华春莹：北约还欠着中国一笔血债

2月24日，外交部发言人华春莹主持例行记者会。

有记者提到，美国务院发言人普赖斯表示，中国应尊重国家主权和领土完整原则，有义务敦促俄罗斯在乌克兰问题上作出让步。

对此，华春莹表示：“我注意到了美国国务院发言人的有关表态。我想首先关于如何尊重国家主权和领土完整，美方恐怕没有资格来告诉中方怎么做！对于国家主权和领土完整，中国人民有着特别真实而深刻的理解和感受。”

I noted the remarks by the US State Department spokesperson. First, when it comes to respect for state sovereignty and territorial integrity, I’m afraid the US is in no position to tell China off. The Chinese people have deep understanding and strong feelings about state sovereignty and territorial integrity through first-hand experience. tell sb off：斥责，责骂

华春莹指出，近代以来，中国遭受过八国联军和外国的殖民侵略，对于丧权辱国有着特别悲惨的记忆。就在并不遥远的20多年前，中国驻南联盟使馆被北约轰炸，造成三名中国记者牺牲、多人受伤，北约至今还欠着中国一笔血债。

Recent history saw China invaded by the Eight-Power Allied Forces and other colonialist powers, which left behind indelible poignant memories of national humiliation. Just about 20 years ago, the Chinese embassy in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was hit by NATO bombing, which killed three Chinese journalists and injured many more. NATO still owes the Chinese people a debt of blood.

而且在今天，我们依然面临美国和其所谓“盟友”在涉疆、涉港、涉台的问题上肆意干涉中国内政、破坏损害中国主权安全的现实威胁。中国也还是唯一一个还没有实现祖国完全统一的安理会常任理事国。正因为如此，中国一贯坚决维护联合国宪章宗旨原则和国际关系基本准则，坚决维护国家的主权安全和领土完整，坚决维护国际公平正义。

Even today, China still faces a realistic threat from the US flanked by its several allies as they wantonly and grossly meddle in China’s domestic affairs and undermine China’s sovereignty and security on issues including Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan. China remains the only permanent member of the Security Council that has yet to realize complete national reunification. It is because of all these that China consistently and firmly uphold the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and basic norms governing international relations, firmly safeguard its sovereignty, security and territorial integrity, and firmly defend international equity and justice.

而美国，建国不到250年的时间里，只有不到20年没有对外发动军事行为；而军事干预的名义有时是“民主”，有时是“人权”，有时甚至就编一个假消息！这样的国家对于尊重国家主权和领土完整的理解，肯定和我们是不一样。对此，国际社会也是十分清楚。

If we look at the US, during its nearly 250 years of history, there were only 20 years when it was not conducting military operations overseas. The pretexts it used can be democracy or human rights or simply a test tube of laundry powder or even fake news. Such a country’s understanding of respect for state sovereignty and territorial integrity is definitely different from ours. The international community can see this very clearly.

至于美方暗示俄罗斯有中国背后支持，相信俄方会很不高兴听到这种说法。俄罗斯是安理会常任理事国，是独立自主的大国，俄方完全基于自身的判断和他们国家的利益，决定自主制定并且实施自己的外交和战略。

The US side suggests that Russia acted with complicit Chinese support. I don’t believe Russia would be too pleased to hear that. Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and an independent major power. It is fully capable of formulating and implementing its diplomatic strategy independently based on its judgement and national interests.

我还必须要强调指出，中俄关系建立“不结盟、不对抗、不针对第三方”的基础上，从美方以意识形态划线拉帮结伙搞“小圈子”和集团政治、制造对抗和分裂有着根本和质的不同，对于那种非友即敌的冷战思维和拼凑所谓的同盟和“小圈子”的做法，中方不感兴趣也不会效仿。

I must also stress that China-Russia relations are based on the foundation of non-alliance, non-confrontation and non-targeting of any third party. This differs fundamentally and essentially from the practice of the US, which is, ganging up to form small cliques and pursuing bloc politics to create confrontation and division based on ideology. China has no interest in the friend-or-enemy dichotomous Cold War thinking and the patchwork of so-called allies and small cliques and has no intention to follow such a path.

华春莹强调，至于中俄联合声明，我们想请美方再仔细认真地阅读一下，中俄加强战略沟通协调，坚定地维护联合国在国际事务中发挥核心协调作用的体系，坚定维护包括联合国宪章宗旨和原则在内的以国际法为基础的国际秩序，恰恰是负责任的表现，是维护国际战略安全问题的积极因素。

As to the China-Russia joint statement, I suggest the US side give it some further study. China and Russia aims to strengthen strategic communication and coordination, firmly uphold the international system with the UN’s central coordinating role in international affairs, and firmly safeguard the international order based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law. This shows exactly that China and Russia are acting responsibly and being a positive factor for international strategic security and stability.

华春莹反问记者：

有人打起来你会递武器还是劝架

此外，法新社记者提问：“俄罗斯明确宣布不会攻击城市，而仅打击军事目标，所以你认为不攻击城市而仅打击军事目标的对他国侵略是可以接受的对吗？你还提到美方向乌克兰提供弹药，但是一个主权国家，自任何来源购买武器弹药用于自卫，这难道不是它的权利吗？”

对此，华春莹表示：“你应该注意到了，俄方声明称对乌进行特别军事行动，俄罗斯武装力量不会对乌克兰城市实施任何导弹和火炮袭击。”

I’m sure you have noticed that Russia stated in its special military operation in Ukraine, its armed forces will not conduct any missile of artillery strikes on any Ukrainian city.

对于“侵略”的定义，还是应该回到如何看待当前乌克兰局势这个起点。我们多次讲过，乌克兰问题有非常复杂的历史背景和经纬，演变到今天这个局面并不是我们每个人都希望看到的。希望各方做出共同努力，给和平一个机会，致力于通过对话协商谈判，尽快把局势缓和下来。

As to the definition of “invasion”, it brings us back to how we view the current situation in Ukraine. As we have stated repeatedly, the Ukraine issue has a very complicated historical background and context. The current state of affairs is not what we would hope to see. It’s hoped that all sides will work in concert to give peace a chance and strive to ease the situation as soon as possible through dialogue, consultation and negotiation.

至于主权国家是否有权购买武器。我想问你一个问题，如果在你身边两个人吵起来要打起来，你是给他递武器、递枪、递匕首呢？还是首先劝他们不要打起来，然后客观了解发生冲突的来龙去脉，帮他们和平解决问题呢？这是一个非常简单的道理。武器从来不能解决所有问题。这个时候不应该火上浇油，而是应该想办法一起把火扑灭，维护住和平。

As to the right of sovereign countries to buy arms. I have a question for you. If two people near you are arguing and a fist fight seems to be coming next, what will you do? Hand one of them a gun, a knife or some other sorts of weapon? Or break up the fight with persuasion first and then get to know the whole story leading to the argument and helping them resolve the issue peacefully? It’s as simple as that. Weapons can never solve all problems. This is not the time to pour oil on the flame, but to put our heads together to come up with a way to put out the fire and safeguard peace.

我也想向你提出一个问题。你们西方媒体定义用的词是“侵略”，但之前美方未经联合国授权对伊拉克、阿富汗非法采取单方面军事行动并造成大量无辜平民伤害时，你们当时用的是“侵略”这个词吗？还是别的什么词？

Here is another question. Western media including your agency used the word “invasion” for Russia’s operation. When the US took illegal unilateral military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan without the mandate of the UN and caused massive civilian casualties, did you use the word “invasion” or some other word?