就BBC上中日大使正面交鋒，假設你是英國觀眾，你認同誰的結果？
實拍中日兩國駐英大使BBC交鋒（中字）視頻
@哈龍 從出場順序說得觀點很對，但我也有補充。（而且大家真的不用糾結日本人口音了，還是很好聽懂的，口語在這種場合不重要）
我覺得中國大使劉曉明的談話過程至少從邏輯、反應速度還有之前的準備上是完爆日本大使的。最深刻印象是日本大使說日本和中國有很多不同應該就這些不同談談的時候，主持人說你不是說中國和日本沒什麼可談的么，然後日本大使愣了好久，才勉強應付過關。其他談話內容如對安培修改憲法等行為作出的解釋十分薄弱，反覆強調的內容似乎都並不比」安培首相解釋的十分清楚「這幾個字更加有力，這顯示出自己當場時邏輯的不清晰和反應不夠迅速，也可以說是事前準備不足。
而中國大使的談話，從開場用丘吉爾的話把日本放在一個道德低點同時暗示日本未來的行為，讓人們先產生對日本政府行為的一個負面印象。之後解釋清楚了為什麼中國在14名甲級戰犯放入靖國神社之前沒抗議過的問題，讓人們知道中國不是最近無端生事。說完靖國神社的問題之後主持人把話題轉入釣魚島，劉曉明繼續用開羅宣言和波茲坦公告為證據對中國的主張做出支撐。然後用鄧小平訪日時和日本首相達成的共識」擱置爭議，日後由未來的領導人來解決「的事實反駁了日本和美國一直宣傳的」中國突然改變釣魚島海域現狀「這一言論，同時把日本購島這一行為劃入獨自改變釣魚島海域現狀之列，很精彩的以子之矛攻子之盾。主持人接下來提出的很尖銳的問題說」日本向和你們談，你們為什麼不和日本談？「，中國大使回答的非常好，用談話最初的靖國神社問題把球繼續踢給日本。日本對待歷史的態度讓人無法接受，有這樣的態度中日沒法談，不光中國，韓國也不和日本談。到此，劉曉明的談話內容把圓畫全了，內容互相支撐，環環相扣，把問題的矛頭全指向日本，證明中國的行為是justified。
我在評論這段視頻的時候盡量讓自己當一個旁觀者，盡量不偏向某一方，而且也不去深究他們談話內容所引出的證據的正確性，單純的從談話內容和給觀眾留下的印象去看，如果作為一個客觀的外國人我覺得我會支持中方。（當然作為一個中國人，雖然我要求自己從一個第三方的角度去思考，也不可能做到完全做到，就算我儘力了吧）如果用一篇essay的標準，英國人應該更傾向於相信中國大使的可能性比較高
1.英國人寫論文的時候很注重有沒有相關的學術資料可以證明或者支撐你的觀點，不然你就算說的頭頭是道別人也覺得缺乏說服力，畢竟是沒有根據的。
中國大使不斷拋出有據可循，有證可查的引用，比如二戰，比如言論，比如一些宣言和鄧小平與日方達成的約定等等，可證實程度都很高。前面有人提到英國人更喜歡日本，但就算英國的民眾更喜歡日本這個國家，有先入為主的想法，看法也不會一塵不變。心理學上不是有兩種，一種是第一印象，但是後期印象是可以改變第一印象的。還有，日本大使就顯得有些尷尬，特別是主持人提到修改憲法的問題，他一直在迴避正面回答，而是強調日本還是維護和平的。這顯然就是沒有根據了，就算他後來列舉了沒有修改的條目，他的反應略顯緊張，稍稍降低了可信度。還有後來主持人反問不是沒有什麼可以說的了為什麼還要展開談話，他的反應也是遲鈍的，而且說的有些蒼白。相比之下，中國大使的反應速度和應答信息量，客觀的說是優於日本大使的。
2.而且相關引用必須有出處，reference list就是為了查證你的資料可信度。雖然前面有人提到時間上有錯誤，但是不影響內容的可信度。
3.把日本比喻成伏地魔，個人覺得幼稚是幼稚了些，但是哈利波特是英國的作家寫的，可以說是家喻戶曉的故事，說是迎合英國人的胃口，也許不恰當，但是肯定有這方面的考慮吧。
綜上所述，個人覺得，應該是更傾向於相信中國大使。但傾向不代表贊同。只是心裡的感覺吧
我是在 BBC 網站上看的視頻。雙方沒有 「交鋒」 而是分別採訪。聽上去兩個人說得都有邏輯和各自的論點，但觀眾不去查證歷史的話，難以判斷誰對誰錯。中方給出的參考證據比較多，包括國際公約等等，而日方只是強調中方在 1970 年之後才開始爭奪該島的控制權。採訪順序上看是中方受益。
通過以上觀察，難以認同任何一方的結果（主要是採訪時間都比較短，能說的不多）。何況這種新聞節目是提供觀點的，不是給正確答案的。
以前中國窮的時候，英國民眾對中國zf的印象就是欺瞞民眾、獨裁等等，跟朝鮮差不多。而現代日本在英國民眾的眼裡是一個不錯國家。這種根深蒂固的刻板印象可能會導致他們認為中方不管說什麼都是找借口。當然，歷史愛好者（懂得查證）和年輕一代（客觀看問題）是不會這麼認為的。
所以，即使你了解了一個英國觀眾的想法，你無法總結所有觀眾的 「平均想法」 因為想法沒法平均，沒法總結，每個人的想法都有效，都有意義，都事出有因。
但有兩件事我覺得需要說。一是中方把人比喻為伏地魔的確有些幼稚。我們也能看到中方在被訪時也引用了丘吉爾。這讓人感覺到中方的確在英國觀眾面前 make an effort。而日方則是重複強調一個觀點。從這裡可以看出雙方的態度，感覺中方比日方更重視，但也會被誤認為 desperate（把別人形容成伏地魔很沒禮貌誒……）
另一件事就是，樓上各位說比英語水平，很遺憾地說，這是一種中式思考……首先母語為英語的人聽任何口音都沒問題。其次日本大使說英語很清晰。
就算我們假設他英語特差。受過教育的人不會因為英語能力就否認一方觀點，而是靜靜聆聽直到聽懂為止，再發表意見。
我只是回答問題。我沒有 make a stand。
衷心地建議題主修改問題描述，目前的描述很容易產生誤會。日本大使的英語口語讓我重拾了對人生的信心
這下知道我國外交部不是吃閑飯的了吧。
