20210616：〈美俄會談共同宣言〉，拜登記者會
【縛雞之見】
As a statement of two great powers,
it seems to be much shorter than we expected.
U.S.-Russia
Presidential Joint Statement on Strategic Stability
〈美俄會談共同宣言〉
20210616
"We,
President of the United States of America Joseph R. Biden and President of the Russian
Federation Vladimir Putin, note the United States and Russia have demonstrated that,
even in periods of tension, they are able to make progress on our shared goals of ensuring
predictability in the strategic sphere, reducing
the risk of armed conflicts and the threat of nuclear war. 「我們，美利堅合眾國總統約瑟夫-拜登和俄羅斯聯邦總統弗拉基米爾-普丁，注意到美國和俄羅斯已經表明，即使在緊張時期，他們也能夠在我們的共同目標上取得進展，即確保戰略領域的可預測性，減少武裝衝突的風險和核戰爭的威脅。
The recent
extension of the New START Treaty exemplifies our commitment to nuclear arms control.
Today, we reaffirm the principle that a nuclear war
cannot be won and must never be fought. 最近〈新削減戰略武器條約〉的延期體現了我們對核軍控的承諾。今天，我們重申了核戰爭不可能贏，也決不能打的原則。
Consistent
with these goals, the United States and Russia will embark together on an integrated bilateral Strategic Stability Dialogue
in the near future that will be deliberate and robust. Through this Dialogue, we
seek to lay the groundwork for future arms control and risk reduction measures." 根據這些目標，美國和俄羅斯將在不久的將來共同開始一個綜合的雙邊戰略穩定對話，該對話將是深思熟慮的和強有力的。通過這次對話，我們尋求為未來的軍備控制和減少風險措施奠定基礎。」
【縛雞之見】
Having read the remark of President Biden that he made after the summit
between the heads of the U.S. and Russia, I believe that
He is both an idealist and a realist.
He persuades Putin not only by introducing the ideal but also by
explaining the benefits and why.
But the fundamental concept is that
Biden likes things to be straightforward.
No matter you agree or not, it is fine to say it straight. There is always a fair settlement to
reach. It is nothing but a waste of time
to make word games.
Let’s see if I am right.
Remarks by President Biden in Press Conference
20210616
Taimocracy翻譯
THE PRESIDENT: It’s been a long day for you all. (Laughs.) I know it was easy getting into the — the pre-meeting. There was no problem getting through those doors, was it — was there? 對你們所有人來說，這是漫長的一天。（笑）我知道進入會前會議很容易。穿過那些門沒有問題，是嗎——或不是嗎？
Anyway, hello, everyone. Well, I’ve just finished the — the last meeting of this week’s long trip, the U.S.-Russian Summit. 大家好。我剛剛結束了——本週長途旅行的最後一次會議，美俄峰會。
And I know there were a lot of hype around this meeting, but it’s pretty straightforward to me — the meeting. One, there is no substitute, as those of you who have covered me for a while know, for a face-to-face dialogue between leaders. None. And President Putin and I had a — share a unique responsibility to manage the relationship between two powerful and proud countries — a relationship that has to be stable and predictable. And it should be able to — we should be able to cooperate where it’s in our mutual interests. 我知道這次會議有很多新聞炒作，但對我來說很簡單——就是會議。第一，沒有什麼事可以替代領導人面對面的對話，正如你們這些已經報導過我一段時間的人所知道的那樣。普丁總統和我肩負著管理兩個強大而自豪的國家之間關係的獨特責任——一種必須穩定和可預測的關係。它應該能夠——我們應該能夠在符合我們共同利益的地方進行合作。
And where we have differences, I wanted
Now, I told President Putin my agenda is not against Russia or anyone else; it’s for the American people: fighting COVID-19; rebuilding our economy; reestablishing our relationships around the world with our allies and friends; and protecting our people. That’s my responsibility as President. 我告訴普丁總統，我的關注不是針對俄羅斯或其他任何人；這是為了美國人民：對抗COVID-19；重建我們的經濟；與我們的盟友和朋友重建我們在世界各地的關係；並保護我們的人民。這是我作為總統的責任。
I also told him that no President of the United States could keep faith with the American people if they did not speak out to defend our democratic values, to stand up for the universal rights and fundamental freedoms that all men and women have, in our view. That’s just part of the DNA of our country. 我還告訴他，如果美國人民不大聲疾呼捍衛我們的民主價值觀，捍衛我們認為所有男人和女人都擁有的普遍權利和基本自由，那麼美國總統就無法擁有美國人民的信任。這就是我們國家DNA的一部分。
So, human rights is going to always be on the table, I told him. It’s not about just going after Russia when they violate human rights; it’s about who we are. How could I be the President of the United States of America and not speak out against the violation of human rights? 所以，人權將永遠擺在檯面上，我告訴他。這不僅僅是在俄羅斯侵犯人權時追捕他們；這是關於我們是誰。作為美利堅合眾國總統，我怎能不公開反對侵犯人權的行為？
I told him that, unlike other countries, including Russia, we’re uniquely a product of an idea. You’ve heard me say this before, again and again, but I’m going to keep saying it. What’s that idea? We don’t derive our rights from the government; we possess them because we’re born — period. And we yield them to a government. 我告訴他，與俄羅斯等其他國家不同，我們是獨特的一種理念產物。你已經聽我說過這句話，一次又一次，但我會繼續說。那個理念是什麼？我們的權利不是來自政府；我們之所以擁有這些權利，是因為我們一出生就是這樣。是我們將這些權利讓渡給政府。
