【雙語】例行記者會 2021-8-20
喜歡口譯的同學，大多抱有一個外交官的理想，而雙語例行記者會上快節(jié)奏的你問我答及現場翻譯，則給我們提供了寶貴的學習資源。下面是小編整理的關于【雙語】例行記者會 2021-8-20的資料，希望大家在這些唇槍舌劍中，提升英語，更熱愛祖國！
2021年8月20日外交部發(fā)言人華春瑩
主持例行記者會
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying'sRegular Press Conference on August 20, 2021１
總臺央視記者：我們看到最新消息，受疫情影響，原定今年10月在昆明舉行的聯合國《生物多樣性》公約第十五次締約方大會（COP15）將分兩階段舉行。你能否介紹有關情況？
CCTV: It is learned that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity which was originally scheduled for October 2021 in Kunming will be convened in two parts. Can you brief us on the situation?
華春瑩：經《生物多樣性公約》締約方大會第十四屆主席團決定并經中國政府批準，《生物多樣性公約》締約方大會第十五次會議（COP15）將分兩階段舉行。第一階段會議將于2021年10月11日至15日以線上線下相結合方式在昆明舉行；第二階段會議將于2022年上半年以線下方式在昆明舉行。生態(tài)環(huán)境部和《生物多樣性公約》秘書處網站均已發(fā)布了有關消息。
Hua Chunying: As decided by the Bureau of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and approved by the Chinese government, the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity will be convened in two parts. The first part will be held online and offline from October 11 to 15, 2021 in Kunming. The second part will be held in a face-to-face format in the first half of 2022 in Kunming. For your reference, the relevant information has been released by the Chinese Ministry of Ecology and Environment and the Secretariat of the CBD on their websites.
此次會議以“生態(tài)文明：共建地球生命共同體”為主題，將制定“2020年后全球生物多樣性框架”，為全球生物多樣性保護制定新目標。中方將繼續(xù)有序推進各項籌備工作，并愿與各方一道，克服全球疫情帶來的不利影響，共同努力確保辦成一屆圓滿成功的大會，助力全球生物多樣性治理。
Under the theme of "Ecological Civilization-Building a Shared Future for All Life on Earth", COP15 will formulate the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and set new goals for global biodiversity conservation. China will continue to advance the preparations for COP15 in an orderly manner, and work with all parties to overcome the negative impact of the pandemic to ensure a successful event and contribute to global biodiversity governance.
2
《中國日報》記者：最近阿富汗局勢發(fā)生重大變化。美國前駐阿大使麥金利在《外交》雜志網站撰文稱，美持續(xù)20年試圖將西方民主模式強加于阿的努力宣告失敗。德國總統(tǒng)表示，阿富汗喀布爾機場的殘酷景象令西方蒙羞。布魯金斯學會認為，阿富汗問題等充分暴露美在推廣西方民主價值理念上口頭與行動嚴重不一，給美擬于今年底舉行的首屆全球民主峰會蒙上陰影。中方對此有何評論？
China Daily: The Afghanistan situation has undergone major changes recently. Former US ambassador to Afghanistan P. Michael McKinley published an article in the Foreign Affairs saying that the US efforts to impose a Western democratic model on Afghanistan which continued over two decades failed. German President said the cruel scenes at Kabul airport are shameful for the West. The Brookings Institution said that issues like Afghanistan fully reveal the gap between US rhetoric and actions in its promotion of Western democratic values, which will cast a shadow over the world's first global summit for democracy to be held by the US at the end of this year. Do you have any comment?
華春瑩：阿富汗局勢發(fā)生的重大變化再次表明，外部強加和移植民主不會長久、不會牢固。我今天剛剛從新聞中得知，從美飛機起落架摔下身亡的人中，有一位是阿富汗19歲的國足球員Zaki Anwari（安瓦利），真是令人十分痛惜。 Hua Chunying: The major changes in Afghanistan once again show that democracy imposed and transplanted by others will not last or be firm. I learned from news today that one of the people who died after falling from the landing gear of a US plane was 19-year-old Afghan national team football player Zaki Anwari. This is heart-breaking.事實表明，民主不能先入為主，不能越俎代庖。民主沒有固定模式。就像中國胃不適合每天喝冷牛奶，美國人不習慣用筷子，并不是每天用刀叉吃牛排或漢堡包才是吃飯。民主也不應是可口可樂，美國生產原漿，全世界一個味道。我知道很多中國人喜歡北冰洋汽水。
Facts show that democracy cannot be predetermined or overstretched. There is no set model of democracy. To give you an analogy, cold milk on a daily basis doesn't agree with a Chinese stomach and chopsticks are not often used by Americans. A meal of hamburger or steak with fork and knife is not the only way to get one well fed. Democracy is not Coca-Cola, which, with the syrup produced by the United States, tastes the same across the world. Many Chinese prefer Beijing-based soda drink branded Arctic Ocean.
