外交雙語｜外交部例行記者會（2017.07.13）

台灣問題：

問：問一個歷史問題，關於1943年中美英三國發表的《開羅宣言》，台灣未來的高中社會科的課綱將不會再提《開羅宣言》。有觀點認為，這是台灣方面在推動所謂的「台灣地位未定論」。請問大陸方面認為《開羅宣言》在國際法上是否具有法律約束力？這份歷史文件是否還有現實意義？我知道國台辦昨天已就此表態，還想知道外交部有沒有進一步說法？

Q: I have an historical question relating to the Cairo Declaration jointly issued by China, the US and the UK in 1943. This Declaration is not going to be included in the curriculum guidelines for social studies of senior high schools in Taiwan in the future. There is a view that this is an attempt by the Taiwanese side to advance the so-called "uncertain status of Taiwan" theory. Does the mainland think the Cairo Declaration is legally binding under the international law? Is this historical document still relevant? I know that the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council had responded to this yesterday, but I wonder whether the Foreign Ministry has anything more to say?

答：確實，國台辦已就此表態。但是你既然問到關於《開羅宣言》的法律地位問題，我可以給你一個回復。

A: It is true that the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council has made remarks on this. But since you have asked about the legal status of the Cairo Declaration, I will reply to your question.

台灣是領土不可分割的一部分，的主權和領土完整不容分割。《開羅宣言》為二戰後收復被日本軍國主義掠奪和竊取的台灣及其附屬島嶼等領土提供了重要的國際法依據，是舉世公認的重要國際法文件，是世界反法西斯戰爭的重大成果，為國際社會確立戰後國際秩序奠定了重要基礎，具有深遠歷史意義和重要現實意義。

Taiwan is an indispensable part of China's territory, and China's sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division. The Cairo Declaration has set crucial international legal basis for China to regain Taiwan and its affiliated islands seized and stolen by the Japanese militarism after World War II. It is an important document universally recognized as part of international law and a major outcome of the world anti-fascist war, which laid down the key foundation of after-war international order for the international community and is of far-reaching historical significance and highly relevant.

問：你提到《開羅宣言》有重要的歷史和現實意義，但外交部另一位發言人之前說過《中英聯合聲明》是歷史文件，不具有現實意義。這兩份文件有什麼不同？為什麼會有兩個不同的解釋？

Q: You mentioned the historical and practical significance of the Cairo Declaration, but another spokesperson of the foreign ministry once said that the Sino-British Joint Declaration is a historical document, but has no practical significance. What are the differences between these two documents? Why do you come up with different interpretations?

答：我的同事已經就《中英聯合聲明》闡述了立場，我就不重複了。我想強調的是，1984年中英簽署的《關於香港問題的聯合聲明》，解決了歷史遺留的香港問題。香港回歸20年來，政府依照憲法和《香港特別行政區基本法》，對香港實行管治。「一國兩制」，「港人治港」和高度自治方針得到了切實的貫徹落實。香港保持繁榮穩定，經濟平穩發展，民主政制依法穩步推進，各項事業不斷邁向新的台階，取得了舉世公認的成就。1997年7月1日以後，香港的事務屬於內政，外國無權干預，英國對香港所稱的所謂「責任」是不存在的。

A: My colleague has stated our stance on the Sino-British Joint Declaration, so I am not going to repeat that. I shall stress that the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed by China and the UK in 1984 has resolved the Hong Kong issue left over by history. Since the return of Hong Kong two decades ago, the Chinese government has administered and governed Hong Kong in accordance with the constitution and the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The guidelines of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and a high degree of autonomy have been implemented faithfully. Hong Kong has maintained stability and prosperity, and its economy developed steadily, democratic political system made steady progress and various programs scaled new heights. All these achievements have been recognized by the whole world. From the date of July 1, 1997, Hong Kong's affairs have become China's internal affairs, and foreign countries have no rights to interfere. The so-called "responsibility" by the UK over Hong Kong does not exist.

至於你問到《中英聯合聲明》和《開羅宣言》有什麼不同，我想這是兩個性質完全不同的文件。

As for your question about the differences between the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Cairo Declaration, I believe these two documents are totally different in nature.

南海問題：

問：昨天，菲律賓外交部就南海仲裁案裁決出台一周年發表聲明。有評論指出，該聲明的有關內容對中方釋放了善意，有助於中菲關係的進一步發展，也有助於地區局勢的和平穩定。中方對此有何評論？

Q: Yesterday, the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs issued a statement on the first anniversary of the South China Sea arbitration. There are comments that the relevant content of this statement has signaled goodwill to the Chinese side and is conducive to further development of China-Philippine relations and regional peace and stability. What's your comment on that?

答：昨天，我已就菲方有關聲明闡明了中方的原則立場。

A: I have stated China's principled position yesterday.

