【雙語(yǔ)】例行記者會(huì) 2021年1月20日 華春瑩（下）

喜歡口譯的同學(xué)，大多抱有一個(gè)外交官的理想，而雙語(yǔ)例行記者會(huì)上快節(jié)奏的你問(wèn)我答及現(xiàn)場(chǎng)翻譯，則給我們提供了寶貴的學(xué)習(xí)資源。下面是小編整理的關(guān)于【雙語(yǔ)】例行記者會(huì) 2021年1月20日 華春瑩（下）的資料，希望大家在這些唇槍舌劍中，提升英語(yǔ)，更熱愛(ài)祖國(guó)！

美國(guó)有線電視新聞網(wǎng)記者：第一個(gè)問(wèn)題，周一你回答有關(guān)病毒溯源問(wèn)題時(shí)提到美德特里克堡基地和生物實(shí)驗(yàn)室，相關(guān)話題上了中國(guó)社交媒體熱搜，昨天晚上“外交部”的標(biāo)簽是熱搜榜首。很多中國(guó)網(wǎng)民找出一些曾在網(wǎng)上廣為流傳的猜測(cè)、推斷，繼續(xù)炒作這個(gè)話題。中方表態(tài)是在世衛(wèi)專家即將在武漢展開(kāi)調(diào)查之際，那么中方立場(chǎng)是不是，無(wú)論世衛(wèi)專家在武漢調(diào)查得出什么結(jié)論，只要他們不去美國(guó)進(jìn)行類似調(diào)查，那在武漢得出的結(jié)論就都是片面的和毫無(wú)意義的？第二個(gè)問(wèn)題，你剛才提到對(duì)美國(guó)新政府的一些期望，但這一表態(tài)也發(fā)表在美國(guó)新政府即將宣誓就職之際，是不是給他們發(fā)出一個(gè)信號(hào)或者是一個(gè)下馬威呢？

CNN: First, you mentioned Fort Detrick on Monday while answering a question on origin-tracing, and then it became a trending topic in Chinese social media. Last night, the MFA became the hottest topic. Many Chinese netizens gathered speculations and hypothesis spreading online and continued to hype up the issue. China’s statement came as WHO experts are working in Wuhan. Do you intend to suggest that so long as they don’t conduct similar research in the US, then any conclusion reached in Wuhan would be one-sided and meaningless? Second question, you mentioned some expectations for the new administration, but it also came as the new administration is about to be sworn in. Is it meant to be a signal or a tough posture?

華春瑩：你的問(wèn)題讓我想起了周一英國(guó)廣播公司記者沙磊提的問(wèn)題，但是我覺(jué)得，其實(shí)你中文那么好，你對(duì)中國(guó)社交媒體上的言論以及中方表態(tài)的理解，應(yīng)該比沙磊更加準(zhǔn)確，不應(yīng)該有任何誤解。你仔細(xì)回想一下中國(guó)官方表態(tài)，什么時(shí)候有過(guò)你那樣的理解？中方立場(chǎng)一直是，溯源問(wèn)題是一個(gè)非常嚴(yán)肅的科學(xué)問(wèn)題，必須交由科學(xué)家和醫(yī)學(xué)專家進(jìn)行嚴(yán)肅科學(xué)考察研究，然后得出結(jié)論，使我們能夠?qū)@種新型病毒有個(gè)更好科學(xué)了解，便于今后更好地應(yīng)對(duì)類似公共衛(wèi)生危機(jī)。

Hua Chunying: This reminds me of the question posed by Mr. Sudworth of BBC on Monday. But with your fluent Chinese, you should have a more accurate understanding of comments on Chinese social media as well as our positions. There should be no misunderstanding. If you check the past remarks of foreign ministry spokespersons, can you recall anything like your interpretation? Our consistent position is that origin-tracing is a serious scientific matter that must be studied by scientists and medical experts to reach a conclusion through science-based research. It will help us gain a better understanding of this new virus so as to better deal with similar public health crises in the future.