到底什么是民主？應該由誰來定義民主？如何評判一個國家是否真正民主？這些權利不應由美國及其少數幾個盟友來壟斷。在我們看來，評判民主的標準，關鍵的一條是是否符合人民的期待、需要和要求。從這個意義上講，中國是人民民主，美國是金錢民主；中國人民享有的是實質民主，而美國是形式民主；中國實行的是全過程民主，而美國是每四年一次的投票民主。
What is democracy? Who gets to define it? How to judge whether a country is democratic? These rights should not be monopolized by the US and its few allies. For us, a key criterion is whether the country can meet people's expectations, needs and aspirations. In this sense, Chinese democracy is people's democracy while the US' is money democracy; the Chinese people enjoy substantial democracy while Americans have democracy only in form; China has a whole-process democracy while the US has voting democracy that comes every four years.
中國實行的社會主義民主政治，是一種全過程、最廣泛的民主，體現人民意志，符合中國國情，得到人民擁護。中國共產黨代表最廣大人民根本利益，沒有任何自己特殊的利益，從來不代表任何利益集團、任何權勢團體、任何特權階層的利益。中國堅持以人民為中心，把人民擁不擁護、贊不贊成、高不高興、答不答應作為衡量一切工作得失的根本標準，著力解決好人民最關心最直接最現實的利益問題。中國所有重大立法決策都依照程序、經過民主醞釀、并通過科學、民主決策產生。比如，中國政府在制定“十四五”規(guī)劃時，注重征求各方意見，僅網上就收集到100多萬條意見建議。正是因為中國堅持了人民民主，中國人民才能釋放出令人驚嘆的創(chuàng)造力和生產力，在擁有14億人口的超大規(guī)模國家創(chuàng)造了經濟快速增長和社會長期穩(wěn)定兩大奇跡，中國人民對中國政府的滿意度和支持率連年高達95%以上。
China's socialist democracy is whole-process and the most broad-based. It reflects people's will, suits China's realities and is acclaimed by the people. The Communist Party of China represents the fundamental interests of all the Chinese people. It has no special interests of its own and has never represented the interests of any interest group, group of power, or privileged class. China puts the people front and center. The fundamental criteria for assessing all the work we do is whether we can win people's backing, approval and endorsement, and make them satisfied. China strives to solve the most practical and immediate problems of the greatest concern to the people. All major legislative decisions in China are made in accordance with procedures, through democratic deliberation, and through scientific and democratic decision-making. For example, when formulating the 14th Five-Year Plan, the Chinese government paid great attention to soliciting opinions from all sides. More than one million opinions and suggestions were collected online alone. Thanks to China's commitment to democracy of the people, the Chinese people have unleashed their amazing creativity and productivity, creating two miracles of rapid economic growth and long-term social stability in a huge country with a population of 1.4 billion. The Chinese people's satisfaction and approval rate of the Chinese government has been above 95% for years.
