|
| 阅读上一个主题 :: 阅读下一个主题 |
| 作者 |
 美国政府内部在“反对”/“不支持”台独的说法上好像有争议。 |
 |
mzxtd
[博客]
[个人文集]
游客
|
|
|
作者：Anonymous 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
一夜之间美国国务院再度“澄清”立场，再度称美国的态度是“不支持”台湾独立
12月1日，美国国务院发言人包润石发表了美国“反对（opposes）”台湾独立的言论。他的发言引起了中港台媒体的广泛重视。很多人认为美国政府终于澄清了他们对待台湾独立的最后态度。
令人惊讶的是，事情仅隔24小时，美国政府再次对台湾独立事务发表谈话。将其已经澄清过的态度又“澄清”一遍。使整个事情更显混乱迷沌。
昨天12月2日。美国国务院副发言人厄立在回答相关问题时说：“我们非常仔细地选择词汇。--我不愿意再改变那些字眼。我想昨天包润石说的已经很清楚了。在台湾独立问题上，我们的政策没有变。我们不支持台湾独立。（We do not support Taiwanese independence. ）”
这段发言显然与昨天包润石连连使用“oppose”的言论不一致。于是引起了记者追问，请他直接回答“oppose”和“not support”是不是一回事？或者这是一种模糊政策？厄立在回答中只是重复“不支持”台湾独立的说法，并不再提“oppose”。
记者不死心，追问说：“你不能说美国反对台湾独立，是不是？（And you can't say that the United States opposes Taiwan independence?) ”厄立只用“我们的政策未变。”来对付。
记者特意指出厄立的发言可能让中国人觉得美国的态度是“fishy going on”（狡猾多变？）。厄立则再重申一遍“美国不支持台湾独立”的立场。并指出这就是美国一贯的立场。
一夜之间在美国政府内发生了什么事情，导致美国如此敏感话题上的显著反复？
附12月2日美国国务院例行记者招待会记录中有关的两段：
(网址:http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2003/26801.htm)
第一段：
QUESTION: Okay. In the latest press conference, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said, he urged the United States to abide by the three joint communiqués, and to stick to the One-China principle as well as oppose Taiwan independence.
People, of course, have noticed that the statement by Mr. Boucher yesterday at the press briefing, he said the United States would be oppose to any referenda that would change Taiwan's status or move towards independence. Would the United States consider the opposition to any referenda that would lead to independence be equivalent to opposition to Taiwan independence?
MR. ERELI: We choose our words very carefully, and our -- I'm not going to change those words. What Ambassador Boucher said yesterday, I think dealt with the question fairly explicitly. On the question of Taiwanese independence, our policy has not changed. We do not support Taiwanese independence.
第二段：
QUESTION: On this, this continuing lexicolo -- lexicological, whatever, nightmare. Is there a difference between the United States does not support Taiwanese independence and the United States opposes Taiwanese independence, or is it in your mind the same thing?
MR. ERELI: I would say we choose our words carefully, and our policy is that we don't support Taiwanese independence.
QUESTION: And you can't say that the United States opposes Taiwan independence?
MR. ERELI: I would stick with -- I will stick with what our stated policy is and remains.
QUESTION: Can you find -- is this inten -- I mean, is this part of the strategic ambiguity that Kissinger used to like to talk about, or is this just simply what's written down in the book and you don't want to -- even though they might mean the same thing, you just don't want to change the phrasing of it? I mean, what is the difference?
Because, clearly, there is one, if you don't want to say that -- that not support -- if you don't want to equate "not support" with "oppose," then there is some -- then it sounds as though, and particularly to Chinese ears, that you're -- that there's something fishy going on.
MR. ERELI: I don't think there's anything fishy going on. I think that our policy is clear, and our policy is not to support Taiwanese independence. And that's the position, you know, we have elaborated. That is the position we are going to stick with.
QUESTION: But is there any difference in your mind between that and oppose?
MR. ERELI: I think our position is that we don't support Taiwanese independence.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. ERELI: And I'm not prepared to get into a etymological discussion of the difference between support and oppose from the podium.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. ERELI: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:30 p.m.)
作者：Anonymous 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题
您不能在本论坛回复主题
您不能在本论坛编辑自己的文章
您不能在本论坛删除自己的文章
您不能在本论坛发表投票
您不能在这个论坛添加附件
您不能在这个论坛下载文件
|
based on phpbb, All rights reserved.
|
