The UN is saying that one of its press releases, quoting a Syrian diplomat, was wrong … due to an interpretation error, in a UN meeting, while there was translation from Arabic.
It took a question from a journalist to elicit this important information.
In answer to a question from the NY Sun’s Benny Avni, the spokesperson for the President of the UN General Assembly explained at Wednesday’s Noon Briefing that ” What happened was that, exercising its right of reply, Syria yesterday had a statement in the First Committee and that was reflected in a press release issued by the Department of Public Information and we’re looking into it, whether in fact what was attributed to the representative of Syria is in fact, correct. So, we’ll give you details on that, but we’re just looking into exactly what has happened”.
Pressed on when there would be an answer, the spokesperson added: “Very soon, I guess. But please also note, as we have said many times — and it is written on the bottom of every press release — that press releases on the committees, no matter how helpful they are, they’re only supposed to be looked upon as materials for information purposes and not as official documents.” [meaning, whatever happened, the UN cannot be blamed…]
The journalist, naturally, persisted: “Just as a follow-up to that, do you have a transcript that you make public or a video recording of what was actually said? Because there seems to be some confusion”.
[Of course they do — the UN has a master recording room that makes audio tapes of every single meeting in the Secretariat building at UNHQ/NY. Then, these tapes are actually archived — unlike the lax practices in other UN offices, where important statements, and historical moments, are just thrown away — a shocking lapse of duty of care, which is always explained by “we don’t have the budget to maintain an archive” … ]
The GA spokesperson replied: “Well, what is, what is actually in the text, as I took it out from the press release, what was said — and I’ll quote this — but as I said this is where all the controversy is about. And this is what we’ll be looking at was the following: ‘That moreover, Israel was the fourth largest exporter of weapons of mass destruction and a violator of other nations’ airspace, and it had taken action against nuclear facilities, including the 6 July attack in Syria.” This is the point that is being discussed. We’re looking into this –- whether this was in fact what was said or this was a misquote on the part of either the interpreters or on the part of those who have done this transcription. So please bear with us. As I said, this is not an official document in any form. It is supposed to be just an informative, helpful tool for you”.
[n.b., the press release was wrong on the date — the alleged Israeli attack on Syria is reported to have occurred on 6 September, not 6 July, as the now-corrected UN press release previously stated.]
Question: “In other words, you’re not officially saying that he said that”.
GA Spokesperson: “I’m quoting, Benny, I just mentioned that, what I’m saying here — just for those who have not followed this — that this was in the press release and this was what triggered your question. I just quoted the press release, but I’m saying this might not necessarily be the way it was actually said, but this was what was reflected in the press release, this is what we’re looking at. Just, just for the clarity”.
The transcript of Wednesday’s noon briefing later clarified (!?!) as follows
“Following the briefing it was clarified that, after a review of the original speech in Arabic it was determined that the text of the transcript is erroneous and misquoted Syria as a result of an error in interpretation“.
The UN Noon Briefing discussion, and the later clarification that a UN press release was erroneous due to an error in translation from Arabic, is here.
The Associated Press’ indefatigueable Edith Lederer reported that: UN associate spokesperson Farhan Haq said later that: “There was an interpretation error made yesterday when the First Committee was in session … There was no use of the word nuclear.”
Lederer’s story added that: “Haq said the exact words of the English interpreter were: ‘An entity that is the fourth largest exporter of weapons of mass destruction in the world, an entity that violates other countries’ airspace, and that takes action against nuclear facilities, including the attack on 6 July this year on a nuclear facility in my country — that entity has no right to lie, which it has done consistently’. [But] After studying the Arabic comments, U.N. officials released a corrected English translation late Wednesday afternoon. According to the new text, the Syrian delegate said: “… the (entity) that is ranking number four among the exporters of lethal weapons in the world; that which violates the airspace of sovereign states and carries out military aggression against them, like what happened on Sept. 6 against my country, such entity with all those characteristics and even more, has no right for its representative to go on lying without shame.”
The AP report on the later revelations of an associate UN spokesperson is here.
So, the English interpreter did use the word “nuclear”, but the Syrian diplomat did not, the UN spokesperson would have us believe. Maybe the interpreter made a mistake — but maybe not. Maybe the Syrian diplomat just slipped up, in the heat of the moment …
UN Member States can get changes made — and have done so — even in full verbatim reports of official UN documents, if they want …
If I were there, I would just go right down to the UN’s audio library in the basement of the Secretariat building in New York, and ask for an audio cassette of the original Arabic.