Whether to admit "Potsdam declaration" legal effect? American also embarrassed the

In May 30th the State Council routine press conference America as follows, in part because did not hear the speech recording and ellipsis in place:

Reporter: "Potsdam declaration" USA whether to admit the legal effect?

American spokesman PJ Sacchi: our position is a long-term agreement. As you know, we hold the position is not on the island's ultimate ownership of the territory. We called on both sides to handle their differences by peaceful means.

Reporter: but my problem is not ask you in the island's position on the issue of. Whether you admit that "Potsdam declaration" and the "Cairo declaration" effective in law?

American spokesman PJ Sacchi: I am familiar with the "Potsdam declaration". But I want to reiterate that, because of your problem involves us in (the) position on the issue. I just want to reiterate our position, this is our long held position.

Reporter: why can't you answer is effective, or not? Because America drafted and signed a "Potsdam declaration".

American spokesman Psaki: but the most important thing in the problem here is that we take into the island's position on the issue, related to the questions you want to ask, but our stance consistent.

Reporter: the island issues aside, whether you admit that...?

USA spokesman PJ Sacchi: I in this problem you have no more to say. But I appreciate your insistence, this is admirable.

Reporter: "Potsdam declaration" date......

America spokesman general Sacchi: I didn't hear clearly, I don't think I'm interested.

Don't know Is it right? China reporters