【雙語】例行記者會(huì) 2019年1月22日 華春瑩

喜歡口譯的同學(xué)，大多抱有一個(gè)外交官的理想，而雙語例行記者會(huì)上快節(jié)奏的你問我答及現(xiàn)場翻譯，則給我們提供了寶貴的學(xué)習(xí)資源。下面是小編整理的關(guān)于【雙語】例行記者會(huì) 2019年1月22日 華春瑩的資料，希望大家在這些唇槍舌劍中，提升英語，更熱愛祖國！

2019年1月22日外交部發(fā)言人華春瑩主持例行記者會(huì)

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying’s Regular Press Conference on January 22, 2019

 

問：據(jù)報(bào)道，瑞士聯(lián)邦主席毛雷爾撰文稱，中瑞關(guān)系歷史悠久，兩國之間的認(rèn)識(shí)、理解和合作一直穩(wěn)步發(fā)展。在多元、復(fù)雜又相互依存的世界中，中瑞兩國為解決全球諸多挑戰(zhàn)樹立了典范。中方對(duì)此有何評(píng)論？

Q: According to reports, President Ueli Maurer of the Swiss Confederation wrote an article saying that China-Switzerland relations boast a long history and the mutual understanding and cooperation between the two countries are developing steadily. In the pluralistic, complex and interdependent world, China and Switzerland have set a role model in addressing global challenges. What is your comment?

 

答：中方對(duì)毛雷爾主席有關(guān)積極表態(tài)表示贊賞。當(dāng)前，中瑞關(guān)系發(fā)展良好。大家應(yīng)該記得，2017年初，習(xí)近平主席對(duì)瑞士進(jìn)行了成功的國事訪問，雙方達(dá)成一系列重要共識(shí)。雙方在“一帶一路”、經(jīng)濟(jì)、金融、自由貿(mào)易、人文等領(lǐng)域合作面臨新的發(fā)展機(jī)遇。

A: China appreciates the relevant positive remarks of President Maurer. Now China-Switzerland ties are growing with a sound momentum. You may still remember that at the beginning of 2017, President Xi Jinping paid a successful state visit to Switzerland, during which the two sides reached a series of important consensus. The two countries are presented with new opportunities for enhancing cooperation in such areas as the Belt and Road Initiative, economy, finance, free trade and cultural and people-to-people exchanges.

 

在當(dāng)前國際形勢面臨諸多不穩(wěn)定、不確定因素的背景下，中瑞開展互利友好合作不僅給兩國人民帶來了實(shí)實(shí)在在好處，也促進(jìn)了中歐關(guān)系的發(fā)展，同時(shí)為共同維護(hù)多邊主義和自由貿(mào)易發(fā)出了積極聲音。

Now the international landscape is faced with many destabilizing factors and uncertainties. Against such backdrop, the China-Switzerland mutually beneficial and friendly cooperation has delivered tangible benefits to the two peoples, fueled the development of China-Europe relations, and sent out the positive signal of jointly upholding multilateralism and free trade.

 

大家也都知道，目前王岐山副主席正在瑞士訪問。此次訪問瑞士是2019年中瑞高層交往的開篇之作。中方期待通過王岐山副主席此次訪問進(jìn)一步推動(dòng)落實(shí)習(xí)近平主席訪瑞期間雙方達(dá)成的重要共識(shí)，保持兩國高層密切交往，增進(jìn)政治互信，深化中瑞創(chuàng)新戰(zhàn)略伙伴關(guān)系，密切雙方在雙邊及中歐層面合作。

You all know that Vice President Wang Qishan is now on a visit in Switzerland. This visit marks a good beginning in China-Switzerland high-level exchanges in 2019. The Chinese side hopes that through this visit, the two sides will further implement the important consensus reached during President Xi Jinping’s visit to Switzerland, maintain close high-level exchanges, enhance political mutual trust, deepen the China-Switzerland innovative strategic partnership and engage in closer cooperation at bilateral and China-Europe levels.

 

問：來自十幾個(gè)國家的前外交官和學(xué)者今天發(fā)表了一封致中方的公開信，要求中方釋放最近在中國被拘押的兩名加拿大公民。請(qǐng)問你對(duì)此有何評(píng)論？

Q: Today former diplomats and scholars from a dozen of countries sent an open letter to the Chinese side, requiring China to release the two Canadian citizens recently detained in China. What is your comment?

