承諾，你們在其他地方聽到他重申承諾了嗎 : : ？ : : 另一個問題是，你們真的認為美國的政策行得通嗎？你們才說廢除或終止國統會是片面改 : : 變現狀，一個星期後，現在你們說，陳總統真的沒有改變現狀。我實在不瞭解你們的政策 : : 可行嗎？ : : 而且，你們叫中國和陳水扁對話，你們有什麼誘因叫中國出來對話？如果中國昨天不同意 : : 跟他對話，今天有什麼誘因讓他出來對話？ : : 答：我沒辦法代表中國發言。我只能代表美國講話。我們的政策非常一貫，那就是防止任 : : 何一方採取片面改變現狀的行動。而這次事件，陳總統今天重申了他在兩千年就職演說時 : : 所作的承諾。這是非常重要的，因為正如你說的，如果一方不相信對方不會採取片面行動 : : ，那就無法推動對話。 : : 所以，我們今天聽到陳總統公開承諾不會改變現狀，那是很重要的。 : OS：喵的我要說幾遍才行？直接去問阿共不是比較快？你聽了也比較爽不是嗎？ : : 問：我們瞭解美國的政策是非常堅定。不過這件事情對美國政策會不會產生什麼影響？你 : : 知道，當一個決策者今天走進這棟建築物的時候，那已是另外一天，跟昨天不一樣了。 : : 答：沒錯，我同意。不過，即使是另外一天，但它是昨天的延續，我們的政策也是一樣。 : OS：喵的波若波羅密 : : 問：你認為陳總統會為此付出代價嗎？ : : 答：我不瞭解你是什麼意思。美國致力於促進兩岸解決歧見，那是我們繼續努力的目標。 : OS：喵的那是你們家的事情，我倒想知道你這樣問會得到什麼好處？ : : 問：中國至目前為止有什麼反應嗎？我們知道楊潔箎目前正在華府，他提出了台灣問題。 : : 到目前為止，中國有何反應？ : : 答：我沒有聽到任何可以向你報告的消息。950228 : OS：喵的發言人不是包打聽 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 220.135.3.133