關(guān)于德特里克堡，你可以回想一下，是不是在前年六七月份的時(shí)候，美國(guó)媒體包括社交媒體上有大量這樣的報(bào)道？我們感到很好奇的是，當(dāng)前年六七月份美國(guó)媒體開(kāi)始有報(bào)道德特里克堡生物基地的問(wèn)題，以及此后發(fā)生的“電子煙大白肺”疫情時(shí)，為什么美國(guó)沒(méi)有做調(diào)查、反而刪除相關(guān)報(bào)道？在國(guó)際社會(huì)多次要求美方就德特里克堡生物基地作出解釋的時(shí)候，美方為什么三緘其口，始終沒(méi)有任何人出來(lái)做任何說(shuō)明？

With regard to Fort Detrick, if you think back, wasn’t it back in June, July 2019 when American media including social media reported a lot on this? We are curious, when there were so many media reports in the US on the bio-chemical research base at Fort Detrick and the subsequent EVALI outbreak, why didn’t the US conduct any investigation but instead removed relevant reports? When the world asked time and again for an explanation from the US on Fort Detrick, why did the US remain silent with no explanation offered whatsoever?

另外，當(dāng)美國(guó)生態(tài)健康聯(lián)盟跟中國(guó)武漢病毒研究所合作長(zhǎng)達(dá)15年之久的病毒專家明確表示，根據(jù)他了解，沒(méi)有任何證據(jù)表明武漢病毒研究所存在任何引發(fā)疫情的病毒，為什么美方那么快就中斷了對(duì)其有關(guān)合作研究項(xiàng)目的資助？我注意到當(dāng)時(shí)此事引發(fā)了美國(guó)科學(xué)界的譴責(zé)。

Besides, when an EcoHealth Alliance expert who had been working with WIV for 15 years said that there’s no evidence showing that the Wuhan lab had the virus that could trigger the outbreak, why did the US quickly cut funding for his joint research program? I noted the American science community condemned this.

還有，當(dāng)有媒體報(bào)道指向更早的時(shí)候，比如前年秋天疫情在多點(diǎn)多地暴發(fā)，以及美國(guó)秋季大流感同疫情之間可能有聯(lián)系的時(shí)候，美方為什么也是三緘其口，從來(lái)沒(méi)有邀請(qǐng)世衛(wèi)組織，自己也沒(méi)有進(jìn)行過(guò)任何調(diào)查？這些都是大家腦中的問(wèn)號(hào)，需要答案。這個(gè)答案不應(yīng)該由中方給，而應(yīng)該由美方自己給。

Also, when media reports showed that the epidemic broke out in multiple places earlier in the autumn of 2019 and there might be links between the seasonal influenza in the US and the epidemic, why did the US remain silent and neither invite WHO to look into the matter nor investigate itself? These are just some of the question marks waiting for answers. And it is not for China, but for the US, to offer the answers.

至于中方社交媒體評(píng)論，包括你說(shuō)到熱搜，公平地講，美國(guó)媒體就美國(guó)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人撒謊做了很多報(bào)道，蓬佩奧在涉華問(wèn)題包括疫情問(wèn)題上對(duì)中國(guó)進(jìn)行了多么惡毒的、多么頻繁的污名化、標(biāo)簽化和種種污蔑抹黑攻擊，如果美方媒體甚至領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人、高官都可以發(fā)表各種不負(fù)責(zé)任的言論、散播各種謠言和陰謀論，為什么美國(guó)媒體可以報(bào)道，中國(guó)媒體或者社交媒體上的普通人不可以發(fā)表他們的觀點(diǎn)？你應(yīng)該可以看到，現(xiàn)在美國(guó)就是因?yàn)橹{言和陰謀論大行其道，人民才深受其害。難道其中還沒(méi)有深刻教訓(xùn)可以汲取嗎？

You mentioned comments on Chinese social media including the trending topics. Speaking fairly, the US media reported heavily on the lies of the American leadership, including all the stigmatization, labeling, and all sorts of smears and attacks. If American media, even the leadership or senior officials are free to make irresponsible comments and spread rumors and conspiracy theories, why is it that American media can report on them but Chinese media and people using social media couldn’t post their own comments? You should see how people in the US are suffering because of the rampant rumors and conspiracy theories. Aren’t there lessons to be learned?

我還是想強(qiáng)調(diào)一下，中方立場(chǎng)非常清楚，是一貫的、明確的。我們沒(méi)有任何意圖去誤導(dǎo)人們的判斷，或者說(shuō)誤導(dǎo)世衛(wèi)組織專家組工作。中方對(duì)世衛(wèi)組織相關(guān)工作一直堅(jiān)定支持，并且予以密切有力的配合和合作。我們希望其他國(guó)家也能給予世衛(wèi)組織同樣堅(jiān)定的支持和必要的幫助。

I stress that China’s position is clear and consistent. We have no intention to misguide public judgement or the WHO mission’s work. We always firmly support the work of WHO and offer our strong coordination and close cooperation. We hope other countries could offer the same firm support and assistance to WHO.