而美國把一人一票當作所謂民主的最高形式，這非常狹隘。美國選舉受到利益集團操縱，是“沒有鈔票就沒有選票”的金錢政治。同中國共產黨把國家和人民利益放在首位不同，美國政客把能不能得到選票放在首位，目光盯著的是4年甚至兩年后的選票。在美國成千上萬人民面對新冠肺炎疫情苦苦掙扎時，美國政黨還在持續(xù)攻訐惡斗，將政治私利凌駕于人民生命健康之上，60多萬美國人民逝去的生命也沒能喚醒他們的良知和責任。過去三四十年，美國富者愈富、貧者愈貧，1%擁有、1%治理、1%享受，這是民主嗎？“弗洛伊德們”無法呼吸，槍支暴力泛濫，長期的種族歧視和仇恨問題積重難返，美國到底是誰的美國？美國政府能得到一半人民的支持嗎？美國哪個政黨能代表全體美國人民的利益？我注意到美國政治學者福山日前發(fā)表了一篇文章，其中一個觀點是應對疫情表現差異巨大，有力揭示了美西方國家民主能力有限，社會信任降低，政治領導不力等西式民主惡化。再看看美國在世界范圍內推廣美式民主的結果，哪一個被美國干涉的國家人民享受到了真正的和平、安全、自由和民主？伊拉克嗎？敘利亞嗎？還是阿富汗？
But the US has been seeing "one person, one vote" as the supreme form of democracy, which is very narrow-minded. The US elections, manipulated by interest groups, are money politics meaning "no money, no votes". Unlike the Communist Party of China that puts the interests of the country and the people first, American politicians put their votes first and focus on the votes four or even two years from now. When tens of thousands of American people are struggling against COVID-19, the two parties are attacking each other ferociously and putting their own political interests above people's life and health. The loss of more than 600,000 American lives still cannot awaken their conscience and responsibility. Over the past thirty or forty years, the rich in the US have become richer and the poor poorer. The top one percent own, govern and have it all. Is this democracy? People like George Floyd cannot breathe, gun violence runs rampant and racial discrimination and hate crimes are deeply entrenched. To whom the US belongs? Can the US government win support from half of its people? Which party in the US can represent the interests of all American people? American political scientist Francis Fukuyama recently wrote that the difference in COVID-19 response has shown limited state capacity, low social trust, poor political leadership and other signs of democratic deterioration. Look at the consequence of US promotion of the American democracy across the world. In which intervened country have the people enjoyed real peace, security, freedom and democracy? Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan?
民主應是真實存在的，而不是空洞口號，不應成為忽悠或麻木人民的精神鴉片，更不應成為攻擊抹黑其他國家、維護自身霸權的幌子和借口。打著所謂“民主”旗號拉幫結派、肆意干涉別國內政甚至蠻橫打壓遏制其他國家正常發(fā)展和享受更好生活的權利，這恰恰是最大的不民主，是專制、是霸權、是極權。Zaki Anwari’s fallen; American myth down（安瓦利墜落了，美國神話破滅了）。越來越多的人正在覺醒。
Democracy should be tangible rather than empty slogans. It should not become spiritual opium that fools or numbs the people, still less an excuse for attacking and smearing other countries and maintaining one's own hegemony. Ganging up in the name of democracy, wantonly interfering in other country's internal affairs and even arbitrarily suppressing normal development of other countries and people's legitimate right to better lives is more undemocratic than anything else. It is autocracy, hegemony and totalitarianism. Zaki Anwari's fallen, American myth down. More and more people are awakening.3
中國國際電視臺記者：我們注意到最近有很多關于軍事干預是否有效的討論。其中美國知名學者杰弗里·薩克斯在《辛迪加報業(yè)》網站發(fā)表題為《沙中之血》的文章，批判美國軍事干預政策給世界造成嚴重后果并指出，美國自省意識的缺失令人驚訝。美國在阿富汗的失敗是美國政治文化的失敗，也是美國熱衷通過軍事手段解決政治問題或通過中情局破壞穩(wěn)定的外交信念的失敗。你是否認同上述觀點？對此有何評論？ CGTN: We note that recently there has been a lot of discussion about whether military intervention works. A renowned US scholar Jeffrey Sachs published an article titled "Blood in the Sand" on the US website Project Syndicate, criticizing US military intervention policies which have brought about severe consequences to the world. He also wrote that the lack of American self-awareness is startling. United States' failure in Afghanistan is an abiding failure of American political culture and a failure of the belief that the solution to every political challenge is military intervention or CIA-backed destabilization. Do you agree with these observations? Do you have any comment? 華春瑩：你的觀察很準確。近期，國際社會都在熱議美國過去這些年的對外軍事干預和外交政策。有美國媒體稱，從上世紀的“越南綜合征”到如今的“阿富汗綜合征”，美國一再企圖按照自身意志塑造其他國家，導致美國一次次跌入災難和深淵。 Hua Chunying: Your observation is accurate. Recently, the international community has had heated discussions about the US' military intervention and foreign policy over the past years. Some US media commented that from the "Vietnam Syndrome" in the last century to the "Afghanistan Syndrome" today, the US once and again tries to mould other countries according to its own will. This has led the US into disastrous abyss time and again.