This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Freelance translator and/or interpreter, Verified site user
Data security
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
French to English: Nationalism: Deadly Poison for Democracy General field: Other Detailed field: Journalism
Source text - French "Elue présidente de région, je supprimerai toutes les subventions aux associations qui viennent en aide aux migrants !" Telle fut l'une des dernières sorties de la cheffe du FN « dédiabolisé » avant le 2d tour des élections régionales (1). Voilà qui illustre une vision de la société propice aux engrenages funestes dont l'histoire nous a enseigné qu'ils pouvaient conduire au pire : l'esprit de stigmatisation et de discrimination commence par viser le « migrant », puis, chemin faisant, le Français « d'origine étrangère », le « musulman » ou présumé tel et tous ceux qui ne « sont pas comme nous ». Une partie de la société, la plus vulnérable, risque alors insensiblement de devenir aux yeux de l'autre comme le fustigeait déjà La Fontaine « ces pelés, ces galeux d'où nous vient tout le mal ». Et, audelà, il s'agit d'« une vision du monde où la France détient une nette supériorité historique et culturelle sur les autres pays, (...) peignant l'étranger comme un artisan majeur de nos maux » (2).
Dans une telle mythologie, il n'y a guère de place pour un raisonnement rationnel : ainsi, dans certaines localités alsaciennes dont plus de 60 % des habitants travaillent en Allemagne, la moitié des électeurs a soutenu, le 6 décembre dernier, un parti prônant la fermeture des frontières ! Eux s'inquiètent de voir... les migrants prendre leur travail outre-Rhin (3). Cette logique d'exclusion et de division, on ne voit pas toujours où elle commence, mais on sait où elle peut finir. Il n'y a rien de plus vital pour la démocratie que d'éradiquer toutes ces graines de nationalisme, de racisme et de xénophobie, ces poisons mortels pour le vivre-ensemble ! Pour paraphraser le pasteur Niemöller, réagissons à temps, quand ils s'en prennent aux « migrants » ou aux « étrangers », pour ne pas avoir à regretter notre laisserfaire lorsqu'ils s'en prendront à nous-mêmes !
Et « l'Europe », dans ce contexte ? Faudrait-il, par réaction au nationalisme europhobe du FN, « arrondir les angles » des critiques de gauche concernant les politiques désastreuses menées en son nom, comme l'exercice scandaleux des pouvoirs en son sein ? Certainement pas ! Le type de construction européenne actuellement en vigueur est condamné, tant son échec est patent et sa légitimité fracassée aux yeux de la majorité des Européens. Mais si l'alternative passe nécessairement par des ruptures profondes avec le modèle européen actuel, elle n'est certainement pas à chercher du côté de la régression nationaliste ! Certains, à gauche, prônent une « union de nations et de peuples souverains et associés » et préconisent, dans ce cadre, des politiques communes « à géométrie choisie » (4). Cette proposition présente un double intérêt.
D'abord celui de prendre pleinement en compte l'importance durable du fait national et de l'articuler à la réalité de notre temps : l'interdépendance par-delà les frontières. À l'opposé des pratiques actuelles des forces dominantes, le but du combat pour cette « refondation » de l'Europe est d'aboutir à une construction qui ne soit pas imposée « d'en haut », mais engagée à partir de chaque nation qui en exprime la volonté et par une implication des citoyens dans les choix à opérer. L'autre intérêt de cette vision alternative de la construction européenne est qu'elle prévoie que chaque pays membre puisse souverainement décider de son degré d'engagement dans ces politiques communes. Ce débat prend aujourd'hui, à l'évidence, une importance sans précédent.
(1) Sur RMC le 10 décembre.
(2) François Miquet-Marty, président de Viavoice (« Libération » du 11 décembre).
(3) Voir « le Monde » du 11 décembre.
(4) Voir « Refonder l'Europe », texte du PCF du 15 novembre 2013.