你剛提到對(duì)美國(guó)新政府一個(gè)“下馬威”，我覺(jué)得“下馬威”談不上。發(fā)出什么信號(hào)？其實(shí)美國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)近期有很多工商界、學(xué)術(shù)界人士都發(fā)出了相同的聲音，因?yàn)榇蠹沂軌蛄诉^(guò)去幾年美國(guó)個(gè)別政客的極端不負(fù)責(zé)任言論，都希望我們的生活和秩序可以回歸正常。我想，如果美國(guó)新政府能夠采取更加理性和負(fù)責(zé)任的態(tài)度來(lái)制定對(duì)外政策，將受到國(guó)際社會(huì)的歡迎。

You asked whether it was meant to be a tough posture for the incoming US administration, I think that’s reading too much into it. What’s the signal? Actually lately many in the business and academic circles in the US have been speaking up because they are all fed up with the extremely irresponsible remarks by a few politicians and hope that normal life and order could be restored. I think that if the new administration could be more rational and responsible in formulating domestic and foreign policies, it will be welcomed by the international community.

對(duì)于中方來(lái)講，我們從來(lái)認(rèn)為，中美關(guān)系是非常重要的一組雙邊關(guān)系。中美關(guān)系保持健康穩(wěn)定發(fā)展，符合中美兩國(guó)人民的根本利益，符合中美兩國(guó)的根本利益，也符合國(guó)際社會(huì)的普遍期待，中方對(duì)于發(fā)展中美關(guān)系的政策是一貫的、明確的。我們希望美國(guó)新政府能夠同中方相向而行，本著相互尊重的精神妥善處理分歧，在更多領(lǐng)域開(kāi)展互利合作。這符合國(guó)際社會(huì)的期待，也是中美兩國(guó)人民的期待。

On China’s part, we always believe that the China-US ties are a very important bilateral relationship. The sound and steady development of this relationship serves the fundamental interests of the two peoples and countries and is the shared aspiration of the international community. China’s policy on developing relations with the US is consistent and clear. We hope the new administration could meet China halfway, properly handle differences in the spirit of mutual respect, and conduct mutually-beneficial cooperation in broader areas. This is the expectation of both peoples and the whole world.

美國(guó)有線電視新聞網(wǎng)記者：我們注意到最近中國(guó)官方媒體大篇幅報(bào)道美國(guó)輝瑞疫苗致死事件來(lái)質(zhì)疑它的安全性。最近在挪威發(fā)生23名老人死亡事件。但不少人認(rèn)為這些報(bào)道有夸大其詞和誤導(dǎo)之嫌。有人覺(jué)得中國(guó)官媒這樣的報(bào)道似乎是在全球公眾中造成對(duì)疫苗的質(zhì)疑。這些言論和有些美國(guó)或者西方反疫苗接種者的言論不謀而合，造成全球公眾對(duì)疫苗信任度下降，不利于全球疫情防控，最終損害中國(guó)自己的利益。中方對(duì)這樣的批評(píng)有何回應(yīng)？

CNN: We’ve seen a lot of coverage by the Chinese media questioning the safety of Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine as 23 people died in Norway after receiving it. Many people believe that these reports are exaggerating and misleading. Some commented that such reports by state media will sow doubts about vaccines in the minds of the general public, which falls into the same rank as those anti-vaxxers in the United States and other western countries. All these have made people around the world less confident about vaccines, which will not help the global anti-epidemic efforts and eventually hurt China’s interests. How do you respond to such criticism?

