ADIZ：美國國務院記者會○DoS（2013.12.02）

美國國務院記者會○DoS（2013.12.02）http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2013/12/218178.htm#CHINA

…

MS. PSAKI:  I’m not going to do a psychiatrist chair today.

Go ahead.  On China?

QUESTION:  What about the couch?  (Laughter.)

QUESTION:  Thank you, Jen.  So as we know, the U.S. Government has already told U.S. carriers to comply with China’s requirements before any flights pass through the new air defense zone established by the Chinese Government.  So does that mean the U.S. Government has recognized this new air defense zone established by the Chinese Government?

MS. PSAKI:  So let me be absolutely as clear as I can be here because I know there’s been a range of reporting.  It has been – some of it has been inaccurate, to no fault of – perhaps it’s our fault for not explaining it well enough.  So we are not – the State Department is not the point of contact with airlines.  The FAA is the point of contact with airlines.  There has not been any information that has been put out or confirmed that I am aware of that has conveyed what has or has not been communicated in that capacity to airlines.

There is – for safety and security of passengers, U.S. carriers operate internationally – operate consistently as a process with the notices to airmen issued by foreign countries, as is the case in this case.  Their concerns are about the safety and security of passengers.  That is different from what the U.S. Government policy is.  It is not – this is in no way indicates U.S. Government acceptance of China’s requirements in the newly declared ADIZ and has absolutely no bearing on the firm and consistent U.S. Government position that we do not accept the legitimacy of China’s requirements.

This is a case where China announced this in an uncoordinated fashion.  It’s inconsistent with standard practice. And their requirements for operating exceed internationally accepted practice in this capacity.  So I don’t know how much more clear that it is, but it does contradict a bit your question, so I wanted –

QUESTION:  It looks like we received the statement or the Q&A from the State Department, so it looks like it’s from the U.S. Government.  And also, you are saying --

MS. PSAKI:  Well, in that statement, which I certainly was well aware of, what was conveyed in there is that for safety and – for the safety and security of passengers, U.S. carriers operate consistently internationally with the notices to airmen issued by foreign governments.  It did not convey that – anything specific about what had been communicated to airlines.  It did not convey that the U.S. Government supported this effort.  So I’m very familiar with the statement you’re referring to, and there were a lot of – there were some assumptions made.

QUESTION:  So (inaudible) --

QUESTION:  Okay. I t looks like --

QUESTION:  -- that the FAA did not instruct airlines to comply with the Chinese regulations?

MS. PSAKI:  I would point you to the FAA for what they did or did not communicate to commercial airlines.

QUESTION:  Okay. Well, the FAA is part of the U.S. Government, is it not?

MS. PSAKI:  They are.  They --

QUESTION:  Yes.

MS. PSAKI:  Certainly, they are not housed in the State Department, however. (Laughter.)

QUESTION:  So – I understand that, but the State Department does have a representative – you’re familiar with the ICAO?

MS. PSAKI:  I am not.

QUESTION:  Okay.  It’s in Montreal.

MS. PSAKI:  Okay.

QUESTION:  It’s a good excuse to get to Montreal --

MS. PSAKI:  Good.

QUESTION:  -- if you ever want to go up there.

MS. PSAKI:  I will take that advice.

QUESTION:  It’s the International Civilian – it’s the civilian airline – the UN agency for airlines.  Do you know if the United States is going to use its membership in the ICAO to oppose this Chinese decision?

MS. PSAKI:  I don’t.

QUESTION:  And if you don’t know, could you ask?

MS. PSAKI:  Yeah, I’m happy to check on that for you, Matt.  Absolutely.

QUESTION:  And when you say that the U.S. Government does not accept the legitimacy of the Chinese requirements --

MS. PSAKI:  Well, it doesn’t accept – yeah, the Chinese requirements, right.

QUESTION:  Right.  That’s what you said.

MS. PSAKI:  Mm-hmm.

QUESTION:  Doesn’t that – if the FAA has been telling airlines that they have to comply with this, or that they should comply with it, how is that not accepting – the government accepting the legitimacy?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, there’s a whole field of regulations and regulatory policy that I am certainly far from an aviation expert, as it evidenced by your Montreal question.  So I would point you to them on that.

Evidence of the fact that the U.S. Government does not accept China’s requirement is by the fact that the announcement will not change how the United States conducts military operations in the region, which is something DOD announced last week.  And that is certainly a U.S. Government decision to make.