Translation - English “Having been elected President of region, I will cut all subsidies to associations that provide assistance to migrants!” This was one of the last statements by the head of the ‘de-demonized’ Front National (FN) before the second round of regional elections [1]. This illustrates a vision of a society supportive of a dire chain of events. Events which history has taught us could lead to the worst. The spirit of stigma and discrimination begins by going after the Migrant, then, along the way, the Frenchman ‘of foreign origin’, then the Muslim or presumed ‘Muslim’ and all those who ‘are not like us’. A part of society - the most vulnerable - then gradually risks becoming seen as the other. La Fontaine, for example, already denounced them as "these scabs, these lepers who bring us all evil.” And, moreover, it is "a vision of a world where France holds a net historic and cultural superiority over other countries, (...) painting the foreign as a major creator of our evils" [2].
In such mythology, there is hardly any room for rational reasoning. On December 6, in some Alsatian communities where more than 60% of the inhabitants work in Germany, half of voters supported a party advocating the closure of borders! They are worried about migrants taking their work across the Rhine [3]! It is still unclear where this logic of exclusion and division starts, but we know where it can end. There is nothing more vital for democracy than to eradicate all these seeds of nationalism, racism and xenophobia. These poisons are deadly to living together peacefully! To paraphrase Pastor Niemöller, let’s react swiftly when they attack the ’immigrants’ or ’foreigners’, so we do not regret our actions when they come for us!
And what about Europe in this context? Should critics on the left, in reaction to the its Europhobic nationalism, ’smooth things over’ with the FN over the disastrous policies pursued in its name, like the outrageous abuse of powers at its heart? Certainly not! The type of European structure currently in force is doomed. Both its failure is evident and its legitimacy shattered in the eyes of the majority of Europeans. But when a major break with the current European model inevitably comes to pass, the alternative is certainly not to look to a nationalist throwback! Some on the left advocate a ’union of nations and sovereign peoples and associates’ and encourage, in this framework, common policies to be carried out in each nation’s “chosen form” [4].
This proposal has a double benefit. First, it fully takes into account the lasting importance of national events and expresses them in the context of the reality of our time: interdependence across borders. This is the opposite of the dominant forces’ current practices. The goal of the fight for this new ’Reformation’ of Europe is to achieve a structure that is not imposed from above, but starts with each nation expressing its will with the involvement of its citizens in the choices to be made. The other benefit of this alternative vision of Europe’s structure is that it provides for each member country to be able independently to decide its degree of commitment to these common policies. This debate is now clearly of unprecedented importance.
[1] On RMC on December 10.
[2] François Miquet-Marty, president of Viavoice ("Libération" on December 11).
[3] See "le Monde" on December 11.
[4] See "Refonder l’Europe", French Communist Party text from November 15, 2013.
French to English: The Time Has Come to Free Ourselves General field: Other Detailed field: Journalism
Source text - French Il semble qu’au 67e anniversaire de l’indépendance de l’État d’Israël, ses citoyens sont plus éloignés que jamais de la « libération » promise le jour de sa création. Une guerre qui avait pour but de nous (juifs) « libérer » et qui, en 1948, s’est soldée par une occupation militaire et l’expulsion de la plupart des Palestiniens du pays. Plus perverse encore, l’occupation a transformé l’identité collective israélienne en une identité colonialiste, et dans leur majorité, les Israéliens sont engagés dans sa poursuite et ne remettent pas en cause le sacrifice de leurs enfants dans ces guerres continuelles.
La mise en œuvre, réussie, de cette identité se reflète dans l’occultation de l’occupation elle-même. Pour l’essentiel du « camp de la paix » et de la gauche israélienne, l’occupation est un projet qui a débuté en 1967, créant ainsi l’illusion qu’elle n’est qu’une déviation du projet sioniste originel. Or, cette occupation n’est que le point culminant d’un projet qui commence à l’aube de l’immigration sioniste. La ségrégation entre « colons » et autochtones, au nom de la « rédemption » de la terre, était une ligne directrice qui devait atteindre sa forme ultime : l’établissement d’un État juif en expulsant les Palestiniens et en les transformant en réfugiés au cours de la Nakba.