華春瑩：這里涉及到一個(gè)根本性的問(wèn)題：為什么西方媒體可以大肆報(bào)道的事情，中國(guó)媒體就不可以報(bào)道？很多時(shí)候中方媒體只是報(bào)道一個(gè)客觀的現(xiàn)象或事實(shí)就會(huì)被斥責(zé)為宣傳甚至傳播虛假信息。這種想法本身就反映出對(duì)中國(guó)根深蒂固的意識(shí)形態(tài)偏見(jiàn)和對(duì)中國(guó)非常不公平的待遇。也就是說(shuō)，西方國(guó)家媒體可以隨便報(bào)道，而中國(guó)媒體就不可以基于事實(shí)報(bào)道，那是什么新聞自由？什么言論自由？中國(guó)媒體、中國(guó)民眾沒(méi)有發(fā)表言論的自由嗎？

Hua Chunying: The issue here is a fundamental one: why cannot Chinese media report on something already covered by western media? Even when Chinese media report facts objectively, they are rejected as propaganda or even disinformation. This very idea reveals the deep-seated ideological bias and appalling injustice against China. Why cannot Chinese media report facts when those in the west can say whatever they like? Where is the freedom of press and freedom of speech? Aren’t Chinese media and netizens entitled to the freedom of speech?

你提到輝瑞疫苗的問(wèn)題，挪威23名老人在注射輝瑞疫苗后死亡，這是不是西方媒體首先報(bào)道的？是不是挪威首先報(bào)告的？是不是挪威藥品管理局公開(kāi)表態(tài)的？其中13人的死亡原因已經(jīng)有官方評(píng)估，認(rèn)為是注射疫苗的副作用所致。這不是中方媒體杜撰，而是西方媒體首先報(bào)道出來(lái)的。但是我們也注意到英文主流媒體的確沒(méi)有在第一時(shí)間突出報(bào)道這件事。

You mentioned the incident with the Pfizer vaccine where 23 elderly people died after receiving the vaccine in Norway. Wasn’t this first reported by western media? Didn’t Norway report this first? Didn’t the Norwegian Medicines Agency make an open statement? There was official review on the reasons of death for 13 of them, pointing to side effects of the vaccine. This is not made up by Chinese media, but first reported by western media. But we also noted that English mainstream media didn’t feature this in their reporting in a timely manner.

有個(gè)非常有趣的現(xiàn)象，你應(yīng)該注意到：一旦出現(xiàn)關(guān)于中國(guó)疫苗的負(fù)面?zhèn)髀?，西方媒體就會(huì)趨之若鶩，爭(zhēng)先恐后報(bào)道。比如說(shuō)，之前在巴西有一名參與實(shí)驗(yàn)的志愿者死亡，在沒(méi)有調(diào)查清楚的情況下立即成為很多西方媒體的頭條，但后來(lái)證明那起事件與疫苗無(wú)關(guān)。對(duì)不對(duì)？可是后來(lái)并沒(méi)有西方媒體對(duì)誤報(bào)向中方表示歉意。

You should have noticed this interesting phenomenon: whenever there is any negative news about Chinese vaccines, western media always rush to report on it. For example, when a volunteer taking part in Chinese vaccine trails in Brazil passed away, before the reasons were found, western media wrote headlines about the incident, which later proved to be unrelated to the vaccine. Do I remember correctly? But later not one of the western media agencies apologized to China for the mistake in their reports.

抗擊疫情是大家共同面臨的緊迫任務(wù)，新冠肺炎疫苗本身也是一個(gè)嚴(yán)肅的科學(xué)問(wèn)題。在疫情形勢(shì)很嚴(yán)峻的情況下，如果有更多疫苗投入使用，特別是在發(fā)展中國(guó)家普及，對(duì)于我們共同抵御病毒侵襲是非常有幫助的，這也事關(guān)全人類的根本利益。但現(xiàn)在有一種極不正常的現(xiàn)象：個(gè)別美英媒體帶頭把疫苗貼上了隱形的地緣政治標(biāo)簽，把他們的政治立場(chǎng)投射到相關(guān)報(bào)道中，他們要宣傳輝瑞疫苗，打擊中國(guó)疫苗。但對(duì)我們來(lái)說(shuō)，中國(guó)沒(méi)有這樣狹隘的地緣政治偏見(jiàn)。中方愿意為疫苗的普及性、可負(fù)擔(dān)性作出貢獻(xiàn)，我們歡迎發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家把他們的疫苗拿出來(lái)和發(fā)展中國(guó)家共享。我們希望看到的是這樣的局面，而不是只能你輸我必須贏。我想，在疫苗問(wèn)題上居然出現(xiàn)這樣的雙重標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，這反映出背后令人深思、而且很深刻的一種現(xiàn)象，這才是真正不利于國(guó)際抗疫合作的。