QUESTION:  So does that mean that U.S. Government planes will not obey the – or will not follow the Chinese requirements if they’re flying through this airspace?

MS. PSAKI:  Military planes?

QUESTION:  Say the Secretary of State flying on an Air Force plane to Seoul or to Tokyo will not notify the --

MS. PSAKI:  I am not aware of any upcoming Seoul trip coming up.

QUESTION:  Well, the Vice President is there right now, or in Tokyo, at least.  Are you saying that his plane, an Air Force plane, will not follow the requirements of the Chinese?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, I am saying military planes would not, and that level of specificity I’d certainly have to check and see where that falls in.

QUESTION:  What is this episode – what impact is this episode having on U.S.-Sino relations?

MS. PSAKI:  There are times when we agree and there are times when we disagree, as you know.  We’ve made clear our concerns about not only what was announced but how this was announced, the fact that there was no prior notice.  As you also know, Vice President Biden is in the region now on a prior planned trip.  He will, of course, be meeting with key leaders to discuss a range of issues.  Certainly, this could be a topic of discussion, but there are a number of other issues that we discuss both with China and other partners in the region.

QUESTION:  And has the pivot to Asia worked?  Is this evidence of the pivot working?

MS. PSAKI:  I wouldn’t categorize this into – I wouldn’t put this in the evaluation category of whether or not it worked.  Our pivot to Asia, or rebalance to Asia, means focusing on Asia and the important partnership we have with Asia, with countries in the region, the economic and strategic partners.  And nothing is further evidence of that than the Vice President’s trip there, the fact that, as you know, the Secretary will be going back to Asia soon, that he was just there a couple of months ago with Secretary Hagel.  So that is evidence of our commitment to the region.  And we work with them on a – countries in the region on a broad range of issues.

QUESTION:  But as we survey the last five years of this Administration, would you say that China is less aggressive in its serial commission of human rights abuses, currency manipulation, cyber warfare against U.S. businesses and government, territorial aggression, or is it better than it used to be?

MS. PSAKI:  I’m not going to do an evaluation of that.  Obviously, we work with them on economic issues, we work with them on strategic issues.  There are still issues, including human rights, including this issue we’re talking about now, that we express concerns about when warranted, and we’ll continue to do that.  But we know that the relationship is a vital one and one that we need to keep plugging away at even when we disagree.

QUESTION:  Jen, could I (inaudible) for a second?

MS. PSAKI:  Mm-hmm.

QUESTION:  Is it fair to characterize the U.S. position as being that aside from the official policy, for the purposes of safety and avoiding some kind of unfortunate incident, that commercial carriers should abide by the Chinese ADIZ requirements?

MS. PSAKI:  I don’t have – I’d point you again to the FAA on more specifics than what I just conveyed.  There are a range of regulations and policies that, of course, they oversee or are in place, but our general position as a U.S. Government is that we don’t accept China’s requirements.  And obviously, the military – actions of military exercises is evidence of that.

QUESTION:  Jen, this comes from --

QUESTION:  Sorry, sorry.  Just a quick follow-up on that.

MS. PSAKI:  Go ahead.

QUESTION:  It looks like the two main U.S. airlines are complying with – are taking steps to comply.  Delta and United are the two that have flight routes through the area, which seems to have kind of created a little bit of confusion/consternation in Japan over a perceived rift with Japanese policy, which is to not allow U.S. commercial airliners to file their flight plans with China.  Do you have a – do you have any kind of reassurance or any kind of response to that?

MS. PSAKI:  We coordinate closely with Japan and with South Korea and all of the countries in the region about a range of issues.  And certainly on this issue, we have been in touch with Japan and will continue to be.  This is – for specific actions of individual commercial airliners, I would point you to them or the FAA on any regulations.

QUESTION:  But – so you’re not – but you’re not afraid for the safety or concerned about the safety of U.S. citizens on flights that are flying through the area?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, certainly safety and security of citizens should be of concern to everyone.  Obviously, there are policies in place and regulations in place because of that.  But we don’t oversee airline regulations.  The FAA does, so I would point you to them.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.) Did the United States Government – the position has changed toward this ADIZ, or not changed?  What is the position to ADIZ now?