And so, at the forum, I pointed out to him that that’s why we’re going raise our concerns about cases like Aleksey Navalny. I made it clear to President Putin that we’ll continue to raise issues of fundamental human rights because that’s what we are, that’s who we are. The idea is: “We hold these truths self-evident that all men and women…” We haven’t lived up to it completely, but we’ve always widened the arc of commitment and included more and more people. 因此，在論壇上，我向他指出，這就是為什麼我們要對阿列克謝·納瓦爾尼（Aleksey Navalny）這樣的案件表示擔憂。我向普丁總統明確表示，我們將繼續提出基本人權問題，因為這就是我們的本質，這就是我們是誰。這個理念是：「我們視這些真理為不證自明，即所有男女生而平等…」我們並沒有完全實踐它，但我們總是擴大了承諾的範疇，並包容了越來越多的人。
And I raised the case of two wrongfully imprisoned American citizens:
I also raised the ability of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty to operate, and the importance of a free press and freedom of speech. 我還提到了自由歐洲電台和自由電台的運作能力，以及新聞自由和言論自由的重要性。
I made it clear that we will not tolerate attempts to violate our democratic sovereignty or destabilize our democratic elections, and we would respond. 我明確表示，我們不會容忍侵犯我們民主主權或破壞我們民主選舉穩定的企圖，我們會做出回應。
The bottom line is, I told
I also said there are areas where there’s a mutual interest for us to cooperate, for our people — Russian and American people — but also for the benefit of the world and the security of the world. One of those areas is strategic stability. 我還說，在某些領域，我們合作有共同利益，為了我們的人民——俄羅斯和美國人民——也為了世界的利益和世界的安全。其中之一是戰略穩定性。
You asked me many times what was I going to discuss with Putin. Before I came, I told you I only negotiate with the individual. And now I can tell you what I was intending to do all along, and that is to discuss and raise the issue of strategic stability and try to set up a mechanism whereby we dealt with it. 你多次問我要和普丁討論什麼。在我來之前，我告訴過你，我只與個人談判。現在我可以告訴你們，我一直打算做什麼，那就是討論和提出戰略穩定問題，並試圖建立一個我們處理這個問題的機制。
We discussed in detail the next steps our countries need to take on arms control measures — the steps we need to take to reduce the risk of unintended conflict. 我們詳細討論了我們的國家需要採取的軍備控制措施的下一步，即我們需要採取的措施來減少意外衝突的風險。
And I’m pleased that he agreed today to launch a bilateral strategic stability dialogue
— diplomatic speak for saying, get our military
experts and our — our diplomats together to work on a mechanism that
can lead to control of new and dangerous and
sophisticated weapons that are coming on the scene now that reduce the
times of response, that raise the prospects of accidental
war. And we went into some detail of what those
weapons systems were. 我很高興他今天同意啟動雙邊戰略穩定對話 — 這是外交上的說法，意思是讓我們的軍事專家和我們的外交官一起工作，制定一個可以控制新型和危險且複雜的武器的機制，這些武器目前正在出現，它們縮短了反應時間，提高了意外戰爭的可能性。我們詳細討論了這些武器系統是什麼。
Another area we spent a great deal of time on was cyber and cybersecurity. I talked about the proposition that certain critical infrastructure should be off limits to
attack — period — by cyber or any other means. I gave them a
list, if I’m not mistaken — I don’t have it in front of me — 16 specific entities; 16 defined as critical infrastructure
under U.S. policy, from the energy sector to our water systems.
我們花了大量時間討論的另一個領域是網路和網路安全。我提到了一個命題，即應該禁止攻擊某些關鍵基礎設施— 無論是透過網絡還是其他手段。我給了他們一份清單，如果我沒記錯的話 — 我眼前沒有 — 16個具體實體；在美國政策下被定義為關鍵基礎設施，從能源部門到我們的用水系統。
Of course, the principle is one thing. It
has to be backed up by practice. Responsible
countries need to take action against criminals who conduct ransomware activities
on their territory. 當然，原理是一回事。它必須被實踐。負責任的國家需要對在其領土上進行勒索軟體活動的犯罪分子採取行動。
So we agreed to task experts in both our — both our countries to work on specific
understandings about what’s off limits and to follow up on specific cases that originate
in other countries — either of our countries. 因此，我們同意讓我們兩國的專家共同制定明確的理解，確定哪些是禁止攻擊的對象，並跟進在其他國家發生的特定案件 — 來自我們兩國的任何一個。
There is a long list of other issues we spent time on, from the urgent need to preserve
and reopen the humanitarian corridors in Syria so that we can get food — just simple
food and basic necessities to people who are starving to death; how to build it
and how it is in the interest of both Russia and the United States to ensure that
Iran — Iran — does not acquire nuclear weapons.
We agreed to work together there because it’s as much interest — Russia’s
interest as ours. And to how we can ensure
the Arctic remains a region of cooperation rather than conflict. 我們還花了很多時間在其他問題上，從迫切需要保護和重新開放敘利亞的人道主義走廊，以便我們能夠獲得食物——對於餓死的人來說，只是簡單的食物和基本必需品；如何建造它以及它如何符合俄羅斯和美國的利益，以確保伊朗不會獲得核武器。我們同意在這些議題上合作，因為這與我們的利益一樣多——俄羅斯的利益和我們的利益一樣。以及我們如何確保北極仍然是一個合作區域而不是衝突區域。
I caught part of President’s — Putin’s press conference, and he talked about the
need for us to be able to have some kind of modus
operandi where we dealt with making sure the
Arctic was, in fact, a free zone. 我聽到了普丁總統的部分記者會，他談到了我們需要能夠建立某種作業模式，以確保北極實際上是一個自由區域。
And to how we can each contribute to the shared effort of preventing a resurgence
of terrorism in Afghanistan. It’s very much
in — in the interest of Russia not to have a resurgence of terrorism in Afghanistan.