 

答：我注意到你提到的這封信，應(yīng)該來自加拿大和它的幾個(gè)盟友。一共是7個(gè)國家的前外交官，還有幾個(gè)國家的學(xué)者。這些人至少犯了兩個(gè)錯(cuò)誤：

A: I have noted the letter you mentioned. It was sent by Canada and some of its allies. The former diplomats from seven countries and scholars of several countries have committed at least two mistakes.

 

第一，將從事研究和正常中外交流的人等同于兩個(gè)因涉嫌從事危害中國國家安全活動(dòng)被中方國家安全機(jī)關(guān)采取強(qiáng)制措施的加拿大人。這對(duì)廣大致力于中外正常友好交流的人士是一種極大的不尊重。

First, they equated those who undertake research and normal exchanges between China and other countries with the two Canadians who were taken compulsory measures by the Chinese national security agencies for activities endangering China’s national security. This is disrespect for people who are committed to promoting normal and friendly exchanges between China and the rest of the world.

 

第二，干涉中國司法主權(quán)。公然喊話施壓，要求中方釋放正由有關(guān)部門依法偵辦的兩個(gè)加拿大籍公民，這是對(duì)中國司法主權(quán)和最起碼的法治精神的不尊重。

Second, they interfered in China’s judicial sovereignty. They attempted to mount pressure on China by publicly making their request to release the two Canadians who are under investigation in accordance with the law by the relevant Chinese departments. This is disrespect for China’s judicial sovereignty and the spirit of the rule of law.

 

我愿再次強(qiáng)調(diào)，中方歡迎外國公民，不管是前外交官、學(xué)者還是普通老百姓，到中國開展正常的友好交流活動(dòng)，只要遵守中國的法律法規(guī)，沒有任何可擔(dān)心的。

I want to stress once again that China welcomes all foreign citizens, including former diplomats, scholars and ordinary people, to conduct normal and friendly exchanges in China. As long as they abide by Chinese laws and regulations, there is nothing to worry about at all.

 

問：去年12月開始，蘇丹多個(gè)城市爆發(fā)反對(duì)總統(tǒng)巴希爾的抗議活動(dòng)，有關(guān)方面認(rèn)為蘇丹政府針對(duì)抗議者過度使用武力。請(qǐng)問中方對(duì)此持何看法？中國常駐聯(lián)合國代表團(tuán)官員近日在安理會(huì)呼吁考慮減少對(duì)蘇丹的制裁，請(qǐng)問中方的出發(fā)點(diǎn)是什么？是否認(rèn)為某種程度上減少制裁會(huì)加劇蘇丹政府對(duì)抗議者的鎮(zhèn)壓？

Q: Since December last year, many Sudanese cities have witnessed prolonged protests against President Omar al-Bashir. The relevant parties believe that the Sudanese government overused force against protesters. What is China’s view on this? The official from the Permanent Mission of China to the UN recently advocated easing sanctions on Sudan at the Security Council. What is China’s consideration behind that? Do you think that easing sanctions will to some extent aggravate the Sudanese government’s oppression of protesters?

 

答：蘇丹是中國的友好國家，我們尊重蘇丹政府按照自己國家的法律處理好相關(guān)問題。希望蘇丹政府妥善處理有關(guān)問題，保持國內(nèi)和平穩(wěn)定。至于你提到中國常駐聯(lián)合國代表團(tuán)官員的表態(tài)，中方一貫認(rèn)為制裁本身不是目的，希望任何國家都能保持和平穩(wěn)定。

A: Sudan is a friendly country to China. We respect the efforts made by the Sudanese government to deal with the relevant issue in accordance with its domestic law. We hope that the Sudanese government can properly handle the relevant issue and maintain internal stability and peace. As to the statements made by the official from the Permanent Mission of China to the UN, China always believes that sanction itself is not the end. We hope that all countries can enjoy peace and stability.

 

問：據(jù)報(bào)道，加拿大駐美大使接受采訪時(shí)表示，美方已通知加方將就孟晚舟案正式提出引渡請(qǐng)求，加拿大不喜歡美國司法對(duì)付孟晚舟，受罰的卻是加拿大人。中方對(duì)此有何評(píng)論？

Q: According to reports, the Canadian Ambassador to the US said in an interview that the US side has told Canada that it would formally seek the extradition of Huawei financial officer, Meng Wanzhou. Canada would not like the US to deal with the Meng Wanzhou case through judicial means as it is the Canadian people that will be punished. What is your comment?