我也看到了你剛才提到的薩克斯的文章。薩克斯教授指出，朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭以來，美國對多個發(fā)展中國家發(fā)動的軍事干預全都失敗，幾無例外。無論是東南亞的越南、老撾、柬埔寨，還是中東的伊拉克、敘利亞、利比亞，或是拉美、非洲，再到如今的阿富汗。美國在阿富汗的支出中，僅有2%，甚至不到2%用在真正能惠及阿富汗人民的基本基礎設施或減貧服務。美國本可以同其他國家一道，更多投資于清潔水、學校、醫(yī)院、農業(yè)等幫助阿富汗擺脫貧困的項目，建設一個更加穩(wěn)定和繁榮的阿富汗。但美國領導人向公眾強調不會把錢花在這些瑣事上。薩克斯教授認為，美國統(tǒng)治階層和媒體毫不留情、不計后果地干預這些國家，并蔑視其人民，留給當地人民的只有戰(zhàn)火殺戮和流離失所。 I also saw the article you mentioned. Professor Sachs pointed out in the article that almost every modern US military intervention in the developing world has come to rot. It's hard to think of an exception since the Korean War, be it Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in Southeast Asia, Iraq, Syria and Libya in the Middle East, Latin America, Africa, or today's Afghanistan. Professor Sachs also said that less than 2% of the US spending on Afghanistan, and probably far less than 2%, reached the Afghan people in the form of basic infrastructure or poverty-reducing services. The US could have worked with other countries to invest in clean water, sanitation, school buildings, clinics, agriculture and many other programs to lift the country from economic deprivation, and foster a more stable and prosperous Afghanistan. Yet American leaders go out of their way to emphasize to the American public that they won't waste money on such trivialities. The American political class and mass media hold the people of these nations in contempt, even as they intervene relentlessly and recklessly in those countries. What they left behind is only wars, killings and displacement.
我注意到著名英國學者馬丁·雅克最近也就這方面問題發(fā)表了一些評論，他認為軍事力量一直是美國全球角色的根本。長期以來，美國一直認為，強大的軍事力量是它能夠在世界范圍內實現美國目標的主要因素。1945年以來，美國在70多個國家建立了近800個軍事基地。在每一個美國海外軍事干預的案例中，美國都享有巨大的軍事優(yōu)勢，但都失敗了，因為決定勝敗的真正關鍵因素是人民、是民心，而不是軍事優(yōu)勢。
British scholar Martin Jacques noted in a recent article that military power has been fundamental to America's global role. America has long believed that overweening military strength was the primary factor in enabling it to get its way in the world. Since 1945, it has set up nearly 800 military bases in over 70 countries across the whole world. In every case of US military intervention overseas, though it enjoys great military advantage, it failed anyway. This is because what really matters is people's approval, not military advantage.
事實一再表明，軍事干預沒有出路，用強權及軍事手段解決問題只會使問題越來越多。把美式民主生搬硬套到歷史文化、國情截然不同的國家只會水土不服，最終以失敗告終。
Facts have repeatedly shown that military intervention leads nowhere, and that the use of power and solving problems with power and military means would only lead to even more problems. The copy of American democracy model can hardly fit or stand in a country with distinctively different history, culture and national conditions, which will end up in failure.
上世紀70年代，美國有一首反越戰(zhàn)的歌曲，歌中有一句詞，Let Saigons be bygones（讓西貢成為過去），可惜的是這一幕在喀布爾又重現了。中國有句話叫“吃一塹，長一智”。美國吃的塹已經夠多了，應該長長智了。美國真的應該深刻反思自身動輒干涉他國內政、窮兵黷武、始亂終棄的錯誤政策了，美方真的應該認真思考一下作為一個大國對世界和平穩(wěn)定發(fā)展應該負起什么責任，不要再執(zhí)迷于做世界和平的破壞者和動蕩的制造者。
There was an anti-Vietnam War song in the 1970s in which the lyrics read "Let Saigons be bygones". But regrettably, history is repeating itself in Kabul. The Chinese people often say that a fall into the pit, a gain in the wit. The US has fallen into the pit for too many times. It is time for it to gain some wit. The US should deeply reflect on its wrong policy of belligerence and forsaking commitments, think seriously about its responsibilities for the world and stop undermining world peace and creating instability.4 香港中評社記者：8月19日，美國領導人接受采訪時稱，臺灣、韓國、北約與阿富汗形勢有根本不同。美國已就北約憲章第五條作出莊嚴承諾，如果有國家入侵北約盟友或采取行動，美將作出回應，對日本、韓國和臺灣也是如此。中方有何評論？ China Review News: US leader said in an interview on August 19 that there's a fundamental difference between Taiwan, South Korea, NATO and Afghanistan. The US side made a commitment to Article Five that if in fact anyone were to invade or take action against its NATO allies, the US would respond. Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with Taiwan. Do you have any comment?