以及我們每個人如何為防止阿富汗恐怖主義捲土重來的共同努力做出貢獻。這非常符合俄羅斯的利益，不要讓恐怖主義在阿富汗捲土重來。
There are also areas that are more challenging.
I communicated the United States’ unwavering commitment to the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of Ukraine. 還有一些更具挑戰性的領域。我傳達了美國對烏克蘭主權和領土完整的堅定承諾。
We agreed to pursue diplomacy related
to the Minsk Agreement. And I shared our concerns about Belarus. He didn’t disagree with what happened; he just
has a different perspective of what to do about
it. 我們同意開展與〈明斯克協議〉相關的外交努力。我分享了我們對白羅斯的擔憂。他並非反對所發生的事情；他只是對如何應對有不同的看法。
But I know you have a lot of questions, so let me close with this: It was important
to meet in person so there can be no mistake about or misrepresentations about what
I wanted to communicate. 但我知道你有很多問題，所以讓我以這個作為結束：親自會面很重要，這樣就不會對我想傳達的內容有錯誤或歪曲。
I did what I came to do: Number one, identify
areas of practical work our two countries can do to advance our mutual interests
and also benefit the world. 我做了我來要做的事情：第一，確定我們兩國可做的實際工作領域，以促進我們的共同利益並造福世界。
Two, communicate directly — directly —
that the United States will respond to actions that impair our vital interests or
those of our allies. 第二點，直接溝通 — 直接告知美國將對損害我們的重要利益或我們盟友的行動作出回應。
And three, to clearly lay out our
country’s priorities and our values so he heard
it straight from me. 第三，清楚地列出我們國家的優先事項和我們的價值觀。他直接從我這裡聽到了。
And I must tell you, the tone of the entire meetings — I guess it was a total of
four hours — was — was good, positive. There wasn’t any — any strident action taken. Where we disagreed — I
disagreed, stated where it was. Where
he disagreed, he stated. But it was not
done in a hyperbolic atmosphere.
That is too much of what’s been going on.
我必須告訴你，整個會議的氛圍 — 我想總共持續了四個小時 — 都是好的，積極的。沒有採取任何尖銳的行動。我們不同意的地方 — 我表達了我的不同意見，他也表達了他的。但這並不是在一個誇張的氣氛中進行的。這已經發生得太多了。
Over this last week, I believe — I hope — the United States has shown the world
that we are back, standing with our Allies. We rallied our fellow democracies to make concert — concerted commitments to take on
the biggest challenges our world faces.
在過去的一週裡，我相信——我希望美國已經向世界展示了我們回來了，與我們的盟友站在一起。我們團結了我們的民主國家，齊心協力——共同承諾應對我們世界面臨的最大挑戰。
And now we’ve established a clear basis
on how we intend to deal with Russia and the
U.S.-Russia relationship. 現在我們已經就我們打算如何處理俄羅斯和美俄關係建立了明確的基礎。
There’s more work ahead. I’m not suggesting
that any of this is done, but we’ve gotten a lot of business done on this trip.
還有更多工作要做。我並不是說這些都完成了，但我們在這次旅行中完成了很多工作。
And before I take your questions, I want to say one last thing. Folks, look, this is about — this about how we move from here. This is — I listened to, again, a significant
portion of what
We’ll find out within the next six months to a year
whether or not we actually have a strategic
dialogue that matters. We’ll find
out whether we work to deal with everything from release of people in Russian prisons
or not. We’ll find out whether we have a
cybersecurity arrangement that begins to bring some order. 我們將在接下來的六個月到一年內發現我們是否真的進行了重要的戰略對話。我們將了解我們是否努力處理從釋放俄羅斯監獄中的人開始的所有事情。我們會發現我們是否有一個開始帶來一些秩序的網路安全安排。
Because, look, the countries that most are likely to be damaged — failure to do
that — are the major countries. For example,
when I talked about the pipeline that cyber hit for $5 million — that ransomware
hit in the United States, I looked at him and I said, “Well, how would you feel
if ransomware took on the pipelines from your oil fields?” He said it would matter. 因為，未能這樣做後最有可能受到損害的國家是主要國家。例如，當我談到網路攻擊 500 萬美元的管道——勒索軟體在美國受到攻擊時，我看著他說：「如果勒索軟件攻擊了你們的油田管道，你會感覺如何？」他說這很重要。
This is not about just our self-interest; it’s about a mutual self-interest. 這不僅僅關乎我們的自身利益；這是關於共同的自身利益。
I’ll take your questions. And as usual, folks,
they gave me a list of the people I’m going to call on. 我會回答你的問題。像往常一樣，他們給了我一份我要點名的名單。
So,
Q Thank you, sir. U.S. intelligence has said that Russia tried to
interfere in the last two presidential elections, and that Russia groups are behind
hacks like SolarWinds and some of the ransomware attacks you just mentioned. Putin, in his news conference just now, accepted
no responsibility for any misbehavior. Your
predecessor opted not to demand that Putin stop these disruptions. So what is something concrete, sir, that you achieved
today to prevent that from happening again?
