compromise regarding the scope of/areas covered by this document is possible. This only requires/all that is needed is intensive work on those written and oral proposals by delegations which were put forward/made at the previous session of the working group. We must not/cannot forget that we have before us a draft of an anti-terrorist document which is not intended/designed to impinge upon/deal with issues which are regulated or should be regulated by other norms of international law.
The draft Convention prepared by the working group corresponds to the model/type/accepted by/adopted for/other universal agreements/treaties in this field, and reinforces/backs/strengthens rather effective mechanisms for interaction between the law enforcement agencies and court systems of states, including legal assistance, extradition, exchange of information, etc. If we are not able/Our failure/to achieve consensus on the draft Convention on nuclear terrorism,/that will not promote/advance a strengthening of a united front of states in the fight/campaign against terrorism and will send the wrong signal to terrorist organizations.
The Russian delegation considers as extremely important/
relevant/work on this international treaty/agreement/document, designed to fill an obvious/evident gap in the existing international-legal regime for anti-terrorist interaction/the continuation of work on
This international treaty/agreement/document,designed to fill an obvious/evident gap in the existing international-legal regime for anti-terrorist interaction, of the greatest importance/urgency/ relevance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This rather formal speech is packed with cliches and commonly used fixed expressions, to which the interpreter's response should be nearly automatic.
:
1) this cliche can be kept as brief as
possible: "allow me first to..." There is no need to translate "
": "continue to preside" expresses the idea.
2) here the translation depends on context, and
on who is speaking. If an ambassador or high-placed official is speaking,
"Russia" is fine. If the context is a low-ranking official in a small
subcommittee, "The Russian delegation" would be more appropriate,
rather than suggesting that the delegate is speaking for the entire country.
3) "has a high
assessment of," a commonly used translation, is extremely unidiomatic.
Often this can be simply rendered by "appreciates."
4) can be skipped, as it adds nothing; it
is obvious that this is the purpose of the exercise.
5) how the interpreter begins this
clause will determine the rest of the sentence. The second variant would
be possible if the interpreter had the text, since appears towards
the end of the sentence.
6) , ... time can be
saved by dropping , a word which is obligatory for the Russian
grammatical construction but can be skipped in English: "the questions
facing our committee."
|
|
|
7) ,
... any attempt to translate
as a gerund will lead to a very awkward sentence. It basically means
"is" here, and should be translated as such. "And" makes for a much
smoother sentence: "and is a serious destabilizing factor." Or the
interpreter can use a pronoun: "it is a serious destabilizing factor."
8) , . Here "not
only... but also..." or "both... and" work. "Both... and" sounds better for
shorter sentences.
9) without a text, the interpreter could
simply use a nominative singular: "A highly alarming/disconcerting trend
in the development of... is..."
10) this can be rendered as a
positive or negative: "is only possible when/if..."
11) "actively" is awkward as a modifier for
"financed." "Heavily" or "well" works a lot better.
12) , , Here
is adding nothing, though it may allow for the speaker to catch
his breath, and does not need to be translated.
13) , here is
another case where can be dropped: "the danger implicit in
terrorism," or even "the danger in terrorism" will get the point across.
14)
... can easily be dropped, since it adds nothing. NGOs for
of course saves time. But the question of using acronyms and
abbreviations is tricky. If the interpreter has them memorized and can get
them out automatically, so much the better; but if he spends more time
trying to remember the acronym than the time it would take him to
say nongovernmental organization, he is obviously losing rather than
gaining time.
15) -
"producing" is often better then the much used "drawing up" for "
." If something complicated or sensitive is involved, "crafting" is a
good stylistic choice.
16) ... active or intensive
work sound much better than "energetic," which suggests a somewhat
frantic image of delegates literally racing in to work or jumping up and
down from excitement.
17) ...
can be dropped. The idea is that of getting the job done.
18) ... there is a problem
here with the use of the cognate of actively; "intensive" is a
much better choice than active.
19) ... , ... the idea here is
that the proposals were made (shortest and simplest choice) or put
forward. "Proposed" would get the meaning across, but the "proposals
proposed" is awkward. "Put forward" is also a good solution, but "voiced"
or "expressed" are awkward, particularly since the sentence speaks of
written as well as oral proposals.
|
|
|
20) ... the literal translation "touch on"
does not work. The idea here is one of interference with the competence
of other documents/norms, and so "impinge" would be a good choice.
More neutral is simply "deal with."
21) the
interpreter who has started in too early and said "prepared by the working
group" need only add a pause (a mental comma), and the definite article:
"Prepared by the working group, the draft Convention..."
22) though antonymic translation is possible here
"if we fail..." this sounds somewhat stronger and therefore more
pessimistic than "if we do not succeed."
23) the English idiom is a "wrong" signal, rather than
a false one.
24) ... the second variant
given requires that the interpreter keep in mind as he goes
through the rest of the sentence, and insert it at the end. With a text this
is easy; otherwise, the first stylistic variant given in the text is simpler for
the interpreter's purposes.
Nuclear Terrorism (UN, 1999)
( )
Mr. Chairman,
Allow me at the outset to express our great satisfaction at seeing you continue to chair our committee. The Russian delegation deeply appreciates the efforts you are making to produce new effective international instruments, including those designed to,com'6at terrorism. On behalf of the Russian delegation I would also like to welcome the other members of the bureau and all the delegations present here, and voice the hope that their professionalism and practical approach to the issues facing us will help successfully establish new and effective mechanisms to counteract terrorist activity.
Mr. Chairman,
It would be hard to overemphasize the importance of the questions facing our committee. Terrorism today has become one of the most pressing global problems, and is a serious destabilizing factor both in individual countries, and in the entire world. One of the most disconcerting trends in the development of contemporary terrorism is the sophisticated technical level of the equipment of the most dangerous terrorist groups, which is only possible when terrorists have reliable and well concealed sources of financing. Actively financed terrorist organizations are acquiring additional new opportunities for access to state of the art technologies and to the very latest weaponry for their use for terrorist purposes, including and this is most dangerous weapons of mass destruction. It is noteworthy that there is increased awareness now of the danger implicit in terrorism which uses WMDs (weapons of mass destruction), and the need to unite efforts to combat this movement. Our work on a draft convention on the campaign against nuclear terrorism has already given an impetus to active discussion among NGOs and in academic circles of the idea of drawing up other international-legal instruments to combat other kinds of terrorism which use WMDs, both chemical and biological.
We call for intensive efforts to conclude at this session of the committee work on an agreed upon draft of the Convention. A compromise regarding the areas covered by this document is possible. This only requires intensive work on those written and oral proposals by delegations which were made at the previous session of the working group. We cannot forget that we have before us a draft of an anti-terrorist document which is not intended to impinge upon issues which are regulated or should be regulated by other norms of international law.
The draft Convention prepared by the working group corresponds to the model adopted for other universal agreements in this field, and reinforces rather effective mechanisms for interaction between the law enforcement agencies and court systems of states, including legal assistance, extradition, exchange of information, etc. Our failure
|
|
|
to achieve consensus on the draft Convention on nuclear terrorism will not promote a strengthening of a united front of states in the campaign against terrorism and will send the wrong signal to terrorist organizations.
The Russian delegation considers the continuation of work on this international agreement, designed to fill an obvious gap in the existing international-legal regime for anti-terrorist interaction, as of the greatest importance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
9
