“It’s no use of talking unless people understand what you say.”
Zora Neale Hurston
One reason it takes so long to negotiate any agreement, particularly one between two very different cultures, is that each word means so much to each side. Careless wordsmithing can lead to horrible consequences. That is why it is important to look at the current MOU between the U.S. and Iran.
Much discussion has been on what the points say, mean, or do not say. But what I would like to do in this note is to look at how the two sides may read the points differently.
To understand what differences may arise, it is critical to understand that we have only seen the U.S. version of the MOU, written in English. That is the version that Mr. Trump signed and that we have read. But Iran does not agree that the English version is the applicable document. They insist that the Farci version of the same document is the only version that applies.
I have looked at the English version and an English translation of the Persian (Farci) version. My comparison is based on an Iranian News Service English translation of the official Persian MOU. I then did a word-for-word comparison between the two documents, highlighting the differences. I do not speak or read Farci. Perhaps one of you out there who does speak Farci can look at the original Persian version and correct any errors that I have made.
One thing that could be expected between the two documents is that the English version refers to the “United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran” whenever the countries are mentioned while the Persian version always refers to “The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America.” Not a critical distinction, but a political statement, nevertheless from both sides.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
To understand how words matter in translated documents, here are several examples of how problems have arisen in the past. You will see that very small differences have very large consequences.
In 1840 the British signed a treaty with the Māori chiefs in New Zealand. The English version of the treaty ceded complete “sovereignty” to the British. However, the Māori text translated that phrase with the term “kawanatanga” which means “governance” in Māori and therefore was interpreted as allowing the Māori kings to maintain control over their lands and treasures.
The British assumed they had full control, while the Māori believed that they were only giving the British permission to govern the growing settler population. This resulted in the New Zealand Land Wars.
In 1889 Italy and Ethiopia signed a trade treaty. The Italian version included a mandatory clause that required Ethiopia to conduct all of its foreign affairs through Italy, effectively making Ethiopia an Italian protectorate. The Ethiopian translation used a verb that changed the interpretation and stated that Ethiopia had “the option” to use Italy’s diplomatic channels.
This led to the First Italo-Ethiopian War.
In 1833 the United States and Spain signed a treaty regarding lands and territories. The English text stated that Spanish land grants in ceded territories “shall be ratified and confirmed.” However, the Spanish text stated that the ceded territories “shall remain ratified and confirmed.” This dispute resulted in extensive litigation to determine who actually owned the land.
In 2011 a Free Trade Agreement was signed by Korea. Auditors of the translated treaty found over 200 translation errors. For example, “transplantation” was incorrectly translated as “transfusion” and “epidemiology” was translated as “skin care services.”
In 1945, near the end of WWII, the Allied powers issued a document outlining the surrender terms for Japan. Known as the Potsdam declaration, it stated that Japan must surrender or face “prompt and utter destruction.”
When asked by reporters for a comment, the Japanese Prime Minister used the word “mokusatsu”, a term which meant to him as “refrain from comments at the moment”, or “think about it with no comment.” However, the term was mistranslated into English as meaning “ignore” or “treat with silent contempt”.
The result? Ten days later, the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.
In 2005 a Chinese journalist wrote an article on currency speculations in China. He reported on economic forecasts from academics that the Chinese Yuan would rise at the rate of 1.26% in a month, and 6.03% in a year. However, the English translation stated that the GOVERNMENT of China had decided to change the value of its currency by 1.26% in a month, and 6.03% in a year. This resulted in market panic and sudden drop in the value of the U.S. Dollar until the translation error was corrected.
THE MOU VERSIONS COMPARED
I have compared the English version of the MOU between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran with the official Iranian translation of the Farci version of that same MOU.
Here are the differences between the two texts:
Point 1.
This is the core of the MOU. It declares that military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, are immediately and permanently terminated. It also states that neither Iran or the U.S. will initiate any war or military operation against each other, and refrain from any threat of force against each other. Finally, it declares the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.
In the English version the wording is that the two parties “by signing this MOU, declare”. In the Persian text the translation is the two parties “are signing the MOU to declare”. I do not know if this difference in time perspective is important; it may effect how the two sides view the nature of the next phase of negotiations. In the first case one might conclude that signing the MOU formalizes the action, while the other side may conclude that signing the MOU initiates discussion on the action.
Point 5.
This is the point that states that upon signing this MOU, Iran will “make arrangements” for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days. It also states that Iran along with the Sultanate of Oman will define future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz.
In the English version, Iran is committed to “removing the TACTICAL and military obstacles”, while in the Persian version, Iran is committed to “removing the TECHNICAL and military obstacles.”
It is my understanding that “tactical” miliary equipment is mission-focused materials used for combat such as ballistic helmets, load-bearing vests, night-vision optics and weapon systems like mines. Whereas “technical” military equipment is functional infrastructure items like mechanics, engineering, and maintenance such as engine repair tools, computers, radar hardware, heavy machinery and electronic warfare systems.
The confusion here could result in disputes over what Iran has actually removed and was required to remove.
Point 7.
This is the point that states the U.S. will terminate ALL TYPES of sanctions on Iran in an agreed upon schedule.
In the English version the wording of the final section is that “AS part of the final deal (the U.S. and Iran) acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination and…EXPRESS their intentions to immediately address these issues…”
In the translated Persian text, the final section is “In an agreed upon schedule AS part of the final deal, the (Iran and the U.S.) acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination and…EXPRESSED their intentions to immediately address these issues…”
There seems to be, at least in my reading, a time frame discrepancy here. The U.S. version may be interpreted as the two sides “intend (may or may not) to address the issue during negotiations”, while the Iranian version may be interpreted as the two sides “have already committed to addressing this issue”.
Now, you may take issue with the “nit-picking” here. But it is my understanding from history, that these types of small differences become much larger roadblocks in the future.
It is THE WORDS that matter; not just the words that they agree to, but the translations that are needed to complete any deal. It took over 60 days to negotiate the MOU; it is hard to think that a full agreement could be completed in another 60 days.