It is the urgent task at hand for all of us to fight the virus. Vaccines themselves are a serious scientific issue. Against the grave situation, more vaccines being applied, especially in developing countries, would be of great help to our joint defence against the virus. At stake here is the fundamental interests of all humanity. But we are observing an abnormal phenomenon now. A handful of US and UK media have been taking the lead in pinning invisible geopolitical labels to vaccines and projecting political positions to their reporting. They want to promote Pfizer’s vaccine and trash Chinese vaccines. But China is not affected by such narrow geopolitical bias. We are ready to contribute to vaccine accessibility and affordability and would be glad to see developed countries sharing their vaccines with developing ones. That’s what we hope to see, not a zero-sum game. The double standard that has been exposed on the issue of vaccines reflect a thought-provoking and profound phenomenon that is not conducive to international anti-epidemic cooperation.

彭博社記者：關(guān)于美方認(rèn)定新疆“種族滅絕”的問(wèn)題，你剛才在回答中針對(duì)的是蓬佩奧，但候任總統(tǒng)拜登提名的國(guó)務(wù)卿布林肯在聽(tīng)證會(huì)上稱，他也認(rèn)同特朗普政府對(duì)新疆存在“種族滅絕”的認(rèn)定。你對(duì)于候任國(guó)務(wù)卿布林肯支持認(rèn)定“種族滅絕”的言論有何評(píng)論？

Bloomberg: Regarding the Xinjiang genocide statement, you referred to Pompeo, but the President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee for Secretary of State Antony Blinken in his confirmation hearing said he agreed with the Trump administration’s designation of what’s happening in Xinjiang as genocide. So specifically, I’m wondering if you could comment on the incoming Secretary of State’s position, Mr. Blinken’s comments and support of the designation?

華春瑩：我剛才在回答CNN提問(wèn)時(shí)已經(jīng)說(shuō)了，過(guò)去幾年來(lái)，蓬佩奧和以蓬佩奧為代表的這屆美國(guó)政府撒了多少謊、造了多少謠、放了多少毒，大家其實(shí)心里都是有感受的。對(duì)于他撒謊成性、毫無(wú)信譽(yù)的種種言論，美國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)其實(shí)也是深惡痛絕的，對(duì)于蓬佩奧等人的品質(zhì)、誠(chéng)信、信譽(yù)，心中也是有自己判斷的。

Hua Chunying: Like I said to CNN, people all know the U.S. administration with Pompeo as a leading figure fabricated so many lies and rumors and spread so much poison. In fact, the American people also despise his lying character and words lacking the slightest credibility. I believe they have their fair judgment on the credibility of Pompeo and his like.

美國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)現(xiàn)在在涉疆問(wèn)題上有很多誤解，原因非常清楚，就是以蓬佩奧為首的反華反共勢(shì)力串聯(lián)和利用了幾個(gè)反華學(xué)者針對(duì)中國(guó)編造出種種謊言。我剛才也說(shuō)了，對(duì)于反華學(xué)者鄭國(guó)恩和澳大利亞戰(zhàn)略政策研究所炮制的涉疆謠言及其背后支持者，美國(guó)媒體自己也是有揭露的。我們希望美國(guó)新政府能夠在包括涉疆等一系列重要問(wèn)題上，有自己理性、冷靜、準(zhǔn)確的判斷。現(xiàn)在，在涉疆問(wèn)題上需要讓事實(shí)來(lái)說(shuō)話、讓真相來(lái)說(shuō)話。美國(guó)不是講民主嗎？美方應(yīng)該聽(tīng)聽(tīng)新疆2500多萬(wàn)各族人民的聲音。我們?cè)敢獗局降群拖嗷プ鹬氐木窈退麄冞M(jìn)行交流，幫助他們了解更多事實(shí)真相。同時(shí)我們反對(duì)以涉疆和所謂人權(quán)問(wèn)題為由干涉中國(guó)內(nèi)政，將堅(jiān)定維護(hù)自身主權(quán)安全發(fā)展利益。

Among the American people there are various misunderstandings on Xinjiang-related matters, and the reason is crystal clear: Pompeo and other anti-China, anti-communist forces have been colluding with and employing anti-China scholars to spin rumors about China. The American media also exposed the Xinjiang-related rumors created by Adrian Zenz and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, as well as their sponsors. We hope the new U.S. administration will make cool-headed, rational and accurate decisions on Xinjiang and other important issues. On Xinjiang-related matters, we need to let facts and truth speak for themselves. The United States claims to champion democracy, right? Well, they should hear the voices from over 25 million Xinjiang residents of various ethnic groups. We are ready to have exchanges with them based on equality and mutual respect, and help them know more about the truth. In the meantime, we oppose interference in China’s internal affairs under the pretext of Xinjiang and human rights, and we will firmly uphold national sovereign and security.

