2013/05/13 美國國務院記者會──菲國海盜殺人部分

美國國務院記者會──菲國海盜殺人部分

【Comment】對於菲國海盜槍殺台灣漁民，美國國務院形容為衝突（confrontation）並對死亡事件表示遺憾（regret）。

美國國務院要求雙方克制（refrain from provocation actions）。但當公務船以機槍射擊無武裝漁船，美國政府能要求雙方克制成為記者質疑的重點。

記者問：誰先挑釁？【國務院】：遺憾與調查進行中。

記者問：難道同意此野蠻行為？【國務院】：期望雙方自制。

記者問：被機槍射擊的台灣漁船野蠻何在？若我射擊你，你會希望政府要求雙方克制？【國務院】則打哈哈：希望你不會射我。

記者問：要求雙方自制，是各打50大板。【國務院】則回答：調查進行中。

記者問：台灣漁船無武裝、有59顆彈孔，你的聲明像是寬容一方可以對另一方使用武力。【國務院】：遺憾。

記者問：誰先挑釁時？【國務院】則回答：（凱瑞進來，一陣騷亂）

記者問：美國立場是不以武力解決爭端，但此案中是一方以機關槍發言。【國務院】：我們當然鼓勵和平解決。我說的是通論。

記者問：誰你容認在南海所有以武器對付無武裝平民。【國務院】：我不評論個案。

記者問：事件在雙方爭議海域發生？

記者問：今天另有3艘中國公務船在尖閣/釣魚台海域美國立場如何？【國務院】：我們對該島的最終主權持中立立場。希望各方不升高緊張。

記者問：所以中國採取損害和平的行動？【國務院】：我們敦促雙方……，這是相當清楚的。

記者問：有和北京商量過？【國務院】：據我所知，沒有。

記者問：你們對該水域的立場？【國務院】：事件的精確位置，目前尚未明確。似乎發生在爭議水域。

記者問：當你們敦促雙方在所有情況下自制，你想給一方什麼訊息？當不管哪一方對另一方做了什麼，你總是同等要求雙方時。【國務院】：和平解決爭議。當然，我確實「譴責」漁民的死亡悲劇。也有調查……

記者問：不是這樣的。【國務院】：喔（講錯了），是「遺憾」漁民的死亡悲劇……。和平協商…

記者問：凱瑞曾說當見到人民站出來或抵抗政府暴力時，美國將站出來指出該政府的行為。在本案中，你們將兇手與受害者等量齊觀。【國務院】：有調查…，我們不是等量齊觀。通論來說，我們不畏懼說出真相。大體而言是這樣說的。

記者問：是否要譴責此種殘殺無辜漁民的行為？【國務院】：我想…

記者問：或者你想容認？【國務院】：當然不是容認。我們「遺憾」漁民之死。菲國政府調查進行中。

菲國海盜之美國【國務院】記者會◎DoS（2013.05.13）http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2013/05/209338.htm#PHILIPPINES

QUESTION:  In Taiwan, because we were --

MS. PSAKI:  Just one moment.  Is there any more on Pakistan or are we – okay.

QUESTION:  Because we were told that the Taiwanese Government already contacted the U.S. Government regarding their ultimatum to the Philippine Government.  I wonder, is there any comments from this state.

MS. PSAKI:  Absolutely, and thank you for your question.  We regret the tragic death of a Taiwan fishing boat master during a May 9^th confrontation at sea with a Philippine patrol vessel.  To answer your question, the United States has been in touch with both the Philippine Government and the Taiwan authorities regarding this incident and we welcome the Philippine Government’s pledge to conduct a full and transparent investigation into the incident.

QUESTION:  And so far the Philippine Government hasn’t apologized, as we understand it.  The Taiwanese Government become very tough on this issue and send the coast guard and even a military ship.  So what’s U.S. position on this?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, I think I’ve just stated it.  We’ve been in touch with both the Taiwan authorities as well as the Philippine Government.  We note that the Philippine Government has pledged to conduct a full and transparent investigation and to work with the Taiwan authorities to establish what has transpired.

QUESTION:  So does U.S. worry about escalation when the military present or you support this kind of action?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, we continue to urge all parties in any scenario to ensure maritime safety and to refrain from provocative actions.  In this case, again, the Philippine Government is going to be conducting an investigation and they will be working with the Taiwan authorities to establish what happened in this case.

QUESTION:  Follow up here?

QUESTION:  (Inaudible) who take the provocative action first.  The result is Philippine firing at the boat.  So do you think – you think the bullet or firing on the boat is a right way here to solve the problem?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, we, again, regret the tragic death of this Taiwan fishing boat, of this fishing boat master.  We’re going to let – there is an investigation that will be underway, and we’ll let that proceed.

QUESTION:  But isn’t this against the – you are calling for this South China Sea conduct.  Do you agree the brutal way to solve the problem?

MS. PSAKI:  We encourage both sides to refrain from provocative actions.  I don’t think I have anything further to parse in this case.

QUESTION:  What is the alleged provocation on the Taiwanese side in this case?  I don’t – one side shot the other side, right?  So if I shoot you, would you want the government to warn both of us not to shoot each other?

MS. PSAKI:  I hope you don’t. (Laughter.)

QUESTION:  When you are warning both sides, you’re giving equivalency.  What is the Taiwanese action that you’re concerned about?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, again, the government – the Philippine Government is looking into this case.  I don’t want to get ahead of their process of investigating what happened.

QUESTION:  The Taiwanese fisherman was unarmed.  It’s a fishing boat, small compared to the government vessel that the Filipinos had.  When you say confrontation, only one side was shooting the other, using machine gun.  And as a matter of fact, 59 bullet holes were found on that small boat.  So when you – your statement sounds like you were condoning the use of force by one side --

MS. PSAKI:  I think I said we regret the tragic death of this individual.  That’s how I started.

