最近一段时间,,有外媒指责中国为“战狼外交”,对此外交部发言人华春莹昨天回应:难道中方只能做“沉默的羔羊”吗?为了维护国家利益尊严,做“战狼”又何妨?
据报道,12月8日,德国《每日镜报》以“中国的战狼”为题刊登一篇批评性报道,在文章中指责中国“战狼外交”。同时,该报在版面上还配上了一个白底红色的中文“杈”字。
德媒的本意应该是要放一个“权”字,因为旁边的注释写道,这个字是“强大的标志”,“是表示权力的中国汉字”。不过,不知什么原因却放上了“杈”字。
图源:环球网
据《环球时报》报道,德媒此篇报道的作者曾驻俄罗斯和东欧,不过从简历中没有看到有过中国经历。同时,这个错字也引起了懂中文的德国读者的关注,引起了网友的嘲讽。许多人在社交媒体上提醒《每日镜报》和该报道的作者,但后者一直未做出回应。“对于报纸和记者来说,这是严重的错误。”德国柏林中国学者夫罗里扬9日对《环球时报》记者表示,为什么一位写“中国报道”的记者不懂一点中文?为什么报纸没有中国专家?这也是德国媒体常常歪曲报道中国的主要原因。他建议德国媒体招聘一些懂中文、懂中国的记者来写报道,而不是看美国媒体的报道,通过想象写中国。
在12月10日外交部例行记者会上,有记者就德国《每日镜报》一事向华春莹提问:
德国《每日镜报》8日以《中国的战狼》为题刊登一篇批评性报道,指责中国“战狼外交”。该报道本来要配一个中文的“权”字图片,却多了一个点成为了“杈”字。该报道称,德国联邦议院人权委员会11月18日举行所谓“中国人权听证会”,招致中国大使馆批评。文章引用德国绿党反华议员鲍斯的话说,中国实行“战狼外交”。你对此有何回应?
Der Tagesspiegel criticized China's "wolf-warrior diplomacy" in an article titled "China's Wolf-warrior" on December 8, using an image of Chinese character "杈(pitchfork)", apparently a misspelling of "权 (power)". The report said that the German parliament's human rights committee held a so-called hearing on China's human rights on November 18, which was denounced by the Chinese embassy. It slammed China's "strong reaction", citing Green Party's anti-China lawmaker Margarete Bause's words that Chinese diplomats become more aggressive and China is pursuing "wolf-warrior diplomacy". What's your response?
华春莹表示:
我注意到你提到的德国媒体把“权”写成“杈”,遭到中方媒体嘲笑。但其实这个低级错误也不奇怪,因为的确,现在有些人经常明明对中国一无所知,却煞有其事地对中国进行着无中生有的指责。
I noted that German newspaper misspelled "权 (power)" as "杈(pitchfork)", which was ridiculed by the Chinese media. But such goof doesn't surprise me at all, because there are some people who like to harp at China and criticize China as if they were China experts, when in fact, they know nothing about China.
至于“战狼外交”,我想问问那些指责中国搞“战狼外交”的人,不知道他们有没有看过迪士尼动画片《狮子王》?不知道他们怎么评价那个可爱的小狮子——在各种怀疑、责难和打击中成长和成熟起来的辛巴?
As for "wolf-warrior diplomacy", I would like to ask those who accuse China of "wolf-warrior diplomacy": have they ever watched Disney's animated film the Lion King? What do they think of that lovely little lion, Simba, who has grown up with all the suspicion, blame, and hardships as company?