華春瑩：我注意到有媒體稱這也許是一個口誤。臺灣確實和阿富汗有根本不同。阿富汗是一個主權國家，而臺灣是中國領土不可分割的一部分。一個中國原則是任何國家都不可逾越的紅線和底線。中國必須統(tǒng)一，也必然統(tǒng)一。任何人都不要低估中國人民捍衛(wèi)國家主權和領土完整的堅強決心、堅定意志和強大能力！
Hua Chunying: I noticed that some media have suggested that this may have been a slip of the tongue. There is indeed a fundamental difference between Taiwan and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a sovereign state, while Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory. The one-China principle is a red and bottom line that cannot be crossed. China must and will be reunified. No one should underestimate the strong determination, firm will and strong capability of the Chinese people to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity.5
中新社記者：我們注意到，近日有報道稱，美國政府高層正在以疫苗援助等為籌碼對中國周邊國家威逼利誘，換取后者幫助炒作“中國病毒源頭論”，分化中國和周邊國家，維護美國的地區(qū)主導權。發(fā)言人對此有何評論？ China News Service: Recent reports say that using vaccine aid as a bait, high level officials of the US government are stepping up the efforts to coerce China's neighboring countries to participate in its campaign to smear China as the "source of the coronavirus" and to drive a wedge between China and its neighbors so as to maintain US' regional dominance. Do you have any comment? 華春瑩：我們注意到有關報道。當中國急人之所急、克服困難為有需要的國家生產和提供抗疫物資時，美國則在全世界買斷、壟斷抗疫物資。當中國率先宣布并踐行將疫苗作為全球公共產品，向世界提供超過8億劑疫苗時，美國卻在大搞“疫苗民族主義”和“美國優(yōu)先”。 Hua Chunying: We noted relevant reports. When China's overcoming difficulties to produce and provide anti-epidemic supplies to countries in urgent need, the US bought up and hoarded supplies. When China first announced and took the lead in implementing the pledge of making vaccines a global public good and has so far provided more than 800 million doses to the world, the US was practicing "America First" and "vaccine nationalism".現在，美國終于把自己的疫苗拿出來，但如果真像報道中所說的那樣，美國卻已在背后標好了價碼，將疫苗和溯源問題掛鉤，把疫苗當做脅迫他國加入反華遏華同盟的工具。這種做法是不道德、不負責的，理應受到譴責。 Now the US is offering vaccines, but with a price tag, as media reports said, in exchange for support on the origins tracing issue, making vaccines a tool to coerce other countries into joining its anti-China alliance. If this is true, such behavior is immoral and irresponsible, which should be condemned.
當前，世界仍面對疫情嚴峻挑戰(zhàn)，迫切需要團結和合作。疫苗是抗擊病毒的利器，是拯救生命的希望，不應被政治病毒污染。希望美方停止政治操弄溯源，污染毒化國際合作。 The world is still facing severe challenges from COVID-19 and there is a crying need for solidarity and cooperation. Vaccines are a powerful weapon against the virus and bring hope for saving lives, and should not be used as a tool for political manipulation. We hope the US will stop politicizing origins tracing, poisoning international cooperation and return to the right track of international anti-epidemic collaboration and origins tracing cooperation.
６
澎湃新聞記者：據報道，新任美國空軍部長弗蘭克·肯德爾在接受媒體采訪時說，他的目標是制造“讓中國感到恐懼”的超前技術，比如當前美國空軍正在推進的F-35隱形戰(zhàn)斗機升級項目。中方對此有何評論？ The Paper: According to reports, the new Secretary of the US Air Force Frank Kendall said in an interview that his goal is to field leap-ahead technologies that "scare China" such as upgrade program of the F-35 stealth fighter jets that the US Air Force is developing. What is China's comment?華春瑩：肯德爾說要“讓中國感到恐懼”，建議他問問我們中國人民解放軍空軍同不同意。
Hua Chunying: Kendall said they want to "scare China". I suggest he ask the Air Force of the PLA whether they would agree to this.