 

答：中方已多次就孟晚舟事件表明嚴(yán)正立場。任何一個(gè)具有正常判斷力的人都可以看出，加方從一開始在這個(gè)問題上就犯了嚴(yán)重錯(cuò)誤。孟晚舟事件顯然不是一起普通的司法案件。加美任意濫用他們之間的雙邊引渡條約，對(duì)中國公民的安全和合法權(quán)益構(gòu)成了嚴(yán)重侵犯。我們敦促加方立即釋放孟晚舟女士，切實(shí)保障她的合法、正當(dāng)權(quán)益。我們也強(qiáng)烈敦促美方立即糾正錯(cuò)誤，撤銷對(duì)孟晚舟女士的逮捕令，不向加方提出正式引渡要求。

A: China has made clear its solemn position many times on the Meng Wanzhou case. Anyone with normal judgment can see that the Canadian side has made a serious mistake on this issue from the very beginning. The Meng Wanzhou case is obviously not an ordinary judicial case. Canada and the US arbitrarily abusing their bilateral extradition treaty severely infringes upon the security and legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens. We urge the Canadian side to immediately release Ms. Meng Wanzhou and earnestly ensure her legal and legitimate rights and interests. We also strongly urge the US side to immediately correct its mistake, withdraw its arrest warrant for Ms. Meng Wanzhou and refrain from making formal extradition request to the Canadian side.

 

問：如果美方就孟晚舟案正式提出引渡請(qǐng)求，中方認(rèn)為加方是否應(yīng)該根據(jù)美加兩國的引渡條約繼續(xù)司法程序？

Q: Does China believe that Canada should follow its judicial procedures as required under the extradition treaty with regard to Meng Wanzhou, if the US submits the formal request?

 

答：我認(rèn)為任何國家，不只是加拿大，都應(yīng)該真正地尊重法治精神。但是正如中方多次表明的嚴(yán)正立場，孟晚舟事件從一開始就是個(gè)嚴(yán)重錯(cuò)誤，它顯然不是一個(gè)普通的司法案件，而是美加之間對(duì)雙邊引渡條約的濫用。

A: I believe that all countries, including Canada, should truly respect the spirit of the rule of law. China has made clear its solemn position many times. The Meng Wanzhou case is a serious mistake from the very beginning. It is obviously not an ordinary judicial case. Instead, it has abused the bilateral extradition treaty between the US and Canada.

 

問：加等國前外交官致中方公開信中提到，他們認(rèn)為在中國從事政策研究和外交工作不僅不受歡迎，甚至包含風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。你剛剛表示，中方歡迎外國公民到中國開展友好交流活動(dòng)，只要遵守中國的法律法規(guī)。你是否擔(dān)心人們并不這樣認(rèn)為？

Q: One of the things that open letter contained was a concern that constructive academic and foreign policy work is unwelcome and even risky in China. You said again today that China welcomes foreign citizens to conduct friendly exchanges in China as long as they abide by Chinese laws and regulations. But are you concerned that just does not appear to be the message that people are hearing?

 

答：你知道在中國有多少經(jīng)常往來于中國和其他國家、從事關(guān)于中國的研究和促進(jìn)中國與其他國家相互了解合作的學(xué)者和外交官、前外交官嗎？顯然這個(gè)數(shù)字遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不止康明凱和邁克爾兩人，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過公開信中這七個(gè)國家的前外交官和幾個(gè)國家的學(xué)者。所以他們完全不能代表從事中外正常友好交流的人的心聲。

A: Do you know that how many scholars, diplomats and former diplomats are now shuttling between China and other countries to promote research and mutual understanding and cooperation? I believe the answer is more than the two Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, and more than these former diplomats from the seven countries and scholars of a few countries. So, they are in no position to speak for those who remain committed to promoting normal and friendly exchanges between China and the rest of the world.

