참고로 해당 발언은 중국 네티즌이 올린 글을 다시 올린 것이니, 이것을 중국인들이 전체 아시아를 통일 시키려고 한다고 말하는 말도 안되는 오류는 범하지 말아주시기 바랍니다. 실제 중국네티즌들은 CCTV가 밖에 나가서 중국에 창피를 준다고 이야기 하고 있습니다.
우리는 CCTV가 중국에서 어느 정도의 힘을 가지고 있으며 중국인들이 CCTV의 행태에 대해서 얼마나 큰 반감을 가지고 있는지 알 수 있습니다.
OBAMA: All right. I've got time for just a couple more questions. I'm going to find a journalist here.
OBAMA: All right. Here, I'm going to call on this gentleman right here. He's -- he's been very persistent.
RUI CHENGGANG: Rui Chenggang of China Central Television. It seems the world leaders have been talking about increasing the voice and voting rights of developing countries. I would like to ask two questions instead of just one. First one, on behalf of China...
OBAMA: I may choose which one I want to answer.
RUI CHENGGANG: of course.
OBAMA: That's always the danger of asking two questions.
RUI CHENGGANG: First one, you've had a very fruitful meeting with our President. And during the Clinton administration, U.S.-China relationship was characterized, in Clinton's words, "strategic, constructive partnership." During the Bush era it was -- the catchphrase, quote, unquote, "stakeholder." The Bush administration expects China to -- to become a responsible stakeholder in international affairs. Have you come up with a catchphrase of your own? And, certainly, it is not the G-2, is it?
And my second question is, on behalf of the world, politics is very local, even though we've been talking about global solution, as indicated by your recent preference over American journalists and British, which is OK. (Laughter.) How can you make sure that you will do whatever you can， so that that local politics will not trump or negatively affect good international economics?
Thank you, Mr. President.
OBAMA: Well, those -- those are excellent questions. On -- on the first question, your American counterparts will tell you I'm terrible with those little catchphrases and sound bites. So I haven't come up with anything catchy yet, but if you have any suggestions, let me know. (LAUGHTER) I'll be happy to use them.
In terms of local politics, look, I'm the President of the United States. I'm not the President of China, I'm not the President of Japan, I'm not the President of the other participants here. And so I have a direct responsibility to my constituents to make their lives better. That's why they put me in there. That accounts for some of the questions here, about how concretely does me being here help them find a job, pay for their home, send their kids to college, live what we call the American Dream. And I will be judged by my effectiveness in meeting their needs and concerns.
But in an era of integration and interdependence, it is also my responsibility to lead America into recognizing that its interests, its fate is tied up with the larger world; that if we neglect or abandon those who are suffering in poverty, that not only are we depriving ourselves of potential opportunities for markets and economic growth, but ultimately that despair may turn to violence that turns on us; that unless we are concerned about the education of all children and not just our children, not only may we be depriving ourselves of the next great scientist who's going to find the next new energy source that saves the planet, but we also may make people around the world much more vulnerable to anti-American propaganda.
So if I'm effective as America's President right now, part of that effectiveness involves holding a -- providing Americans insight into how their self-interest is tied up with yours. And that's an ongoing project because it's not always obvious.
And there are going to be times where short-term interests are going to differ; there's no doubt about it. And protectionism is the classic example. You can make arguments that if you can get away with protecting your markets, as long as the other folks don't protect theirs, then in the short term you may benefit. And it then becomes important not only for me to try to give people a sense of why, over the long term, that's counter-productive, but also it becomes important for me to put policies in place in the United States that provide a cushion, provide support for those people who may suffer local dislocations because of globalization. And that's something that I think every government has to think about.
There are individuals who will be harmed by a trade deal. There are businesses who will go out of business because of free trade. And to the extent that a government is not there to help them reshape their company or retrain for the new jobs that are being created, over time you're going to get people who see -- who rightly see their personal self-interest in very narrow terms. Okay?
- 이 뒤에 오바마 미국 대통령은 한국기자들에게 먼저 물어봐야된다고 하고, 한국기자들은 어떤 사정인지 질문한다고 손을 드는 사람이 없었으며 그래서 루이청깡이 다시 질문하게 된다. 본인이 알기로 이런 상황에서는 오바마 대통령이 한국미디어에 기회를 준다는 시점에서 루이청깡이 마이크를 넘겼어야 정상이다. 다만...한국기자들...머하냐-_-;;; 위대한 "대한민국 국격"을 생각하셔야지~ [본문으로]
헐랭;; 2010.11.13 20:38
아니 ㅡㅡ;; 특종하나 잡을려고 별 지럴이란 지럴은 다 떨면서 저런대서 가만히 있냐?? 오바마도 어이가 없었던지 기회까지 주는데 미쳤나 ㅡㅡ^^^^ 안그래도 동북공정때매 위태위태한데 아주 뭐하는 거야 진짜 어이없네
paro 2010.11.14 02:59
한국 기자들이 언론의 자존심을 버린지 오래됐고, 맨날 정부에서 넘겨주는 글이나 기사라고 옮겨쓰고 여기저기 인터넷 자료 옮겨쓰는 것만 익숙해져서 기자란 받아쓰기를 잘하는 사람이지 무언가에 의문을 갖고 생각과 질문을 하면 안되는 존재로 인식하고 있나봅니다.
중국아내에게.. 아무말도 못했다 2010.11.14 03:44
CCTV 기자의 품격이 자신의 조국을 먹칠하고 다닌다며 트위터에 글을 올리던 아내.. 대부분의 중국인은 CCTV 기자가 설레발 치고 미국의 원수 앞에서 예의에 어긋난 행동에 대해 비판의 댓글을 달았지만.. 정작 한국 기자들은 무엇을 하고 있었느냐며 조롱합니다. . "한국 기자들이 질문하려고 했지만 CCTV기자가 넘겨주지 않은거다"라고 변명했지만.. 이런 구차한 변명도 아깝습니다..한국 기자 병신 세끼들.. 정말 창피합니다. 정말 어떤 기자들이 회의에 참석했는지 알고싶군요.