MS. PSAKI:  It has not changed.  We – China announced the ADIZ without prior consultations even though the newly-announced ADIZ overlaps with parts of longstanding ADIZs of Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, and includes territory administered by Japan.  As I mentioned, we – the fact that China’s announcement has caused confusion and increased the risk of accidents only further underscores the validity of concerns and the need for China to rescind the procedures.  It’s consistently been our position and one we have communicated both publicly and privately.  I know there was some confusion over the weekend about airlines and specifically.

QUESTION:  Jen, you said that you are not still – not accepting China’s new air defense zone.  But I wonder, like, Japan has its own air defense zone, and also part of it covers Taiwan.  But it looks like the U.S. doesn’t say anything about it.  So do you think there is sort of a double standard?  Why do you react so strongly to China’s air defense zone?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, one of the reasons is that they announced this without prior consultations.  It was inconsistent with longstanding procedure and process.  And obviously, it overlaps with a number of other longstanding air defense zones of some other neighboring countries.

QUESTION:  Jen --

QUESTION:  Jen, you do not contest the ability of China to declare such a identification zone; it’s just the manner in which they did it, or the extent?

MS. PSAKI:  No.  I think I have – I’ve just consistently said that we believe they should rescind the procedures. I’ve just – I’ve also stated a couple of times that we don’t accept China’s requirements.  So I think I’ve made that pretty clear.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

QUESTION:  Is the first --

QUESTION:  In response to the – China’s declaration of its own ADIZ, the South Korean Government is poised to expand its own ADIZ, so-called KADIZ, to the South China Sea.  What is the position of the United States? Would you encourage it or discourage it?

MS. PSAKI:  I haven’t seen those reports, or I don’t even know if they’re reports or if there’s been an announcement.  I haven’t seen any announcement, I guess I should say.  So let me check into that, and --

QUESTION:  They say they have already started consultations with the United States.

MS. PSAKI:  I’d have to check into it and see if we have more to say on that.

QUESTION:  Is this the first time the U.S. has called --

QUESTION:  Jennifer, you talk about safety --

QUESTION:  -- for the zone to be rescinded?

MS. PSAKI:  I’d have to check on that for you, Roz.

QUESTION:  Can we change topic?

QUESTION:  No.

QUESTION:  You talk about safety.  Are you really concerned that the Chinese may down an airliner or something?

MS. PSAKI:  I’m not predicting that, but certainly there is – they created these Air Defense Identification Zones, they’ve asked for prior flight plans.  So of course, the security and safety is part of the regulatory process, and – but I don’t have any predictions.  It’s just the question of abiding by it.

QUESTION:  Is it a real concern, downing an airliner?

MS. PSAKI:  I don’t think I have any more for you on that question.

QUESTION:  Jen, when you’re taking that question that Roz had --

MS. PSAKI:  Sure.

QUESTION:  -- could you also check whether the United States actually is directly asking the Chinese to rescind it?

MS. PSAKI:  Happy to.  Sure.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

QUESTION:  Well, at least --

QUESTION:  Apart from the specific concerns about how this was announced without any prior notice, its excessiveness, at least in terms of other regulations, and the safety risks that you say it cause, do you have any – are there broader concerns about this area being identified as essentially the entire East China Sea?  Is the U.S. concerned that the Chinese are looking at anything on a map that has the word “China” in it as all their own?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, part of the concern is certainly that it overlaps with parts of other --

QUESTION:  Right.  But in terms of territorial claims --

MS. PSAKI:  As well as territory administered by Japan, sure.

QUESTION:  Right, right.  But in terms of China’s territorial claims, are you concerned that this is the first step or could be a first step towards actually moving in some kind of forceful way to take control of areas of territory and ocean maritime space that it says that it owns?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, I don’t want to make a prediction of that.

QUESTION:  No, but I’m asking if you were concerned --

MS. PSAKI:  But --

QUESTION:  -- that this is a step in that direction, apart from the specific problems with the no prior notice and all that other – the safety concerns.

MS. PSAKI:  But one of the specific problems is also that this includes area – territory administered by Japan, it includes overlapping area with other countries in the region.  So certainly, that does touch on what your question is here.  In terms of a prediction of what it will mean in the future, I certainly wouldn’t venture to make that at this point.