英國學者馬丁·雅克最近表示，美國在伊拉克、阿富汗等每一個案例中都享有巨大的軍事優(yōu)勢，但無一例外都以失敗告終。贏得戰(zhàn)爭的關鍵是贏得人心，而不是軍事優(yōu)勢。我想美國在越南、伊拉克、阿富汗這樣的教訓已經很多了。
I noticed that British scholar Martin Jacques recently said, the US enjoys massive military advantage in each case of Iraq, Afghanistan and so on. But in all circumstances, it failed in the end. The key to the victory of a war is to win over the people instead of military superiority. The US must have drawn many lessons in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
7
《北京青年報》記者：19日，美國財政部以侵犯人權和腐敗為由，對古巴中央陸軍參謀長等3人實施制裁。中方對此有何評論？ Beijing Youth Daily: On the 19th, the US Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on three Cuban individuals including the chief of the Central Army on the grounds of human rights violation and corruption. What is China's comment?華春瑩：近期關于美國制裁古巴的問題，中方已多次表明立場，堅決反對美方對古巴濫施單邊制裁霸凌和干涉古巴內政。事實已經無數次證明，越是打著人權旗號亂舞制裁大棒，就越暴露出美方虛偽的道德雙標和橫行霸道的本質。中方堅定支持古巴政府為維護社會穩(wěn)定所作努力。我們也想再次敦促美方與國際社會相向而行，多做一些真正有助于古方改善經濟民生、有利于保障古巴人民基本權利的事。
Hua Chunying: China has made its position clear on multiple occasions recently. We are firmly opposed to the US unilateral sanctions on Cuba and interference in its internal affairs. Facts prove that the more the US wields the big stick of sanctions in the name of human rights, the more it exposes its hypocritical moral double standards and bullying nature. China firmly supports the Cuban government's efforts in maintaining social stability, and again urges the US side to work together with the international community to do more that helps Cuba improve its economy and livelihood, and ensure the basic rights of the Cuban people.
8
路透社記者：中方是否愿意協助應對阿富汗公民大規(guī)模撤離？是否會接收逃離的阿富汗公民？ Reuters: Is China willing to help with the current large-scale evacuations from Afghanistan? Would China itself accept any Afghan citizens who are fleeing the Taliban?華春瑩：當前形勢下，當務之急是國際社會一道鼓勵和支持阿富汗各派別、各民族加強團結，通過對話協商找到一個阿人民能夠接受、符合阿人民利益和國情、開放包容的政治框架，盡快實現政治平穩(wěn)過渡，避免發(fā)生新的內戰(zhàn)或人道主義災難，最大限度避免無謂傷亡和產生大規(guī)模難民。這是解決問題的根本之道。
Hua Chunying: Under the current circumstances, the top priority for the international community is to help and encourage different factions and ethnic groups in Afghanistan to strengthen solidarity, find an open and inclusive political framework that is accepted by the Afghan people and is in line with the people's interests and national conditions and achieve smooth political transition as soon as possible. Efforts should be made to avoid a new civil war, humanitarian disaster and unnecessary casualties, and prevent causing a large number of refugees. This is the fundamental way out on this issue.
9
路透社記者：中方近日加大了對西方國家人權問題的批評力度。中方此舉是否如西方國家官員所說，這是為了轉移外界對自身政策的批評，比如對維吾爾人“種族滅絕”的政策？中方暗示新冠病毒可能是從美方實驗室泄漏的，是否也是在轉移美方對中國應對失策導致疫情蔓延的批評？中方是否放棄改善與美國等西方國家的關系？ Reuters: China has recently stepped up criticism of Western countries' human rights records. Is China doing this, as Western officials say, to try to deflect criticism of its own policies, such as accusations of genocide against the Uyghurs? China has also suggested COVID-19 could have escaped from a lab in the US. Is this also an attempt to deflect criticism from some in the US that China's missteps allowed the pandemic to emerge? Given the increase in China's criticisms on the issues, is China giving up on improving its relations with the US and other Western countries?華春瑩：你的問題里的邏輯我不能同意。
Hua Chunying: I can't agree with the logic of your question.