QUESTION:  Well, I know.  I want you to comment on the fact that someone opened fire, okay, in the South China Sea.  I think the – as far as I can remember, the standard U.S. policy would call for peaceful resolution of any dispute.  But in this particular incident, one side was using machine gun to speak.  Would you say something to that effect, please?

MS. PSAKI:  I think I’ve touched on everything I can touch on in this case at this stage.  We, of course, do encourage peaceful negotiation.  We encourage both sides – I wasn’t trying to attribute it to one side or the other, just making a broad point – to refrain from provocative actions.  There’ll be an investigation into this case, and we’ll follow that closely.

QUESTION:  Do you condone at all firing of firearms against unarmed civilians in the South China Sea?

MS. PSAKI:  Again, I’m not going to speculate on this specific case.  I appreciate all of the questions on it.

QUESTION:  Just one more.  Regarding the water, last Friday I asked about this.  This incident took place in the water both sides claim as their EEZ.  What is the U.S. stance on this?  Is this water Philippine water or Taiwanese water or disputed waters?

MS. PSAKI:  Hi, sir.

SECRETARY KERRY:  What a great job.

QUESTION:  I know.

SECRETARY KERRY:  I just wanted to come down and congratulate Jen on her first, what do we call it, barrage with all of you?

MS. PSAKI:  Briefing. Adventure.

SECRETARY KERRY:  I think --

QUESTION:  Grilling.

SECRETARY KERRY:  Grilling.  I think she’s been absolutely spectacular. I don’t want to interrupt the flow, because I know you have a lot more creative questions to ask.  But anyway, congratulations.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, sir.

SECRETARY KERRY: Welcome to the --

MS. PSAKI: Notice our height is very close here. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY KERRY : I want to thank Patrick Ventrell for doing a great job as an interim. Anyway, where is he? Over here. Thank you --

MR. VENTRELL: Thank you, sir.

SECRETARY KERRY: -- very, very much. Anyway, back to your work. Goodbye.

QUESTION: Is the Geneva conference sliding away?

SECRETARY KERRY: Goodbye, goodbye. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Can you –

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary --

MS. PSAKI: All right. Are we – okay.

QUESTION:  For the record, he shook his head and said no in response to that question.

MS. PSAKI:  Yes, we can – let’s stay in the region.  Let’s stay in the region.

QUESTION:  Another maritime dispute.

MS. PSAKI:  We’ll come back to you.

QUESTION:  Another maritime dispute.

MS. PSAKI:  Yes.

QUESTION:  So it seems there was another provocative action today with three Chinese Government ships remaining in waters off the Senkakus or Diaoyus, as they’re called in two different – by two different countries.  What is the U.S. position on this?  It seems to have been yet another incident, and it obviously is not going away.

MS. PSAKI:  Mm-hmm.  Well, we did see those reports.  The United States position on this issue – or broadly on this issue, I should say – is longstanding.  We don’t take a position on the question of ultimate sovereignty over the islands.  We do urge all parties to avoid actions that could raise tensions or result in miscalculations that would undermine peace, security, and economic growth in this vital part of the world.

QUESTION:  So in this case, the Chinese Government was taking an action which could undermine peace?

MS. PSAKI:  Again, we urge both sides – I’m not going to make an evaluation from here, but we urge both sides not to take provocative actions.  I’m not going to define what those are.  I think they’re pretty clear.

QUESTION:  Have you been in touch with the authorities in Beijing about this latest incident?

MS. PSAKI:  Not that I’m aware of, Jo .

QUESTION:  Can we change topics?

QUESTION:  What is your stance on the water?  Back to the question that your boss just --

MS. PSAKI:  Oh, yes. I apologize.  I was getting to a really good point there.  To answer your question, which, just to reiterate, was about where this took place, the precise location of the incident is not yet clear.  Although it appears the incident took place in or near disputed waters that both claim fishing rights, it’s unclear at this stage, in our knowledge, where exactly it took place.

QUESTION:  Can I just ask --

MS. PSAKI:  Mm-hmm.

QUESTION:  -- what motivation are you trying to give to one side when you urge both parties in all instances to refrain from action?  You don’t – I mean, if I knew that I was in a dispute with someone and no matter what I did, you would equally urge me and the other person to do whatever we shouldn’t be doing, that doesn’t lead me to curtail my behavior in any way.

MS. PSAKI:  Well, our goal here is for peaceful resolution of some of these disputes that happen.  There are a broad range of them, so I’m speaking broadly here.  I did condemn, of course, the tragic death of this fisherman.  There is an investigation --

QUESTION:  No, no, no.

MS. PSAKI:  I’m sorry – regret the tragic death.  There is an investigation that is going to be underway by the Philippine Government, so I’m just pointing you to that.  But broadly speaking, to answer your question, we do encourage peaceful negotiation, peaceful resolution of these disputes, and that’s the case in many scenarios – Jo ’s question, many questions in the back as well.

QUESTION:  But isn’t the point of your effort to – and I’ve heard Secretary Clinton , I think Secretary Kerry , about speaking truth to power.  And when you see people standing up or doing things that run directly counter to behavior that would lead to stability, you are going to stand up and point that out and hold these governments to account.  And in this case, you’re holding the victimizer and the victim to equal account, so it doesn’t seem to match.

MS. PSAKI: Well, there will be an investigation run by the Philippine Government into what happened here, so I don’t think that is holding both sides to same account.  I think broadly speaking, we’re never afraid here to speak our minds and speak truth to power, whether that was Secretary Clinton