外交部发言人陆慷例行记者会（2015年12月28日）
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang’s Regular Press Conference on December 28, 2015
问：据日本媒体报道，在今天举行的日韩外长会谈上，双方就“慰安妇”问题达成了最终解决的共识。中方如何看待这一结果？
Q: According to the Japanese media, the foreign ministers of Japan and the ROK have reached a final deal meant to resolve the issue of comfort women today. What is China’s take on the result?
答：我们注意到有关报道。强征“慰安妇”是日本军国主义在二战期间对亚洲等受害国人民犯下的严重反人道罪行。中方一贯主张，日方应正视和反省侵略历史，拿出负责任的态度妥善处理有关问题。
A: We have noted the relevant report. The forced recruitment of the “comfort women” is a grave crime against humanity committed by the Japanese militarism during the Second World War against people of Asian and other victimized countries. The Chinese side always maintains that the Japanese side should face up to and reflect upon its history of aggression and properly deal with the relevant issue with a sense of responsibility.
问：据报道，阿富汗总统加尼27日会见到访的巴基斯坦陆军参谋长拉希尔。阿总统府称，双方同意下月举行首轮阿、巴、美、中四方对话，推动达成具有广泛性的阿和平路线图。中方对举行四方对话持何立场？
Q: It is reported that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani met with visiting Pakistani army chief General Raheel Sharif on December 27. Office of the Afghan President said that both sides agreed to hold a quadrilateral meeting between Afghanistan, Pakistan, the US and China next month on a comprehensive road map for peace in Afghanistan. What is China’s position on holding such a quadrilateral meeting?
答：我们注意到了相关报道。作为巴基斯坦和阿富汗共同邻居，中方欢迎阿、巴近期为改善关系所做的积极努力，这有助于重启阿和解进程并实现本地区的稳定。中方支持“阿人主导、阿人所有”的阿富汗和解进程，对任何有助于实现阿富汗国内和平和解的倡议都持开放态度。中方愿意继续为阿和解进程发挥建设性作用，并就此同各方保持沟通与协调。
A: We have noted the relevant report. As the neighbor to both the two countries, China welcomes the positive efforts made by both sides to improve bilateral relations which are conducive to resuming the Afghan reconciliation process and realizing regional stability. China supports an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned reconciliation process, stays open to any initiative that will lead to national peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan. China will continue to play a constructive role to this end and remain in contact and coordination with all parties.
问：一些菲律宾示威者周末登上南沙群岛中业岛，中方对此有何回应？
Q: Protesters from the Philippines landed on Zhongye Island of the Nansha Islands over the weekend. What is your response?
答：中方注意到有关情况和报道，并对菲律宾方面有关言行表示强烈不满。
A: We have noted the relevant situation and report. We are strongly dissatisfied with the actions and words of the Philippine side.
中国对包括中业岛在内的南沙群岛拥有无可争辩的主权。我们再次敦促菲方从其非法侵占的中国岛礁上撤出一切人员和设施，不再做不利于本地区和平稳定、不利于中菲关系的事。
China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands, Zhongye Island being a part of it. We once again urge the Philippine side to withdraw all its personnel and facilities from the Chinese islands and reefs it is illegally occupying and stop doing anything that undermines regional peace and stability and weighs against the relations between China and the Philippines.
问：外交部26日发表法国《新观察家》记者郭玉的记者证不再获准延期的声明。你是否还有进一步评论？
Q: On December 26, the Foreign Ministry released a statement on not renewing the press credentials for journalist Ursula Gauthier of the French news magazine L’Obs. Do you have anything to add?
答：周六的表态已经说得很清楚。
A: The statement on Saturday has already made things clear.
法国《新观察家》驻京记者郭玉于11月18日发表报道，公然为恐怖主义行径、为残忍杀害无辜平民行径张目，引发了中国民众的公愤。郭玉本人未能就她为恐怖主义行径张目的错误言论向中国民众作出严肃道歉，已不适合继续留在中国工作。
In her report dated November 18, Ursula Gauthier, the Beijing-based correspondent for L’Obs blatantly championed acts of terrorism and slaughter of innocent civilians, igniting indignation among the Chinese people. She did not make a serious apology to the Chinese public for her erroneous remarks, and is no longer suitable to continue working in China.
中国一贯依法保障外国常驻中国新闻机构和外国记者在华采访报道的合法权益，但决不容忍为恐怖主义行径张目的自由。
China protects the lawful rights and interests of permanent offices of foreign news agencies and foreign journalists on news coverage in China, but will never tolerate the act of speaking for terrorism.
这一声明发表后，我注意到郭玉本人试图做一些徒劳的辩解，试图回避问题的实质，试图避重就轻，我想说这些都是徒劳的。她认为中方对她采取的有关措施是因为她批评了中国的民族政策，我想大家都清楚，她在中国已经生活工作了15年，在过去15年中，她在不少问题上都对中国采取了批评态度，但她不是一直在中国工作到现在吗？她还试图狡辩，说由于中国压制言论自由，所以不让她作为一个记者在中国继续工作、报道。我也想提醒她，在中国现在有300多家外国新闻机构611名记者，有610名记者的记者证已获得延期。可能她还是应该多考虑一下自己的问题。
Since this statement went public, I have noted that Ursula Gauthier tried to justify herself. I want to say that her arguments are futile as they evaded the nature of the issue and avoided the real question here. She claimed that relevant measures were a result of her criticism on China’s ethnic policies. I think you are all clear that she has been working and living in China for 15 years. During these 15 years, she has been critical of China on many issues, yet she encountered no problem working in China. She also argued that China suppresses freedom of expression and thus would not allow her to work and report in China as a correspondent. I also want to remind her that among the 611 journalists from over 300 foreign news agencies, 610 of them have got their press credentials extended. Maybe she should have more self-examination.
问：日本和韩国今天举行外长会谈，据称两国关系可能走向改善。中方对此有何评论？
Q: Japan and the ROK held a foreign ministers’ meeting today, which is cited as a possible sign of improving bilateral relations. What is China’s comment?
答：我们注意到有关情况。我们希望韩日两国关系改善有助于本地区稳定和发展，有助于推动有关国家坚持走和平发展道路。
A: We have noted the relevant report. We hope that the improvement of bilateral ties between the ROK and Japan will be conducive to maintaining regional stability and development and keeping relevant country on the path of peaceful development.
问：我们注意到有关反恐法草案中有要求外国企业将服务器和用户数据保留在中国的条款，但这一要求未在最终的反恐法案中体现，为什么会这样？是否由于西方国家的批评所致？
Q: In the draft anti-terrorism law, there was a provision that requires foreign companies to keep servers and user date within China. But this requirement was not found in the final version. Why is this so? Is it due to criticism from the western countries?
答：全国人大有关负责人已经作出详细解释。我想强调两点：
A: Officials in charge from the National People’s Congress have given a detailed explanation. I want to stress two points:
第一，这一法律确实是根据形势发展和客观需要出台的。
First, this piece of legislation is the answer to the latest situation and our objective needs.
第二，如果你仔细研究一下，有关规定跟你刚才所说的有关西方国家的自身相关法律没有什么不同。我相信在这个问题上应该不会有什么“双重标准”。
Second, if you do some research, you will find no difference between the provision and relevant legislation by western countries. I believe double standards have no place to play on this issue.