首先，你說中國加強在人權問題和溯源問題上對美批評力度是為了轉移美國對中國的批評。這是錯誤的。我們多次強調，美國及其少數西方盟友在人權和溯源問題上對中國發(fā)起了毫無底線的攻擊，而這些對中國的批評是基于謠言和謊言的。而中國所列舉的一件件一樁樁都基于事實，很多都是基于美國媒體自己報道的公開信息。
First of all, I think it is wrong to say that China has been stepping up its criticism on the issues of human rights and origins tracing in order to deflect US slamming of China. As we have stressed many times, the US and a few of its allies have launched unscrupulous attacks on China on the issues of human rights and origins tracing, which are based on nothing but rumors and lies. But what China has listed, piece by piece, is based on facts, and mostly on the public information reported by the US media.
第二，難道你認為美方基于謠言謊言指責中國就是“新聞自由”，而中方基于事實說話就是“虛假信息”嗎？還是說只有美國等西方國家有資格批評誹謗中國，而中方就沒有權利指出這些錯誤？如果是這種邏輯，那就是在搞話語霸權和霸凌，就是在話語和新聞方面的不民主、專制和極權。
Second, do you think that the US accusations against China based on rumors and lies are "freedom of the press", while China's accusations based on facts are "disinformation"? Or is it only the Western countries, including the US, that has the right to criticize China, even on the basis of unfounded rumors, lies and slander, and China has no right to point out their mistakes? I think such logic is discourse hegemony and bullying. It is non-democracy, authoritarianism and totalitarianism in discourse and press.
第三，你問如果中方對美國進行批評，是否意味著要放棄與其改善關系？我想你問題中的邏輯是：中方為了改善與美國的關系，就必須放棄原則，就必須要對美方的無理指責和抹黑攻擊逆來順受，做沉默的羔羊。這也是錯誤的。中方一向希望同包括美國在內的世界各國發(fā)展良好關系，但是獨立主權國家間發(fā)展友好關系必須基于相互尊重，平等互利，不能指望一方毫無底線、無休止地攻擊另一方，而另一方卻保持沉默，打不還手，罵不還口。
You also asked whether China's criticism of the US means it is giving up on improving its relations with the US. I think the logic in your question is that in order to improve relations with the US, China must give up its principles and behave like a silent lamb, grinning and bearing all the unreasonable accusations and slanders of the US. I think that's wrong, too. China always hopes to develop good relations with other countries, but the friendly relations between sovereign, independent countries must be based on mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit. We cannot expect one side to remain silent and not to retaliate while the other side keeps attacking without scruples.
中國人民是崇尚正義、不畏強暴的人民，中華民族是具有強烈民族自豪感和自信心的民族。中國人民從來沒有欺負、壓迫、奴役過其他國家人民，過去沒有，現在沒有，將來也不會有。同時，中國人民也絕不允許任何外來勢力欺負、壓迫、奴役我們。中方一直在積極學習和借鑒其他國家一切有益經驗，歡迎一切有益的建議和善意的批評，但我們絕不接受“教師爺”般頤指氣使的說教。希望美方端正心態(tài)，學會真正尊重、平等對待其他國家，停止攻擊抹黑中國，停止干涉中國內政，停止損害中方利益。在此基礎上，我們的大門是敞開的，愿意本著善意和誠意，與美國及其盟友國家發(fā)展良好合作關系，這不僅是中國人民，也是美國人民和世界各國人民的共同期待。
We Chinese are a people who uphold justice and are not intimidated by threats of force. As a nation, we have a strong sense of pride and confidence. We have never bullied, oppressed, or subjugated the people of any other country, and we never will. By the same token, we will never allow any foreign force to bully, oppress, or subjugate us. We are eager to learn what we can from the achievements of other countries, and welcome helpful suggestions and constructive criticism. We will not, however, accept sanctimonious preaching from those who feel they have the right to lecture us. We hope that the US will adopt a correct mindset, learn to truly respect and treat other countries as equals, stop attacking and smearing China, stop interfering in China's internal affairs and harming China's interests. On this basis, our door is open and we are willing to develop good cooperative relations with the US and its allies with goodwill and sincerity. This is the shared aspiration of not only the Chinese people, but also the American people and people around the world.