湖北廣播電視臺(tái)記者：最近一段時(shí)間，中韓兩國(guó)部分網(wǎng)民和公眾人物就“泡菜”歸屬問(wèn)題有不少爭(zhēng)論，互相批評(píng)，甚至有些放大解讀。請(qǐng)問(wèn)發(fā)言人對(duì)此有何評(píng)論？

Hubei TV: Lately there has been much debate over the home of paocai among netizens and public figures in China and the ROK, sometimes even leading to mutual criticism and exaggerated interpretation. I wonder if you have any comment?

華春瑩：我不是食品方面的專家。在我看來(lái)，泡菜作為一種腌漬發(fā)酵的食品，并不是僅存在于少數(shù)幾個(gè)國(guó)家、民族和地區(qū)。中國(guó)普通話稱之為“pàocài”，中國(guó)的朝鮮族以及朝鮮半島稱之為“kimchi”。凡此種種，它們有相通和相近之處，但在用料、口味、制作方法等方面又各有千秋。我想應(yīng)該從美食角度對(duì)泡菜相關(guān)學(xué)術(shù)問(wèn)題進(jìn)行有益和友好的交流討論，但是不應(yīng)帶入偏見(jiàn)，以免引發(fā)對(duì)立，影響感情。

Hua Chunying: I’m no culinary expert. To me, what we call paocai in Chinese is a broad variety of pickled fermented food that is not unique to a few countries, ethnic groups or regions. In China it is generally known as paocai, in the Korean Peninsula and among China’s ethnic Korean group kimchi, and the list of names goes on. Despite the similarity, each has its own unique features in terms of ingredient, flavor, recipe, etc. We support meaningful and friendly exchange and discussion over academic issues concerning paocai from a culinary perspective, but there should be no place for bias to avoid inciting confrontation and affecting people-to-people ties.

新華社記者：美國(guó)白宮國(guó)安會(huì)“印太協(xié)調(diào)員”提名人坎貝爾近日表示，中美關(guān)系如沿著當(dāng)前道路走下去，將進(jìn)入非常可怕的境地。雙方應(yīng)暫停針鋒相對(duì)的做法，設(shè)立合適的接觸渠道和機(jī)制，并采取一些溫和步驟，向?qū)Ψ桨l(fā)出改善關(guān)系的積極信號(hào)。中方對(duì)此有何評(píng)論？

Xinhua News Agency: Biden’s incoming NSC Indo-Pacific coordinator Kurt Campbell recently said that the current path that the China-US relationship is taking will only lead the two countries to a horrible situation. The two sides should suspend tit-for-tat actions, establish proper channels and mechanisms for contacts, and take some moderate steps to send positive signals of improving ties with each other. What is your comment?

華春瑩：中方一貫認(rèn)為，一個(gè)良好的中美關(guān)系符合兩國(guó)人民的根本利益，也是國(guó)際社會(huì)的共同期待。中美之間雖然存在分歧，但也擁有廣泛共同利益和合作空間，并對(duì)世界和平與發(fā)展負(fù)有特殊責(zé)任。

Hua Chunying: China always maintains that a sound China-US relationship serves the fundamental interests of the two countries and the shared aspiration of the international community. Differences aside, China and the United States do share a wide range of common interests and space for cooperation, and we two shoulder special responsibility to world peace and development.

中方對(duì)美政策是一貫、明確的。我們致力于同美方實(shí)現(xiàn)不沖突不對(duì)抗、相互尊重、合作共贏，同時(shí)堅(jiān)定捍衛(wèi)國(guó)家主權(quán)安全發(fā)展利益。希望美國(guó)新一屆政府同中方相向而行，加強(qiáng)對(duì)話，管控分歧，拓展合作，推動(dòng)中美關(guān)系盡快回到正確發(fā)展軌道，更好造福兩國(guó)人民和世界人民。

China’s policy toward the United States is consistent and clear. We are committed to developing a relationship with the United States featuring non-confrontation, non-conflict, mutu