And what were the consequences you threatened? 謝謝你，先生。美國情報部門表示，俄羅斯試圖干涉過去兩次總統選舉，俄羅斯團體是
SolarWinds 等駭客攻擊的幕後黑手，以及您剛才提到的一些勒索軟體攻擊。普丁在剛才的記者會上，對任何不當行為不承擔任何責任。你的前任選擇不要求普丁停止這些破壞。那麼，先生，您今天取得了哪些具體成果來防止這種情況再次發生？ 你威脅的後果是什麼？
THE PRESIDENT: Whether I stopped it
from happening again — he knows I will take action, like we did when — this last
time out. What happened was: We, in fact,
made it clear that we were not going to
continue to allow this to go on. The end
result was we ended up withdrawing — they went withdrawing ambassadors, and we closed
down some of their facilities in the United States, et cetera. And he knows there are consequences. 無論我是否阻止了再次發生—他知道我會採取行動，就像我們上一次所做的那樣。事情是：事實上，我們明確表示：我們不會繼續允許這種情況繼續下去。最終的結果是我們最終撤回了——他們撤回了大使，我們關閉了他們在美國的一些設施等等。他知道會有後果。
Now, look, one of the consequences that I know — I don’t know; I shouldn’t
say this; it’s unfair of me — I suspect you may all think doesn’t matter, but I’m
confidence it matters to him — confident it matter to him and other world leaders
of big nations: his credibility worldwide
shrinks. 我知道其中一個後果 — 我不知道；我不應該說這個；這對我來說是不公平的 — 我懷疑你們可能會認為這不重要，但我確信這對他很重要 — 我相信這對他和其他世界大國的領導人來說都很重要：普丁他在全球的可信度正在下降。
Let’s get this straight: How would it be if the
United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections
directly of other countries, and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities
that he is engaged in? It diminishes the
standing of a country that is desperately trying to make sure it maintains its standing
as a major world power. 直說吧：如果美國被世界其他國家視為直接干涉別國選舉，而所有人都知道，那會怎樣？如果我們從事他從事的活動會怎樣？它削弱了一個拼命努力確保其作為世界主要大國的地位的國家的地位。
And so it’s not just what I do; it’s what the actions that other countries take
— in this case, Russia — that are contrary to international norms. It’s the price they pay. They are not — they are not able to dictate
what happens in the world. There are
other nations of significant consequence — i.e. the United States of America
being one of them. 因此，重要的不僅僅是我所做的事情；還有其他國家採取的行動 — 在這種情況下，是俄羅斯 — 與國際規範相抵觸。這是他們要付出的代價。他們無法主宰世界發生的事情。還有其他具有重要影響力的國家 — 例如美利堅合眾國就是其中之一
。
Q Mr. President, just a quick follow on the same
theme of consequences. You said, just now,
that you spoke to him a lot about human rights.
What did you say would happen if opposition leader
THE PRESIDENT: I made it clear to him that I believe the consequences of that would be devastating for Russia.
我向他明確表示，我相信這會給俄羅斯帶來毀滅性的後果。
I’ll go back to the same point: What do you think happens when he’s saying,
“It’s not about hurting Navalny,” this — you know, all the stuff he says to rationalize
the treatment of Navalny — and then he dies in prison? 我會回到同樣的觀點：當他說「這不是要傷害納瓦爾尼的」之時，你認為會發生什麼——你知道，他說的所有話都是為了讓納瓦爾尼的待遇合理化——然後他會死在監獄裡？
I pointed out to him that it matters a great deal when a country, in fact
— and they asked me why I thought that it was important to continue to have problems
with the President of Syria. I said, “Because
he’s in violation of an international norm.
It’s called a Chemical Weapons Treaty.
Can’t be trusted.” 我向他指出，事實上，當一個國家——他們問我為什麼我認為繼續認定敘利亞總統有問題很重要時，這很重要。我說，「因為他違反了被稱為化學武器條約的國際規範。他不能被信任。」
It’s about trust. It’s about their ability to influence other nations
in a positive way.
Look, would you like to trade our economy for Russia’s economy? Would you like to trade? And, by the way, we talked about trade. I don’t have any problem with doing business with
Russia, as long as they do it based upon international norms. It’s in our interest
to see the Russian people do well economically.
I don’t have a problem with that. 這是攸關信任。這是關於他們以正面方式影響其他國家的能力。你想用我們的經濟換取俄羅斯的經濟嗎？你想進行這種交換嗎？順便說一句，我們談到了貿易。我不反對與俄羅斯做生意，只要他們基於國際規範來做。看到俄羅斯人民在經濟上過得好，符合我們的利益。我對此沒有意見。
But if they do not act according to international norms, then guess what? That will not — that only won’t it happen with
us, it will not happen with other nations.
And he kind of talked about that — didn’t he, today? — about how the need
to reach out to other countries to invest in Russia. They won’t as long as they are convinced that,
in fact, the violations — 但如果他們不按照國際標準行事，那會怎樣？這不僅會發生在我們身上，也會發生在其他國家。他今天有點談到了這一點，對吧？ — 關於如何需要與其他國家合作投資俄羅斯。只要他們確信實際存在違規行為，他們就不會投資俄羅斯 —
For example, the American businessman who was in house arrest. And I pointed out, “You want to get American business
to invest? Let him go. Change the dynamic.” Because American businessmen, they’re not — they’re
not ready to show up. They don’t want to
hang around in Moscow. 例如，被軟禁的美國商人。我指出，「你想讓美國企業投資嗎？釋放他。改變狀態。因為美國商人，他們沒有——他們還沒有準備好露面。他們不想前往莫斯科。
I mean, I — look, guys, I know we make foreign policy out to be this great, great
skill that somehow is, sort of, like a secret code. Pract- — all
foreign policy is, is a logical extension of personal relationships. It’s the way human nature functions. 我的意思是，伙計們，我知道我們制定外交政策是一種偉大的、偉大的技能，有點像一個密碼。實踐——所有的外交政策都是個人關係的邏輯延伸。這是人性的運作方式。
And understand, when you run a country that does not abide by international
norms, and yet you need those international norms to be somehow managed so that
you can participate in the benefits that flow from them, it hurts you. That’s not a satisfying answer: “
But my generic point is, it is — it is more complicated than that. 但我的一般觀點是，它比那更複雜。
David Sanger. I thought I saw David. There he is.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the run-up to this discussion, there’s been
a lot of talk about the two countries spilling down into a Cold War. And I’m wondering if there was anything that you
emerged from in the discussion that made you think that he — 謝謝總統先生。在這次討論之前，有很多關於兩國陷入冷戰的討論。我想知道你在討論中是否有什麼東西讓你認為他——
THE PRESIDENT: With your permission,
I’m going to take my coat off. The sun is
hot. 你允許的話，我要脫掉外套。太陽很熱。
Q — anything that would make you think that Mr.