10
總臺央視記者：據報道，中國同意出資5500萬美元幫助塞拉利昂建設一座深海漁港。但有外媒認為該項目會對環(huán)境產生負面影響。中方對此有何評論？ CCTV: According to reports, China has agreed to offer Sierra Leone $55 million to help it build a harbour for deep-sea fishing boats. But some believe the project will have negative impact on the environment. Do you have any comment on this?華春瑩：我看到了《經濟學人》的這篇報道，有關報道是不準確的。塞拉利昂政府、行業(yè)協會和社會各界人士已多次就塞拉利昂漁碼頭項目澄清并表達支持，前不久塞議會予以批準。從塞各界人士表態(tài)中，我們可以清楚看到，建設現代化的漁碼頭，是塞人民自上世紀70年代以來的夙愿。漁碼頭建設將極大改善塞漁業(yè)基礎設施。關于環(huán)境評估和土地拆遷，塞政府也已多次指出，項目選址是基于水深測量、環(huán)境等多種因素考量作出的最合適安排，塞方已委托專業(yè)機構進行環(huán)境評估，并已安排專項資金用于對當地土地所有者進行補償。根據塞漁業(yè)部門登記，現有來自16個國家和地區(qū)100余艘工業(yè)化漁船在塞作業(yè)，漁碼頭建成后不但將造福當地人民，也將惠及各國在塞經營的相關企業(yè)，是多方共鸁的。所謂“魚粉廠”、破壞熱帶雨林、不顧當地居民、為中方獲取資源等說法都不屬實、站不住腳。
Hua Chunying: I noticed this Economist report, which I think is inaccurate. The Sierra Leonean government and industry associations, as well as various sectors of society, have repeatedly clarified and expressed support for the project in Sierra Leone, which the parliament recently approved. The remarks of people from all walks of life in Sierra Leone clearly show that the construction of a modern fishing harbour has been the long-cherished wish of the Sierra Leonean people since the 1970s. The construction of the fishing harbour will significantly improve Sierra Leone's fishing infrastructure. On the issue of environmental assessment and land requisition, the government of Sierra Leone has pointed out that the siting of the project is the most appropriate arrangement based on considerations of multiple factors including the water depth and the environment. The Sierra Leonean side has commissioned a professional institution to conduct an environmental assessment and earmarked funds for compensation for the local landowners. According to the registration records of Sierra Leone's fishery authorities, there are now more than 100 industrial fishing vessels from 16 countries and regions operating in Sierra Leone. The completion of the fishing harbour will benefit not only the local people, but also the relevant enterprises operating in Sierra Leone. It is a win-win project for all parties. So the claims in this article about the fishmeal plant, destruction of surrounding rainforest, disregard for the local people, China hoovering up resources, are all untrue and untenable.
中塞友好合作已歷經50年，成果累累，有目共睹。平等協商、共同發(fā)展、合作共鸁、綠色、可持續(xù)是中方一貫秉持的合作理念。中方是否真心希望、真正幫助當地經濟發(fā)展和人民生活改善，塞拉利昂人民自會作出判斷，而且這樣的事情也只有塞人民說了算，中方完全尊重塞方的選擇。
Over the past 50 years, China-Sierra Leone friendly cooperation has yielded fruitful results for all to see. We have always adhered to the principles of equal consultation, common development, win-win cooperation, green and sustainable development. Is China genuinely helping local economic development and improving people's lives? I think the people of Sierra Leone will make their own independent judgment. In such a matter, only the Serbian people have the final say. China fully respects the choice of the Sierra Leonean side.
11
香港中評社記者：19日，阿富汗塔利班發(fā)言人穆賈希德在社交網站聲明，塔利班成立“阿富汗伊斯蘭酋長國”。中方是否打算承認？
China Review News: On the 19th, the Afghan Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid issued a statement on social media that the Afghan Taliban has announced the establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Does China plan to recognize it?
華春瑩：我們注意到有關阿富汗塔利班的聲明，也注意到阿富汗國內各派仍在就未來政權架構等進行協商。中方在阿富汗問題上的立場是一貫和明確的，我們希望阿富汗組建開放包容、有廣泛代表性的政府，奉行溫和穩(wěn)健的內外政策，順應本國人民愿望和國際社會普遍期待。
Hua Chunying: We have taken note of the Afghan Taliban's statement. We have also noticed that parties in Afghanistan are still holding consultations on the future political framework. China's position on the Afghan issue is clear and consistent. We hope Afghanistan can form an open, inclusive and broadly-based government, uphold moderate and prudent domestic and foreign policies and respond to the shared aspiration of the Afghan people and the international community.
以上就是【雙語】例行記者會 2021-8-20的全部內容，希望對你有所幫助！