今天，我要再強調的是，我們對菲方聲明強調有關領土爭端應本著睦鄰友好精神來解決表示贊同，同時也讚賞和支持菲方奉行獨立自主的外交政策。

Today, I should emphasize again that, we agree with the Philippines' statement which stressed territorial dispute should be resolved in the spirit of good neighborliness. At the same time, we also applaud and support the Philippines in upholding an independent diplomatic policy.

一年多來，中菲關係實現轉圜，雙方重回對話磋商談判解決正軌，建立了中菲南海問題雙邊磋商機制，並於今年5月成功舉行機制第一次會議。在和包括菲律賓在內的東盟國家共同努力下，南海形勢趨穩向好，「南海行為準則」框架也已達成。這些積極正面的發展符合兩國和兩國人民的共同利益，也符合地區國家的共同期待，是大勢所趨，不可阻擋。

For over one year, the China-Philippines relations have taken an upturn. The two sides have come back to the right track of settlement through dialogue, consultation and negotiation, established the China-Philippines bilateral consultation mechanism on the South China Sea issue, and successfully held the first meeting of such mechanism in May. With the concerted efforts of China, the Philippines and other ASEAN countries, the situation in the South China Sea has stabilized and taken on a good trend, and the framework of the COC is also concluded. These positive developments conform to the common interests of the two countries and peoples as well as the shared aspiration of regional countries, which marks an irresistible trend.

堅定維護在南海的領土主權和海洋權益，同時始終致力於同包括菲律賓在內的直接有關當事國通過談判磋商和平解決有關爭議，致力於同東盟國家共同維護南海和平穩定。中方願繼續同菲方通過對話協商妥善處理有關涉海問題，為中菲關係的發展和有關合作的推進，進一步營造良好氛圍。

While firmly upholding its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, China has also been committed to peacefully resolving the relevant disputes through negotiation and consultation with countries directly concerned, the Philippines included, and working with the ASEAN countries to jointly uphold peace and stability in the South China Sea. China stands ready to continuously work with the Philippines to properly solve the South China Sea-related issues through dialogue and negotiation, and further create sound atmosphere for the development of China-Philippines relations and relevant cooperation.

朝鮮半島問題：

問：有報道稱，朝鮮鑽了聯合國制裁決議的「空子」，增加向中方出口鐵礦。中方對此有何評論？

Q: There are some reports thatthe DPRK is taking advantage of loopholes in the UN sanctions to increase the export of iron ore to China. How do you comment on that?

答：中朝是鄰國，兩國之間保持著正常的經貿往來。安理會第2321號決議規定，關於朝鮮出口鐵和鐵礦石用於民生目的、不涉及為朝鮮核導計劃創收的不受制裁影響。中方致力於推動半島無核化的立場是堅定的、明確的，將繼續全面、準確、認真、嚴格地執行安理會有關涉朝決議。

A: As neighbors, China and the DPRK maintain normal economic and trade exchanges. Resolution 2321 stipulates that sanctions shall not affect transactions in iron and iron ore that are determined to be exclusively for livelihood purposes and unrelated to generating revenue for the DPRK's nuclear or ballistic missile programs. China's stance of staying committed to denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is firm and clear, and it will continue to implement the relevant Security Council resolutions in a comprehensive, accurate, faithful and strict manner.

問：我們注意到，中朝貿易今年上半年增長約10.5%，中方是否在認真執行安理會涉朝制裁決議？這一數字是否說明中方應該做得更多？

Q: We have noted that China's trade with the DPRK has increased by around 10.5% in the first half of this year. Is China fully enforcing the UN sanctions against the DPRK? And does this figure show that it should be doing more?

答：今天上午，國新辦舉行了新聞發布會，海關總署發言人介紹了中朝之間的貿易情況，並詳細介紹了有關具體數額。

A: This morning, the Information Office of the State Council held a news briefing, during which the Spokesperson of General Administration of Customs gave a briefing on the trade between China and the DPRK and detailed relevant specific figures.

我要重申，中方一貫全面、準確、認真、嚴格地執行安理會決議。但是請各方也不要混淆一個概念：安理會對朝鮮實施的制裁不是全面的經濟制裁。中方與朝方保持正常的經貿往來並不違反安理會決議。

I would like to reiterate that China has been implementing the Security Council's resolutions in a comprehensive, accurate, faithful and strict manner. But make no mistake, the Security Council's sanctions on the DPRK cannot be equated with all-encompassing economic sanctions. The maintenance of normal economic and trade exchanges between China and the DPRK does not violate Security Council's resolutions.

註：外交部四月、五月和六月例行記者會內容，可查看首頁」翻譯學習「的「翻碩&CATTI」欄目。

翻吧