Translators in Political Conflicts: The Third Party

Lama Chatila

In a world full of wars between distinct cultures and perspectives, different religions and sects, one third party plays an important role in writing the narrative of the war or conflict to the public and in being a link between the conflicting sides; this party is the translator. The role of a translator in a political conflict is not just converting a source text in one language to a target text in another. A translator has an impact on the public narrative of a war, facing political, cultural, emotional, and ethical challenges in reporting a conflict objectively, without bias or falsification.

Lexical Choice and Cultural Boundaries

One of the most significant challenges that a translator faces is the choice of words, in which the translator has to render the message selecting words that are convenient to the boundaries, such as language-specific idioms and collocations, customs and traditions, and religion and beliefs of the target audience. Regarding this ethical, political and cultural issue, a translator should have well-rounded knowledge, open-mindedness, and intellect; must be trustful, flexible, and well-informed of the vulnerabilities and cultural boundaries of every community he/she is addressing. Additionally, translators are ethically obligated to deliver unbiased translations that faithfully represent the source material without allowing their personal beliefs, preferences, or cultural perspectives to influence the outcome (Chesterman, 1997b). Another responsibility that a translator holds is related to emotions, in two aspects. First, a translator should accurately convey the emotions of interviewees in writing, without exaggerating or downplaying. Second, the translator must remain stable and control his/her emotions while translating any suffering, emotional moment, without being attracted to or influenced by any factor that may affect the rendition.    
 
Russia – Ukraine War

In the Russia – Ukraine War, translators have used “الحرب الروسية الأوكرانية”, which is somehow the most objective expression to write or translate. However, many journalists and translators, especially in the West, refer to it as the “Russian War on Ukraine - الحرب الروسية على أوكرانيا”. This shows how the West tried to influence its audience through “naming” the war, as the West generally supports Ukraine.
 
How to Name the War in Gaza?

Similarly, the media, whether in the West or in the Arab World, expressed their political ideology and beliefs through how they named the “Israel-Gaza War,” whereby most media in the Arab World use “الحرب الإسرائيلية على غزة”. However, in the West, many use “Israel-Gaza War” to show that there is a balance and conflict between the two parties, denying that there is a side attacking the other. As mentioned by AlJazeera online, “bias in favour of Israel” is “irreparably damaging” the credibility of news agencies considered “mainstream” in the eyes of Arabs and others.” Some outlets have used the title “Israel - Hamas War,” excluding “Gaza” in an attempt to justify Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip, trying to convince their audience that the target is “Hamas” and not the people of Gaza people. At the beginning of the war, some media platforms even used the headline “Israel at War.”  For example, the BBC was criticized for its policy not to describe Hamas as “terrorists.” In response, veteran BBC correspondent John Simpsons said, “We don’t take sides. We don’t use loaded words like ‘evil’ or ‘cowardly.’ We don’t talk about ‘terrorists.’ And we’re not the only ones to follow this line. Some of the world’s most respected news organizations have exactly the same policy.”
 
Resister or Terrorist?

Amid a sharp division in the Arab World and between the West and the Middle East, media used different terms while referring to the same concerned party. For instance, the word “militant” in English can be translated into “مسلح” or “عسكري” in Arabic. Some translators have used the word “مقاوم”,
“إرهابي”, or “مقاتل”. A “resister - مقاوم” for one society can be a “terrorist - إرهابي” for another. This variation in naming is due to political, or possibly religious, beliefs, playing an important role in affecting the public discourse on these issues.
 
Divergent Descriptions

Meanwhile, looking at the term “hostages,” some outlets have used “أسرى  prisoners”, “رهائن - hostages”, or simply, “محتجزين – detainees.” To illustrate, some translators will use the word “شهداء” in Arabic when translating the term “dead - وفيات”, in English, or “killed - قتلى”. The word “victims” may not be translated into “ضحايا”
 
A Tool of War

When a multinational force led by the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, U.S. forces hired thousands of Iraqi translators to work with them as interpreters; not all of them were professionals; some were local citizens and were also assigned to tell them what was going on. This caused a problem with the other local or foreign parties involved in the conflict against the Western forces. In addition, many translators had to flee to Europe, such as former interpreter Shaker Jeffrey, who fled to Germany while awaiting admission to the United States; many others were killed. Furthermore, some have been investigated. Even those working in international translation agencies faced pressures and were murdered. This highlights how translators can be perceived as “traitors” in their country or, at the very least, affiliated with a side that puts them at risk; and presents yet another challenge in translators’ line of work. Here, “language” is no longer a means of communication but has become a tool of war.
 
Conclusion

The role of a translator in a war goes far beyond the words they put together to be able to convey an idea in a different language. Instead, it is based on understanding and accepting the boundaries (language-specific expressions, beliefs, ideology, etc.) of a specific community, placing the translator in front of ethical, political, and emotional dilemmas. Being considered a hero or a betrayer, a translator is a third-party actor in any conflict, a major player working in the shadows, whose narrative has a profound influence on the war.
​
Translators have become actors in the geopolitical arena by employing language and may be considered the “third party.” The “accuracy” of the translation and the way of narrating the war or conflict, avoiding fabricated or inadequate translation, depends on how honest a translator is. In the way they render the speech or text, they play a crucial role in reflecting the events or ideas, and have a huge impact on public discourse.

​​About the Author
Lama Chatila is an intern in IFI's Communications Unit.