QUESTION:  Right.  Well, the Chinese say that they would be well within their rights also to declare one of these zones over the entire – over the South China Sea.  Are you concerned about the possibility of that?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, you’re familiar with what our position is on that, and we’ve long --

QUESTION:  Well, that’s over the territorial disputes over the – it’s a question of sovereignty for these little atolls and bits of rock.

MS. PSAKI:  Mm-hmm.

QUESTION:  Would you be as opposed as you are to this if the Chinese did it for the South China Sea, or is that a hypothetical question that you will wait to bash the Chinese over the head for once they – if and when they do it?

MS. PSAKI:  It is a hypothetical question at this stage in time.

QUESTION:  All right.

QUESTION:  One more thing.  Just one more thing on that.  China at the same time has announced they sent a fighter jet against United States and Japanese aircraft last week.  Did you comment on that?

MS. PSAKI:  I am not familiar with that specific report.  In – where, exactly?

QUESTION:  If it’s true, are you concerned about these Chinese announcement?

MS. PSAKI:  I’d have to look at the specific report, and that may be a DOD question.

James.

QUESTION:  Given that China makes this declaration --

MS. PSAKI:  Mm-hmm.

QUESTION:  -- and we regard it as thoroughly problematic, if not illegal, and therefore we have on our hands a dispute with the Chinese --

MS. PSAKI:  Mm-hmm.

QUESTION:  -- which is to be adjudicated somehow in a nonviolent way, wasn’t it a kind of a provocative act for the United States to fly B-52s through that very zone in a short time thereafter?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, I would point you to DOD on that, but I would reiterate the fact that we have made clear that this action, this announcement, is not going to change our military exercises.  And that is an example of that.

QUESTION:  So other than taking – other than the Vice President, are you aware – or has there been at this point any conversations that you’re aware of in this – from this building with the Chinese directly?  It’s kind of on Jill’s question.  And if not, do you expect them or is this going to be left up to the Vice President when he goes to --

MS. PSAKI:  Let me check.  I know we have expressed concerns.  I mentioned this last week, Matt, so let me just make sure you have it.

QUESTION:  Jen, the – Secretary Kerry did meet on Wednesday with a senior Chinese official?

MS. PSAKI:  I’d have to --

QUESTION:  On Wednesday, the vice premier.

QUESTION:  Lu.

QUESTION:  Yeah.

MS. PSAKI:  I’d have to look back at that.  It seems like a long time ago.

QUESTION:  I know it does.  And it was happening on Wednesday.

MS. PSAKI:  Deputy Secretary Burns met last week with a Chinese official where this was a topic of discussion. Also, Assistant Secretary Russel spoke with the ambassador about a week ago, and Ambassador Locke has also been in touch, of course, on the ground.  In terms of specific contacts over the last couple of days, I’m happy to check and see what else we can read out for all of you.

QUESTION:  Are you taking this to the UN in any forum there?

MS. PSAKI:  I don’t have any prediction of that, James, at this point in time.

QUESTION:  New topic?

QUESTION:  So it’s strictly a bilateral or a multilateral thing, but outside the auspices of the UN is how you’re going to seek to resolve it?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, I don’t have anything for you on it at this point.  We’re taking this day by day.  I conveyed for you what we’ve done and what we’ve communicated.  But obviously, we’re taking steps day by day.

QUESTION:  But is that a kind of – is that a consideration?

MS. PSAKI:  Not that I’m aware of, Elise.  But obviously, we’re taking this day by day.

QUESTION:  Can we change --

QUESTION:  New subject?

MS. PSAKI:  Sure, Jill.  Go ahead.

QUESTION:  I’m still on China.  Can you actually clarify this?  China’s argument is that we institute the ADIZ that other countries have already instituted.  If you’re saying that China does not have a right to do that, they can say, well, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  And it doesn’t seem like you have a legal foot to stand on.  If you’re opposed to the way in which they did it or the extent of it, these can be a subject of debate.  And China has said we can get rid of our ADIZ if the Japanese get rid of theirs.  I mean, something like that could happen.  But somehow – are you really saying that you do not accept – you do not give China the right to declare a defense identification zone?

MS. PSAKI:  I think I’ve thoroughly outlined what our concerns are, so I’m not sure I have much more to add to your question.

QUESTION:  Just on another topic, Jen – sorry.

MS. PSAKI:  Well, we were going to go to Jill next, and then I’m happy to go to you.