 

中國是世界上最安全的國家，只要不違反中國的法律法規(guī)，在中國的安全和自由是沒有任何問題的。這些人是在刻意制造一種恐慌情緒。他們?cè)谥袊艿饺魏瓮{了嗎？他們?cè)敢獍炎约旱韧谀莾蓚€(gè)因涉嫌從事危害中國國家安全活動(dòng)被中國有關(guān)部門依法偵辦的人嗎？如果不是，他們就是故意在犯偷梁換柱的錯(cuò)誤。

China is the safest country on earth. Safety and freedom in China are guaranteed as long as no violations of Chinese laws and regulations are committed. These people are deliberately creating a sense of panic. Have they been threatened in China? Do they want to be grouped with those that are being investigated by China’s national security departments on suspicion of engaging in activities that endangered China’s national security? If the answer is no, then they attempted to confuse the public by purposefully equating the two groups of people.

 

這些人刻意公開發(fā)聲施壓，是不是希望中國14億人民也發(fā)封公開信給加拿大領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人呢？我想中國人民的正義之聲一定比這一百多人的聲音更加響亮。

They issued this letter to pile pressure on the Chinese side. Do they wish to see an open letter undersigned by the 1.4 billion Chinese people addressed to the Canadian leader? I believe that the voice for justice from the Chinese people must be much louder than the sound made by just over one hundred people.

 

問：加拿大前安全情報(bào)局局長呼吁加方禁用華為。他提到，中方對(duì)待兩名加拿大公民的做法有理由讓人懷疑，中方如能接觸到加拿大通信設(shè)施，可能會(huì)對(duì)此濫用。中方對(duì)此有何評(píng)論？

Q: Canada’s former intelligence chief called on Canada to ban Huawei, citing China’s treatment of the two detained Canadians gives reason for suspicion that China might abuse access to Canadian telecom infrastructure. What is your comment?

 

答：我不想再對(duì)這種無稽之談發(fā)表評(píng)論。

A: I really don’t want to make any further comments on this non-sense.

 

我看到有外國網(wǎng)友諷刺說，美加現(xiàn)在如此打壓中國高科技公司，擔(dān)心中國公司進(jìn)行“間諜”活動(dòng)，以至于擔(dān)心中國制造的叉子都可能是間諜。這樣一種荒謬的邏輯已經(jīng)到了登峰造極的程度。

I saw some foreign netizens who wrote ironically that the US and Canada are now so obsessed with suppressing China’s hi-tech companies and so worried about Chinese companies’ spying activities that it suspects that China-made forks might be used for spying purposes. I just wonder whether they can go any further in pushing ahead such a ridiculous logic.

 

我們一直說，安全問題必須要用事實(shí)說話。迄今為止，美國、加拿大還有他們的幾個(gè)所謂盟友，在世界范圍內(nèi)極力想制造出一種使用中國高科技通信設(shè)備就會(huì)被中國監(jiān)聽監(jiān)視的恐慌，但他們有任何證據(jù)嗎？！沒有。如果沒有證據(jù)的話，希望這些人最好就此打住，不要再發(fā)表讓天下人都覺得很荒謬的言論。

We keep stressing that security issues need to be backed up by facts. The US, Canada and several of their so-called allies have been going all out to create a sense of panic worldwide to the effect that whoever uses China’s hi-tech communications equipment will be spied on by China. But, do they have any evidence?! No. If they can offer no evidence, they’d better halt their ridiculous blabbering which only makes them a laughingstock for all.

 

問：如果美方正式引渡孟晚舟，中方是否會(huì)進(jìn)行報(bào)復(fù)？

Q: If the US does follow through and extradite Meng Wanzhou, should the US expect retaliation from China?

 

答：關(guān)于這個(gè)問題，早在去年12月9日，中國外交部副部長樂玉成召見美國駐華大使時(shí)已經(jīng)表達(dá)得非常清楚了。美方所作所為嚴(yán)重侵犯中國公民的合法、正當(dāng)權(quán)益，性質(zhì)極其惡劣。中方對(duì)此堅(jiān)決反對(duì)。我們敦促美方務(wù)必高度重視中方嚴(yán)正立場，采取措施糾正錯(cuò)誤做法，撤銷對(duì)中國公民的逮捕令。中方將視美方行動(dòng)作出進(jìn)一步反應(yīng)。

A: With regard to this issue, as early as on December 9, 2018, Vice Foreign Minister Le Yucheng has made it clear when he summoned the US Ambassador to China. What the US has done, with its egregious nature, severely infringes upon the legal and legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens. China is firmly opposed to that. We urge the US side to take seriously the solemn position of the Chinese side, take measures to correct its wrongdoings and withdraw its arrest warrant for the Chinese citizen. China will make further response in view of the actions taken by the US.