Putin has decided to move away from his fundamental role as a disrupter, particularly
a disrupter of NATO and the United States?
有什麼東西會讓你認為普丁先生已經決定擺脫他作為破壞者的基本角色，尤其是北約和美國的破壞者？
And if I could also just follow up on your description of how you gave him a list
of critical infrastructure in the United States. Did you lay out very clearly
what it was that the penalty would be for interfering in that critical infrastructure? Did you leave that vague? Did he respond in any way to it? 如果我也可以跟進你對你如何給他一份美國關鍵基礎設施清單的描述。您是否非常清楚地說明了干擾該關鍵基礎設施的懲罰是什麼？你有沒有含糊不清？他有沒有以任何方式回應？
THE PRESIDENT: Let me answer your
first — well, I’ll second question, first.
I pointed out to him that we have significant cyber
capability. And he knows it. He doesn’t know exactly what it is, but it’s significant. And if, in fact,
they violate these basic norms, we will respond with cyber. He knows. 讓我回答你的第一個問題——好吧，我先回答第二個問題。
我向他指出，我們擁有強大的網路能力。他是知道的。即便他不知道它到底是什麼，但它很強大。如果事實上，他們違反了這些基本規範，我們將透過網路做出回應。他知道這點。
Q In the cyber way. 以網路的方式。
THE PRESIDENT: In the cyber way. 以網路的方式。
Number two, I — I think that the last thing he
wants now is a Cold War. Without quoting
him — which I don’t think is appropriate — let me ask a rhetorical question: You got a multi-thousand-mile border with China. China is moving ahead, hellbent on election, as
they say, seeking to be the most powerful economy in the world and the largest and
the most powerful military in the world. 第二，我——我認為他現在最不想要的就是冷戰。在不引用他的話的情況下——我認為這不合適——讓我反問一個問題：你與中國有數千英里的邊界。正如他們所說，中國一心想成為世界上最強大的經濟體，以及世界上最大、最強大的軍隊，並正在向前邁進。
You’re in a situation where your economy is struggling, you need to move it in a
more aggressive way, in terms of growing it.
And you — I don’t think he’s looking for a Cold War with the United States.
你正處於經濟陷入困境的境地，你需要以更積極的方式推動經濟發展。而你——我不認為他是在尋求與美國的冷戰。
I don’t think it’s about a — as I said to him, I said, “Your generation and mine
are about 10 years apart. This is not a ‘kumbaya’
moment, as you used to say back in the ’60s in the United States, like, ‘Let’s hug
and love each other.’ But it’s clearly not in anybody’s interest — your country’s
or mine — for us to be in a situation where we’re
in a new Cold War.” And I truly believe he thinks that — he understands that.
But that does not mean he’s ready to, quote, figuratively speaking, “lay down his
arms,” and say, “Come on.” He still, I believe, is concerned about being, quote,
“encircled.” He still is concerned
that we, in fact, are looking to take him down, et cetera. He still has those concerns, but I don’t think
they are the driving force as to the kind of relationship he’s looking for with
the United States. 我不認為這是一個 — 正如我對他說的那樣，我說：「你和我這一代相差大約10年。這不是一個天真時刻，就像你在60年代在美國所說的那樣，『讓我們擁抱和彼此相愛。』但顯然，無論對你的國家還是對我的國家，我們都不希望陷入新的冷戰。」我真心相信他也這樣認為 — 他明白這一點。但這並不意味著他準備好了，引述一下，打個比方地說，「放下武器」，並說：「來吧。」我相信他仍然擔心被「圍堵」。 他仍然擔心我們實際上是在尋求推翻他，等等。他仍然有這些擔憂，但我不認為這些是他想要的與美國關係的主要動力。
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Is there a particular reason why the summit lasted
only about three hours? We know you had maybe
allotted four to five hours. Was there any
reason it ran shorter? 謝謝總統先生。峰會只持續了三個小時左右，有什麼特別的原因嗎？我們知道您可能預計四到五個小時。有什麼原因讓它跑得更短嗎？
Also, did —
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q And also, did you touch on Afghanistan and the
safe withdrawal of troops? 談話有觸及到從阿富汗撤軍？
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Yes, yes, and yes. Let me go back to the first part. 有有有。讓我回到第一部分。
The reason it didn’t go longer is: When is the last
time two heads of state have spent over two hours in direct conversation across
a table, going into excruciating detail?
