We are used to see the actual head of the foreign relations department at the Gorbachev Fund acting as interpreter for the former country’s leader. The authority by Pavel Palazhchenko being absolute among the professionals, Novaya Gazeta decided to apply to him for comments on the topical issue.     

Q: Pavel Ruslanovich, unfortunately our elite have forgotten her “native” French since 19th century, while we still need to find a common language with the West. How is this problem to be solved?  

A: You know, it’s not just about us and the West; there is a global language of communication, that’s English. The language itself advantages and loses out of it, as it gets roughened and simplified, but this is a reality.

Q: As Broken English is most popular in the world, many people do not feel the nuances. Our propaganda, for example, has snatched at the term “Saakashvili’s regime” in the western sources, finding in it nearly condemnation of the Georgian authorities.  

A: I do not remember the word “regime” there, but it has negative connotation practically in all languages, with the exception of French. But it is for sure that this word was not mentioned in the Medvedev-Sarkozy documents, although they were developed in the format of the two languages – Russian and French. Besides those texts it is the speeches by the presidents made at the press conferences on 12 Augusts and 8 September that should be considered authentic. Anything else should be quoted carefully.  

Words can mean very much. For example, in the EU texts and even in the statements by the American President it is spoken about “disproportionate response by Russia”. Well, that means there was something to response to. That’s indirect admitting of the fact that the conflict was started by Georgia.    

Q: Nonetheless, the problem of the “translation difficulties” has got sharpened. Why?

A: That began when Bernard Couchner, the French foreign minister, when asked about the reasons for the disagreement on Clause 6 of the well known document, answered “as usual, it’s about translation”. Some members of the translator’s community snatched at that, and then there were discussions on various websites, and someone even gloated. However, first, the Couchner’s words expressed his irony, and not everyone could feel it. Second, he did not say it was the translators to be blamed.

Really, there is the difference between these two wordings: “security in the South Ossetia and Abkhazia” and “security for the South Ossetia and Abkhazia”. However, the translator could not have done such a mistake. It was rather an attempt by diplomats and politicians to adjust the initial wording to their positions. The initial wording by Dmitry Medvedev, repeated by Nicolas Sarkozy, was “security of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia” (where in the Russian version no preposition is needed at all).   

My opinion is that Russia and the EU should have stuck to the position voiced on 12 August, but someone has begun this tug of war. So I defend the translators not only out of the professional solidarity. 

Everything is caused with politics, and not linguistics. When there is willingness to get an agreement and to go for a compromise, such things offer no problem. And when it is not so, then prepositions are begun to be used. It’s better not to play with words. 

Two tendencies compete at any talks – to come to an agreement and to get as many as possible advantages for one’s position. Sometimes diplomats think that they could get what they want, through linguistic tricks. However, my experience has convinced me this is not so.

Another example is the collision of the word “withdrawal” of troops, which can be translated into Russian with two different words. There was an attempt from our side to play on the difference of the Russian meanings so that to justify non-leaving the Abkhazian and the South Ossetian territories by our troops. Of course, that was in contradiction with Medvedev-Sarkozy agreement made on 12 August, where the Russian President, the Supreme Commander, read aloud the Russian word “vyvod” meaning the “withdrawal” of the troops to the positions actual before the beginning of the military operations. Insisting on the Russian synonym “otvod” was incorrect because it means withdrawal made within the territory of same country.    

Q: Can it be interpreted like the word “otvod” meaning withdrawal from the Georgian territory to the South Ossetia and Abkhazia was indirect admitting by Russia that both republics remained part of the sovereign Georgia?

A: It seems so. This is why “otvod” is inappropriate for our official position, especially after recognition of independence of Abkhazia and the South Ossetia. So the generals had better not to go into linguistics. 

Within my recollection, there is a discussion of one comma in the ABM Treaty signed in 1972. The interpretative arguments began in 1983 when President Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative. The phrase “research and testing, which are allowed” was interpreted by Americans as any research and testing, and not only those allowed by the ABM Treaty. The US considered it that the comma before “which” meant any research and testing was allowed, up to testing in space. Of course, the argument was not about the comma and wording, but about the wish by Americans to dilute the treaty. That was difficult and in the long run the US quitted the treaty at Bush the junior. That was indirect indication that we had been right.      

Q: Anyway, it’s political will that is primary?

A: Absolutely.

Q: Does it happen often that interpreters act as peacemakers when the leaders quarrel? 

A: I know the famous quotation from Peter Ustinov saying that if we all understood one another without interpreters, we would have destroyed one another. He also believed that we have avoided many serious crises just because the translators intentionally or accidentally distorted what one statesman said to another. Me personally, I do not know such cases. It is very often that translators and diplomats look for the right word together, while the arrangement of a document is going on.      

Q: The famous Mother of Kuzma, could it be translated with foul language? 

A: Mother of Kuzma is no foul language. It was softened by the translator only because there was no adequate strong language expression in his store. When the president says “polish off” it should not be softened, and if he says about “circumcision” it must be translated exactly like that, it’s all right.

One instance is known when the soviet Chair of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, Voroshilov, when visiting the famous temple Angkor Vat said “Those Asians, they don’t have proper clothes on, and here they are having built this stuff”. He meant that the money and the creative effort should have been spent the other way. And when the hosts wondered what he had said, the interpreter uttered “Kliment Efremovich admires the talent and craftsmanship by your architects”. I reckon it was no best solution. In case both sides wished to continue that dialog, it could have been an awkward situation, to put it mildly. The meaning should have been delivered, though smoothed. Or the interpreter might have pretended he did not catch what was said (that talk was not intended for translation). I have been lucky to work with worthy people who understood their responsibility for what they said.     

Q: Now we have the third after Gorbachev and Putin president with higher juridical education. Who is most precise about wording? Medvedev? 

A: It’s difficult to compare for me, as I have worked only with Gorbachev. I only can say – and that was recognized by President Bush and other leaders – that it was very difficult to come to agreements with Mikhail Sergeevich, as he followed strictly the positions approved of by Politburo. But in case agreement was achieved, everything was fulfilled properly. Actually, it’s no interpreter’s business to compare the presidents. Anyway, I have never had to correct Gorbachev. I’ve been asked many times about what should an interpreter do in case something is spoken not corresponding to the well known position of the country. Well, if one is sure that this is no mistake or slip of tongue, and that is spoken intentionally, then he must translate exactly, or at least he should ask to repeat that, pretending not to have heard well. Sometimes interpreters do so, although this is no pleasant situation.       

Q: And what if obvious nonsense is being talked?

A: Well, it might be dealt with somehow. It seems to me such thing is done by an interpreter automatically.   

Q: Now our leaders know languages well; one may see in their eyes that they do understand. And yet they hide behind the interpreter’s back. Do they just stall for time? 

A: They don’t stall for time, but they count on professionalism by interpreters. Anyway, level of the language competence by most politicians is not sufficient to be absolutely sure that one has caught (or can express) all the nuances. This is why requirements are high to the quality of translation today. 

Q: And what’s your attitude to the fact that Putin in Germany corrected his interpreter?

A: This is his right to correct and specify the meaning of what was said. It’s another matter that there are people who overestimate their knowledge of the language and make corrections afield. The assistance by an interpreter during talks is a principal thing. Jacque Chirac spoke English well, but he never went for it during talks; the same applies to Nicolas Sarkozy. This is done not only and not because of stalling for time for thinking over one’s answer; this is done because the level of responsibility is very high, by politician as well as by interpreter.