我不是英國人，自然沒辦法帶入自己了；不過我覺得就兩個人的英文表達能力而言，我國大使完爆日本駐英大使。
累死我鳥，只轉錄，不評論，嘿嘿，上文本。
Host: The Chinese ambassador in a moment.
First, is Japanese counterpart …. Er, Ambassador, these islands ain"t inhabited.
Why is it just give it to the Chinese?
J: It is a matter of principle. It is a
matter of sovereignty. I know the British also have the sovereignty issue. We
acquired these islands peacefully and lawfully in the late 19th
century. Since then, we have held these sovereignty for a hundred and twenty
years. China never challenged it until 1970.
Host: but is this really worth just jerpodizing
the security of the whole of that part of the world? or possibly the world itself?
J: I think the question should be directed
to the Chinese. So we have held the effective control of the islands very
peacefully and in accordance with the international law. And they are
challenging the status quo by force and coercion. It is completely against the
international order.
Host: What』s really happening here is that
Japan is seeking to re-establishing the military identity.
J: No, that』s not quite true…
Host: is it true she seeking the constitutional
reform?
J: while the correct record of the Japanese
commitment to peace has been very strong. And the prime minister himself has
made it very clear that he has no intention of changing the core tenets of the pacifism
including war denunciation, the possibility in the constitution.
Host: But why did they change the
constitution to remove the inhibition on settling disputes by forced arms?
J: We are not engaged in any use of force
at all. As I said,
Host: He wants to change the constitution.
J: No, I said there could be some debate
over the constitution. But the prime minister, as I said, made it very clear
that he has no intention of changing the core tenets of pacifism including the
war denunciation. And over the islands, what has been happening is the utmost 聽不清 over the
part of the Japanese. While the Chinese have continuously been trying to change
the status quo by force and coercion. We are very much concerned about it. It』s
dangerous provocation. As I has been
mentioned, I think they have to abide by the rule of the law rather than resorting
to the use of force and coercion.
Host: do you think it help things to use
childish abuse comparing people to Voldemore for example?