You may know of a time; I don’t. I
can’t think of one. 它沒有持續更長時間的原因是：兩個國家元首最後一次隔著桌子直接交談兩個多小時，討論令人痛苦的細節是什麼時候？你有印象嗎？我印象中沒有過。
So we didn’t need, as we got through, when we brought in the larger group — our
defense, our intelligence, and our foreign — well, our — my foreign minister — wasn’t
the foreign minister — my Secretary of State was with me the whole time — our ambassador,
et cetera. We brought everybody in. We had covered so much. 因此，當我們通過時，我們不需要更大的團隊——我們的國防、我們的情報和我的國務卿一直和我在一起——我們的大使，等等。我們把每個人都帶進來了。我們已經涵蓋了這麼多。
And so there was a summary done by him and by me of what we covered. Lavrov and Blinken talked about what we had covered. We raised things that required more amplification
or made sure we didn’t have any misunderstandings. And — and so it was — it was — kind of, after
two hours there, we looked at each other like, “Okay, what next?” 因此，他和我總結了我們所涵蓋的內容。拉夫羅夫和布林肯談到了我們所報導的內容。我們提出了需要更著力的議題，或者確保我們沒有任何誤解。就這樣，就這樣，在那裡呆了兩個小時後，我們互相看著對方，「好吧，接下來呢？」
What is going to happen next is we’re going to be able to look back — look ahead
in three to six months, and say, “Did the things we agreed to sit down and try to
work out, did it work? Do we — are we closer
to a major strategic stability talks and progress? Are we further along in terms of…” — and go down
the line. That’s going to be the test. 接下來將要發生的事情是，我們將能夠展望未來三到六個月，並說，「我們同意坐下來嘗試解決的事情是否奏效？我們——我們是否更接近於重大的戰略穩定談判和進展？我們是否在某方面走得更遠......」——然後繼續往下走。這將是考驗。
I’m not sitting here saying because the President and I agreed that we would do
these things, that all of a sudden, it’s going to work. I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is I think there’s a genuine prospect
to significantly improve relations between our two countries without us giving up
a single, solitary thing based on principle and/or values. 我坐在這裡並不是說，因為總統和我同意我們會做這些事情，突然之間，它會起作用。我不是這麼說的。我想說的是，我認為有一個真正的前景，可以顯著改善我們兩國之間的關係，而我們不需要放棄基於原則和/或價值觀的單一的、孤立的東西。
Q There were no threats issued? 沒有威脅嗎？
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no. No. There
were no threats. There were — as a matter
of fact, I heard he quoted my mom and quoted other people today. There was — it was very, as we say — which will
shock you, coming from me — somewhat colloquial. And we talked
about basic, basic, fundamental things.
There was a — it was — and you know how I am: I
explain things based on personal basis.
“What happens if,” for example. 不，沒有威脅。事實上，我聽說他今天引用了我媽媽和其他人的話。這次會談非常，我們通常所說的 — 這可能會讓你感到震驚，是有些口語化的。我們談論了基本的、基本的、基本的事情。這次會談很…你知道我是怎樣的：我根據個人基礎來解釋事情。例如，「如果發生了什麼。」
And so, there are no threats, just simple assertions made. And no “Well, if you do that, then we’ll do this”
— wasn’t anything I said. It was just letting
him know where I stood; what I thought we could accomplish together; and what, in
fact — if it was — if there were violations of
American sovereignty, what would we do. 因此，沒有威脅，只是做出了簡單的主張。並沒有「好吧，如果你這樣做，那麼我們就會這樣做」 — 我沒有這樣說。我只是讓他知道我的立場；我認為我們可以一起完成什麼；以及事實上 — 如果有違反美國主權的情況，我們將會怎麼做。
Q Can you share what you asked him about Afghanistan? What was your particular request for Afghanistan
and the U.S. troops?
你能分享一下你問他關於阿富汗的問題嗎？ 您對阿富汗和美軍有什麼特別的要求？
THE PRESIDENT: No, he asked us about Afghanistan. He said that he hopes that we’re able to maintain some peace and security, and I said, “That
has a lot to do with you.” He indicated that
he was prepared to, quote, “help” on Afghanistan — I won’t go into detail now; and
help on — on Iran; and help on — and, in return, we told him what we wanted to do
relative to bringing some stability and economic security or physical security to
the people of Syria and Libya. 不，他問我們關於阿富汗的問題。他說他希望我們能夠保持一些和平與安全，我說，「這與你有很大關係。」他表示，他準備在阿富汗問題上「提供幫助」——我現在不詳述；並在伊朗問題上提供幫助；作為回報，我們告訴他，我們想做些什麼，為敘利亞和利比亞人民帶來一些穩定和經濟安全或人身安全。
So, we had those discussions. 所以，我們進行了這些討論。
Yamiche.
Q Thanks so much, Mr. President. Did you — you say that you didn’t issue any threats. Were there any ultimatums made when it comes to
ransomware? And how will you measure success,
especially when it comes to these working groups on Russian meddling and on cybersecurity? 非常感謝，總統先生。你——你說你沒有發出任何威脅。在勒索軟體方面，是否有任何最後通牒？您將如何衡量成功，尤其是當涉及到這些關於俄羅斯干預和網路安全的工作組時？
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it’s going to
be real easy. They either — for example,
on cybersecurity, are we going to work out where they take action against ransomware
criminals on Russian territory? They didn’t
do it. I don’t think they planned it, in
this case. And they — are they going to act? We’ll find out. 嗯，這真的很容易。他們要麼——例如，在網路安全方面，我們是否要弄清楚他們在俄羅斯領土上對勒索軟體犯罪分子採取行動的地方？他們沒有這樣做。在這種情況下，我不認為他們計劃好了。而他們——他們會採取行動嗎？我們會看到答案的。
Will we commit — what can we commit to act in terms of anything affecting violating
international norms that negatively affects Russia? What are we going to agree to do? 我們是否會承諾——我們可以承諾對任何影響違反對俄羅斯產生負面影響的國際規範的行為採取行動？我們將同意做什麼？
And so, I think we have real opportunities to — to move. And I think that one of the things that I noticed
when we had the larger meeting is that people who are very, very well-informed started
thinking, “You know, this could be a real problem.” What happens if that ransomware outfit were sitting
in Florida or Maine and took action, as I said, on their — their single lifeline
to their economy: oil? That would be devastating. And they’re like — you could see them kind of
go, “Oh, we do that,” but like, “Whoa.” 因此，我認為我們有真正的機會去採取行動。我認為，當我們舉行大型會議時，我注意到的一件事是，消息靈通的人開始思考，「你知道，這可能是一個真正的問題。」如果勒索軟體機構坐在佛羅里達州或緬因州，並像我所說的那樣，對他們經濟的唯一生命線石油採取行動，會發生什麼？那將是毀滅性的。他們就像——你可以看到他們有點說，「哦，我們這樣做」，但就像「哇。」
So it’s in — it’s in everybody’s interest that these things be acted on. We’ll see, though, what happens from these groups
we put together. 因此，對這些事情採取行動符合每個人的利益。不過，我們將看到我們組合在一起的這些小組會發生什麼。
Q Can I ask a quick follow-up question? 我可以問一個快速的後續問題嗎？
THE PRESIDENT: (Laughs.) The third one, yes. Go ahead.
