加载中…2012年09月01日
(2012-09-01 12:50:42)
标签：
杂谈 |
美国国务院28日记者会关于钓鱼岛名称与中国新华社记者的问答。没有什么胜负的问题，美国政府新闻发言人被自己国家记者刁难的更多，这其实是最正常的有内容有意义的问话，多一些这样的驻外记者才能体现中国应有的风貌。
QUESTION: What is the official name for the Senkaku Islands for
the
United States? Is it Diaoyu Islands or Senkaku Islands, or both are
okay?
MS. NULAND: Our – I’m going to go to my special little rocks cheat
sheet here, because this is getting quite complicated with lots of --
QUESTION: Yes. Do you have one?
MS. NULAND: -- different things here. So let me make sure I get it
right here. So the one – yeah. So as we’ve said, we call them the
Senkakus, so if that’s the question that you’re asking. We don’t take
a position on them, though, as I’ve said all the way through.
QUESTION: So you don’t take a position on them, but on the other hand
you think the islands is covered by the Defense Treaty between Japan
and the United States, right? Is that correct? Do you think that those
two things are contradictory, because --
MS. NULAND: Yes. We’ve consistently said that we see them falling
under the scope of Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty.
QUESTION: Do you think that is contradictory? Because for me, it
sounds like contradictory. You said you don’t have a position on the
sovereignty of the islands, but on the other hand you said it’s
covered by the treaty, which only protects Japanese territories.
MS. NULAND: But this is because the Senkakus have been under the
administrative control of the Government of Japan since they were
returned as part of the reversion of Okinawa since 1972.
QUESTION: So let me rephrase my question. Do you regard the islands as
Japanese territory?
MS. NULAND: Again, we don’t take a position on the islands, but we do
assert that they are covered under the treaty.
QUESTION: So you think these islands is under the administration of --
MS. NULAND: I think I’ve answered the question. Let’s move on.
QUESTION: No. You don’t have --
United States? Is it Diaoyu Islands or Senkaku Islands, or both are
okay?
MS. NULAND: Our – I’m going to go to my special little rocks cheat
sheet here, because this is getting quite complicated with lots of --
QUESTION: Yes. Do you have one?
MS. NULAND: -- different things here. So let me make sure I get it
right here. So the one – yeah. So as we’ve said, we call them the
Senkakus, so if that’s the question that you’re asking. We don’t take
a position on them, though, as I’ve said all the way through.
QUESTION: So you don’t take a position on them, but on the other hand
you think the islands is covered by the Defense Treaty between Japan
and the United States, right? Is that correct? Do you think that those
two things are contradictory, because --
MS. NULAND: Yes. We’ve consistently said that we see them falling
under the scope of Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty.
QUESTION: Do you think that is contradictory? Because for me, it
sounds like contradictory. You said you don’t have a position on the
sovereignty of the islands, but on the other hand you said it’s
covered by the treaty, which only protects Japanese territories.
MS. NULAND: But this is because the Senkakus have been under the
administrative control of the Government of Japan since they were
returned as part of the reversion of Okinawa since 1972.
QUESTION: So let me rephrase my question. Do you regard the islands as
Japanese territory?
MS. NULAND: Again, we don’t take a position on the islands, but we do
assert that they are covered under the treaty.
QUESTION: So you think these islands is under the administration of --
MS. NULAND: I think I’ve answered the question. Let’s move on.
QUESTION: No. You don’t have --
喜欢
0
赠金笔