J: While, I don』t want to, you know, resort
to he who must not be named. Today I but I only responded to the Chinese
ambassador groundless baseless accusation. But I think the important message,
the main 聽不清 of my message? is to call for a dialogue, to talk ?. Simply because
we have some difference of
Host: but you said you have nothing to talk
about.
J: why er..
Host: how can there be a dialogue when you
said
J: there』s a different view, so we all
should sit down and talk. And the problem is not our sovereignty. But the
problem is more to do with the continuous Chinese provocation. And we need to
sit down and talk, to solve out.
Host: Ok. Ambassador. Thank you very much.
J: Thank you.
Host: we can pick up some of those points
for the Chinese ambassador Liu Xiaoming. How are you?
Liu: Fine.
Host: Thank you very much for coming in.
C: So good to see you again.
Host: Nice to see you. Yes, hello.
C: sorry.
Host: erm. now. How serious do you think
this is?
C: Very serious. This is a very serious
issue. Japanese Prime Minister』s visits to the Shrine. In our view, it』s not a small
matter. It concerns how Japanese face up to their history of aggression. You
know. But we care more about how you know, I would quote Winston Churchill』s
words: those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it. So we are
concerned that they do not face up to their you know disgraceful record of
aggression.
Host: Er, so you raised the question of
visiting the visits to the Shrine. There have been over sixty prime ministerial
visits to that shrine since the second world war. And to twenty something of
them, the Chinese raise no objection at all.
C: This is not right. I know this is
Japanese ambassador』s figure. You know it was not until 1978, when the 14
A-class war criminals moved in. And then in 1985 Japanese prime minster
together with the whole cabinet visited the shrine, we launched strong
protests. So since then, we made counteless protests against this.
Host: But let』s look at these islands. Why
have you suddenly asserted control of the air for example. Why do you suddenly
do that?
C: That was a good question. Why does this
matter pop up so suddenly? It has been very peaceful for the past 40 years.
First of all, I would say this island has been to China, has been part of
Chinese territory since ancient times. It was not until 1895 when China lost
the war with Japan that he seized it illegally. But according to Cairo Declaration,
Potsdam Proclamation, all the territory seized illegally by Japan should be
returned to China. That is the international document agreed by Britain,
British leader, American leader and Chinese leader.
Host: So I』m not familiar with the Cairo
Declaration. When was that?
C: er, 1945.
Host: right. it』s nothing to do you say then
with the natural resources which may be connected to this island or which may
be available from the islands.
C: It was about sovereignty. You know it』s
about territorial ? Let me finish about why it come up. You know when we
normalized relations in 1972, both leaders agreed you know there』s a dispute over
the island, we should shelve the difference. Deng Xiaoping in 1978 when he
visited Japan he answered the question about Diaoyu Island. And he said we have
disputes with Japan, but I think we can shelve it for the time being. The
future generation will be wiser than us. So we agreed to shelve it. But
Japanese want to change the status quo in the past few years. You know what did
they do? They try to nationalize this island. They want to you know purchase this
island by their government.
Host: How far do you prepare to take this
dispute?
C: How far? First of all, we ask them..
They have to face to the fact that we have disputes over this island. They even
refuse to recognize there is a dispute between the two countries.
Host: while interestingly, the Japanese
ambassaddor over there a second ago was talking about the need for a dialogue.
That is the implicit recognition that there is a disagreement
C: Er, in fact, it was Abe who shut
the door…
Host: the Japanese prime minister
C: The Japanese prime minister of the
dialogue between China and Japan because he overturned the fundamental foundation
of two countries. How could you expect China would agree to talk to him when he
refuse to repent on the war crime the Japanese did to the Chinese people. You
know even this was not only the case for China. Korean President also refused
to meet Abe, Prime Minster of Japan because of his behavior on history issue.
Host: Thank you very much indeed, thank
you.