第三個。說吧。
Q Mr. President, when President Putin
was questioned today about human rights, he said the reason why he’s cracking down
on opposition leaders is because he doesn’t want something like January 6th to happen
in Russia. And he also said he doesn’t want
to see groups formed like Black Lives Matter.
What’s your response to that, please? 總統先生，當普丁總統今天被問及人權問題時，他說他之所以鎮壓反對派領導人，是因為他不希望像1月6日這樣的事情發生在俄羅斯。他還表示，他不希望看到像「黑人的命也是命」這樣的團體。請問你對此有何回應？
THE PRESIDENT: (Laughs.) My response is kind of what I communicated — that
I think that’s a — that’s a ridiculous comparison. It’s one thing for literally criminals to break
through cordon, go into the Capitol, kill a police officer, and be held unaccountable
than it is for people objecting and marching on the Capitol and saying, “You are
not allowing me to speak freely. You are
not allowing me to do A, B, C, or D.”
And so, they’re very different criteria. 我的回答有點像我所傳達的——我認為這是一個荒謬的比較。對於刑事罪犯來說，衝破警戒線，進入國會大廈，殺死一名員警，並被追究責任是一回事，而不是人們反對並在國會大廈遊行並說：「你不允許我自由發言。你不允許我做這或做那。」因此，它們是非常不同的標準。
Q President — sorry —
THE PRESIDENT: He’s satisfied. Why would I bring it up again? (Laughs.) 他很滿意。我為什麼要再次提起它？
Q And now that you’ve talked to him, do you
believe you can trust him? 既然你已經和他談過了，你認為你能相信他嗎？
THE PRESIDENT: Look, this is not about trust; this is about
self-interest and verification of self-interest. That’s what it’s about. So, I — virtually almost — almost anyone that
I would work out an agreement with that affected the American people’s interests,
I don’t say, “Well, I trust you. No problem.” Let’s see what happens. 這與信任無關；這是關於自身利益和對自身利益的驗證。這就是它的意義所在。所以，我幾乎任何與我達成影響美國人民利益的協定的人，我不會說，「好吧，我相信你。沒問題。」我們聽其言觀其行。
You know, as that old expression goes, “The
proof of the pudding is in the eating.” We’re going to know shortly. 你正如那句老話所說，「一吃就知道了」。我們很快就會知道。
Q Hello, Mr. President. Hello,
THE PRESIDENT: You want to go on the
shade? You can’t — can you see?
Q Thank you.
Yeah. Yeah, yeah. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Q Yeah. So,
I think you know attacks in civil society and the free — free press continue inside
Russia. 所以，我想你知道對公民社會和自由的攻擊——新聞自由在俄羅斯境內繼續存在。
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q For example, Radio Free Europe —
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q — Radio Liberty; Voice of America; Current Time
TV channel, where I work, are branded foreign agents — and several other independent
media. So, we are essentially being forced
out in Russia 30 years after
My question is: After your talks with
THE PRESIDENT: I wouldn’t put it that
way, in terms of improving the climate. I
would, in fact, put it in terms of how much interest does he have in burnishing
Russia’s reputation that is not — is viewed as not being contrary to democratic
principles and free speech. 我不會以改善氣候的方式來表達。實際上，我會以他對提升俄羅斯聲譽的興趣有多少來表達，而以不違背民主原則和言論自由來檢視。
That’s a judgment I cannot make. I don’t
know. But it’s not because I think he —
he is interested in changing the nature of a closed society or closed
government’s actions relative to what he thinks is the right of government to
do what it does; it’s a very different approach. 我無法判斷。我不知道。但相對於他認為政府有權做其所做的事情，而不是因為我認為他對改變封閉社會或封閉政府行動的本質感興趣；這是一種非常不同的方法。
And, you know, there’s a couple of really good biogra- — I told him I read a couple
— I read most everything he’s written and the speeches he’s made. And — and I’ve read a couple of very good biographies,
which many of you have as well. 而且，你知道，有幾本非常好的傳記——我告訴他我讀過幾本——我讀了他寫的大部分內容和他所做的演講。而且——我讀過幾本非常好的傳記，你們中的許多人也讀過。
And I think I pointed out to him that Russia had an opportunity — that brief shining
moment after
And based on what I believe, Mr. Putin decided was that Russia has always been a
major international power when it’s been totally united as a Russian state, not based on ideology — whether it was going back
to Tsar and Commissar, straight through to the — the revolution — the Russian Revolution,
and to where they are today. 我深信：普丁先生認為，只要俄羅斯完全整合為一個俄羅斯國家時，它是一個主要的國際大國，此事無關基於意識形態——無論是回到沙皇和共黨政委，直到俄羅斯革命，以及他們今天的地位。
And I think that it’s clear to me — and I’ve
said it — that I think he decided that the way for Russia to be able to sustain
itself as a great — quote, “great power” is to in fact unite the Russian people
on just the strength of the government — the government controls — not necessarily ideologically, but the government. 我認為，對我來說是很清楚的，而且我已經說過，我認為普丁決定俄羅斯能夠維持自身作為一個「偉大國家」的方式，實際上是以讓俄羅斯人民在政府的力量下團結起來 — 並不一定是意識形態上的團結，而是政府的力量。
And I think that’s the — that’s the choice that was made. I think it — I — I’m not going to second
guess whether it could have been fundamentally different. But I do think it does not lend itself to Russia
maintaining itself as one of the great powers in the world. 我認為這就是所做的選擇。我不會去揣測是否可以徹底不同。但我認為這並不有利於俄羅斯維持自身作為世界上偉大國家之一的地位。
Q Sir, one more question —
Q One more on COVID — on COVID-19, Mr. President
—
Q Sir, could we ask you one more question,
please, sir? Thank you, sir. Did military response ever come up in this conversation
today? Did you — in terms of the red lines
that you laid down, is military response an option for a ransomware attack? 先生，請問您一個問題，先生？ 謝謝你，先生。 在今天的談話中，有沒有出現過軍事反應？ 你有沒有——就你設定的紅線而言，軍事反應是勒索軟體攻擊的一種選擇嗎？
And
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much. 多謝。
Q Mr. President —
Q But on the military — military response,
sir?