 

問：你說加拿大和美國濫用引渡程序。你認(rèn)為他們出于什么動(dòng)機(jī)？為了達(dá)到何種目的？

Q: You said that Canada and the US had colluded to abuse this extradition process. Could you explain a bit more about the motivation for that? What end do you think they might have done that to achieve?

 

答：你是很資深的記者了，你難道不是明知故問嗎？

A: You are a senior journalist. You should have known the answer.

 

任何一個(gè)有正常判斷力的人都能夠看清這個(gè)事件的本質(zhì)。這種赤裸裸對(duì)中國高科技企業(yè)進(jìn)行無理打壓的行為，將被歷史證明是極其錯(cuò)誤的。我相信公平和正義終將到來。

Anyone with normal judgment could see through the nature of this issue. The flagrant and unwarranted suppression on Chinese hi-tech companies will be proved to be terribly wrong by history. I believe that fairness and justice will prevail.

 

問：如果孟晚舟被引渡到美國，是否會(huì)影響中美經(jīng)貿(mào)談判？

Q: If Meng Wanzhou is extradited to the US, will it affect trade talks in any way?

 

答：我已經(jīng)說過了，這起事件是一個(gè)嚴(yán)重錯(cuò)誤，我們要求美方立即糾正錯(cuò)誤。

A: Like I said just now, this case is a serious mistake and we urge the US to immediately correct its mistake.

 

問：有人認(rèn)為，如果加方不立即釋放孟晚舟，可能會(huì)面臨嚴(yán)重后果。美方如果引渡孟晚舟，是否同樣會(huì)面臨嚴(yán)重后果？

Q: There have been discussions of potential serious consequences for Canada if it does not immediately release Meng Wanzhou. Can the US also expect serious consequences if it accepts the extradition of Meng Wanzhou?

 

答：每個(gè)人都要為自己的行為負(fù)責(zé)任，一個(gè)國家同樣如此。我們希望無論是加方還是美方，都能認(rèn)識(shí)到這個(gè)事件的嚴(yán)重性質(zhì)，并采取措施糾正錯(cuò)誤。

A: We all need to be responsible for what we do. The same is true for a country. Be it Canada or the US, they need to grasp the seriousness of the case and take measures to correct their mistakes.

 

問：中方似乎在拘押兩名加拿大公民的問題上面臨越來越大的壓力。如果其他國家對(duì)中方加大外交施壓，中方是否準(zhǔn)備承擔(dān)相應(yīng)后果？

Q: There seems to be increasing amount of pressure against China due to the arrest of the two Canadians. Is China prepared to bear the consequences if other nations increase diplomatic concerns against China?

 

答：關(guān)于這個(gè)問題，我前幾天就已表明，不存在中方面臨越來越大壓力的問題。即便是剛才加拿大《環(huán)球郵報(bào)》記者提到的這封公開信，七個(gè)國家也就是加拿大和它的六個(gè)盟國的一些前外交官加上幾個(gè)國家的學(xué)者，他們不能代表國際社會(huì)的主流聲音。這個(gè)世界上有多少國家、多少人？中國就有14億人民，正義之聲在中國一邊。

A: On this issue, I already said several days ago that there is no such a thing of China facing increasing pressure. Even with the open letter mentioned by Canada’s Globe and Mail, there are just some former diplomats of seven countries – Canada and its six allies, and scholars from several countries. They can in no way represent the mainstream of the international community. How many countries and people do we have around the world? China alone has 1.4 billion people. Justice is on the Chinese side.

 

我希望這些前外交官和學(xué)者要明最起碼的事理，尊重最起碼的法治精神。如果連這點(diǎn)實(shí)事求是的精神都沒有，怎么去搞研究？他們搞出來的研究結(jié)果能符合事實(shí)嗎？

I hope that these former diplomats and scholars can have some basic sense and respect the spirit of the rule of law, which is the minimum requirement for them. If they don’t have this minimum level of truthfulness, how do they carry out their duties in research? Can we trust that their research results will be factual?