請問，假設你是一名英國觀眾，你覺得誰說的英語你能聽懂？
觀眾看之前就有先入為主的情感或看法了，幾分鐘的談話改變不了什麼。偏見的力量是很大的。
難道沒人發現么？中國大使有個地方弄錯了，開羅宣言的1943年宣布的，去年兩岸還都在慶祝七十周年，不是1945年，英國主持人還腹黑的來了一個「right」。。。。
劉大使來了使用大量數字（年代）和歷史證明（各個條約），而日方大使只是在說理，沒有任何證明。一個有備而來，另外一個象完全沒有準備
主持人分別向兩方提了幾個問題，中方都直接回答，而日方都是顧左右而言它，逼急了使大招，「你去問中方」。
劉大使正襟危坐，使用一個向前傾的熱情勢態，並且使用一個較為高熱情聲音。日本大使很奇怪，一直向後倒著說話，用中國人話說是沒有坐相。這給人觀感完全不一樣。
對於受眾，劉大使使用丘吉爾的名言來拉近與觀眾的距離。
關於口音，關上畫面，你覺得是一個美國人跟一個日本人在辯論。
我的結論是中方在這場辯論完勝。New York Times上有發這個視頻， nytimes.com
美帝人民對這個事兒採訪的反應基本上是:
相比集權中國,日本是天使;
中國武力擴張, 威脅和平;
中國應該被分裂;
我們日本人是愛好和平的, 中國人挑事兒;
中日兩國政府好蠢啊;
這都是美國政府的錯!!!!
客觀來講，日本大使如果去考托福，口語15分妥妥的；中國大使表現可算優秀，可美帝的歷史愛好者和年輕一代不在乎。「帝國主義亡我之心不死」，這句話有時候想想還是挺好玩的。
恩，跑題了，求摺疊~我覺得BBC安排中日大使的出場順序就已經表明了態度。
日本大使先出場 立論
中國大使後出場 駁論
這使觀眾的主觀感覺上，中國大使的觀點是更加有道理的。
_______________________
有些回答老是糾結於日本人的英語發音，重要嗎？我不覺得英國人會聽不懂日本大使的英語。這是政治觀點的較量，又不是聽力考試。
太長不看。
一般的英國觀眾真的會這麼想的。。。
英國同事告訴我說，中國大使英文好，邏輯清晰，表現明顯好與日本大使。但是在釣魚島問題上他仍然保持中立。
樓上說發音不重要，不贊成。英語口音好不好直接影響人的親近感，怎麼會不重要。論技巧，感覺日本這麼好水呀，連基本的提前準備都沒有嗎？這種場合問得問題都是那幾個，提前準備一下會回答的很出彩，但是日本這位感覺都結巴了……
個人感覺下次這樣的場合，建議大使要引用更多的英國名人語錄什麼的，最好能牽扯到英國在二戰中的種種苦難，人民的死傷什麼的
這和語音沒什麼大關係，我個人覺得中國大使準備的非常有邏輯，雖然之前有些銜接詞稍顯氣勢上有點微微的減弱，但是整體來講表現還是可圈可點的。拋開國家給人的固有印象來說，中國大使對歷史的引用還是給自己的言論加了不少公信力，比日本大使的單一重複要有力的多。
另；其實主持人在整場，特別是開羅宣言那塊兒還是想把釣魚島問題的原因引往資源爭端的，不過大使回答地很好。（這個問題肯定會準備拉，簡直就是核心問題。）但是我個人覺得這個引導上還是可以看出一些英國民眾對這個問題地認識：
把釣魚島問題中中方的施壓單純理解為［資源爭端］。
這種理解：
1. 不合邏輯。
即便中方一改之前態度，因為資源爭奪釣魚島主權，這與［釣魚島主權歸屬］問題其實並沒有直接關係，退一萬步，就算動機不純，也不能否定既有的主權。
2. 習慣性地認為中國別有用心，胡攪蠻纏。
把問題踢回日方觀點「一直以來都沒事情的，就是因為發現石油氣所以才瞎逼逼來了」
單就這次對話來說，
中國大使說的有理有據，
又提出了二戰和開羅宣言，英國也是二戰參戰國。
日本大使的話，有些空洞。
理直氣壯的那位，與樊噲沒差。項羽苦戰秦軍，劉邦趁虛而入，約法三章，儼然救主；財物無所取，婦女無所幸，此其志不在小。已而自忖其實不能獨吞，遂改口「籍吏民，封府庫，以待大王來」，真乃「達則自古以來，窮則擱置爭議」先聲。樊噲怒贊他家沛公「勞苦而功高」，再贊也超不出外交辭令。
所以我大使再理直氣壯，終不出乎匹夫之怒。永遠不要指望黨的外交官，除了發言聲討，會做任何外交。包括撤僑。
我認為以上兩位大使的觀點交鋒都相當精彩，不過冒昧問一下，中國大使是哪一位？←_←
推薦閱讀：
TAG:英國廣播公司（BBC） | 中日關係 | 釣魚島 |