THE PRESIDENT: No, we didn’t talk
about military response.
Q In the spirit, Mr. President, of you saying that
there is no substitute for face-to-face dialogue, and also with what you said at
NATO that the biggest problems right now are Russia and China — you’ve spoken
many times about how you have spent perhaps more time with President Xi than
any other world leader. 總統先生，本著你所說的面對面對話的精神，以及你在北約所說的，目前最大的問題是俄羅斯和中國——你已經多次談到您與習主席相處的時間可能比任何其他世界領導人都多。
So is there going to become a time where you might call him, old friend to old friend, and ask him to open up China to the World Health Organization investigators
who are trying to get to the bottom of COVID-19? 那麼，是否會有一天你可以給他打電話，以老朋友對老朋友，並要求他向試圖深入了解 COVID-19 的世界衛生組織調查人員開放中國？
THE PRESIDENT: Let’s get
something straight. We know each
other well; we’re not old friends. It’s
just pure business. 讓我們搞清楚。我們彼此很了解；我們不是老朋友。這只是純粹的公事公辦。
Q So, I guess, my question would be that you’ve
said that you were going to press China. You signed on to the G7 communiqué that said you
— the G7 were calling on China to open up to
let the investigators in. But China basically says they don’t want to be interfered
with anymore. So, what happens now? 所以，我想，我的問題是，你說過你要向中國施壓。你簽署了七國集團（G7）的公報，上面寫著你——七國集團呼籲中國開放，讓調查人員進入。但中國基本上表示，他們不想再受到干涉了。那麼，會發生什麼？
THE PRESIDENT: The impact — the world’s
attitude toward China as it develops. China
is trying very hard to project itself as a responsible and — and a very, very forthcoming
nation; that they are trying very hard to talk about how they’re taking and helping
the world in terms of COVID-19 and vaccines.
And they’re trying very hard. 衝擊——隨著中國的發展，世界對中國的態度。中國正非常努力地將自己塑造成一個負責任的國家，而且是一個非常、非常積極的國家；他們正在努力談論他們如何在 COVID-19 和疫苗方面採取和説明世界。他們非常努力。
Look, certain things you don’t have to explain to
the people of the world. They see the
results. Is China really actually trying to get to the bottom
of this? 某些事情您不必向世界人民解釋。他們看結果。中方真的想追查到底嗎？
One thing we did discuss, as I told you, in the EU and at the G7 and with NATO:
What we should be doing and what I’m going to make an effort to do is rally the
world to work on what is going to be the physical
mechanism available to detect, early on, the next pandemic and have a mechanism by which we can respond to it and respond to
it early. It’s going to happen. It’s going to happen. And we need to do that. 正如我告訴過你的那樣，我們確實在歐盟、G7 和北約討論過一件事：我們應該做什麼以及我將要努力做的事情是團結全世界致力於將要實現的目標成為可用於及早發現下一次大流行的物理機制，並擁有一種我們可以對其做出反應並及早做出反應的機制。它會發生。它會發生。我們需要這樣做。
Thank you.
Q Any progress on the detained Americans, sir?
Q What did Putin say about
Q Sir, what do you say to the families of
the detained Americans?
THE PRESIDENT: The families of the
detained Americans, I have hope for.
Q Say it again; we can’t hear you.
THE PRESIDENT: I said the families
of the detained Americans came up and we discussed it. We’re going to follow through with that discussion. I am — I am not going to walk away on that issue.
Q Why are you so confident he’ll change his behavior,
Mr. President?
總統先生，為何你對普丁改變行為有信心？
THE PRESIDENT:
I’m not confident he’ll change his behavior. Where the hell — what do you do all the time? When did I say I was confident? I said —
我不相信普丁會改變他的行為。我什麼時候說過我有信心？你到底在幹什麼？我說的是—
Q You said in the next six months you’ll be able
to determine —
你說在接下來的六個月裡，你將能夠確定——
THE PRESIDENT: I said — what I said
was — let’s get it straight. I said: What
will change their behavior is if the rest of world reacts to them and it diminishes
their standing in the world. I’m not confident of anything; I’m just stating a fact.
我說的是：如果世界其他地區對俄羅斯的行為做出反應並削弱了俄羅斯在世界上的地位，這樣才會改變俄羅斯的行為。我對任何事情都無信心；我只是陳述一個事實。
Q But given his past behavior has not changed and,
in that press conference, after sitting down with you for several hours, he denied
any involvement in cyberattacks; he downplayed human rights abuses; he even refused
to say
THE
PRESIDENT:
If you don’t understand that, you’re in the
wrong business.
Thank you. 如果你不明白這一點，你就入錯行了。謝謝。
沒有留言:
張貼留言
請網友務必留下一致且可辨識的稱謂
顧及閱讀舒適性，段與段間請空一行