Que les ministres de l’Éducation et de la Culture définissent la Nakba comme un jour où les Palestiniens portent le deuil de la création d’Israël non seulement montre le degré d’ignorance mais alimente également le sentiment commun des Israéliens : l’identité palestinienne se limite à la haine d’Israël et des juifs. En Europe, les premiers dirigeants sionistes utilisèrent le terme de « colonialisme » pour décrire leur projet en « Eretz Israël ». La colonisation perdure jusqu’à aujourd’hui avec, entre autres, l’expulsion limitée mais constante des Palestiniens ou le projet de loi destiné à définir Israël comme « l’État nation du peuple juif ».
Le temps est venu d’inventer un nouveau mot en hébreu pour définir le processus de décolonisation qui peut nous libérer de cette identité d’occupants et qui doit défier les origines mêmes d’Israël et pas uniquement l’occupation de 1967.
L’identité occupante est telle que n’importe quel pas en direction d’une paix, qui par définition demande des compromis avec les occupés, est présenté comme une menace existentielle dont le but est la destruction totale d’Israël, suggérant sans avoir besoin d’y faire explicitement référence l’Holocauste. De nombreux Israéliens voient en la reconnaissance des droits des Palestiniens et l’idée même qu’ils sont leurs égaux l’expression d’un antisémitisme et d’une haine de soi. Nous pensons, au contraire, que la reconnaissance de la Nakba – et le droit au retour des réfugiés palestiniens – est une opportunité d’accéder à cette « libération » tant attendue qui garantira, à toutes et tous, une sécurité pérenne et non plus l’illusion d’un calme durant des périodes – de plus en plus courtes – entre deux guerres.
Translation - English It seems that on the 67th anniversary of the State of Israel’s independence, its citizens are further than ever from the “freedom” promised on the day of its creation. A war with the goal of “freeing” Jews, in 1948 ended in a military occupation and the expulsion of most Palestinians from the country. Even more perversely, the occupation has transformed the collective Israeli identity into a colonialist identity. The majority of Israelis are committed to the pursuit of this colonialist identity and are not questioning the sacrifice of their children in these perpetual wars.
The successful implementation of this identity is reflected in the concealment of the occupation itself. For most of the “peace camp” and the Israeli Left, the occupation is a project which began in 1967, creating therefore the illusion that it was merely a deviation from the original Zionist project. Yet this occupation is nothing but the culmination of a project which began at the dawn of Zionist immigration. The segregation between “settlers” and natives, in the name of “reclaiming” the land, was a rationale which was bound to reach its final form: the establishment of a Jewish state by expelling the Palestinians and turning them into refugees over the course of the Nakba.
The fact that the Ministers of Education and Culture define the Nakba as a day when the Palestinians went into mourning over the creation of Israel not only demonstrates the degree of ignorance among Israelis, but also feeds the common impression among them: the Palestinian identity is limited to the hatred of Israel and of Jews. In Europe, the first Zionist leaders used the term “colonialism” to describe their project in “Eretz Yisrael”. The colonization continues today with the limited but constant expulsion of Palestinians and the draft bill designed to define Israel as “the nation state of the Jewish people”, among other examples.
The time has come to invent a new word in Hebrew to define the process of decolonization which can liberate us from this occupier’s identity and which must confront Israel’s origins themselves, not only the occupation of 1967.
The occupier’s identity is so strong that any steps in the direction of a peace agreement, which by definition requires compromises with the occupied, is presented as an existential threat with the end goal of the total destruction of Israel. This suggests – without needing explicit reference – the Holocaust. Many Israelis see an anti-Semitism and a self-hatred in the recognition of the rights of Palestinians and the idea itself that they are their equals. We think, on the contrary, that the recognition of the Nakba – and the right of return of Palestinian refugees – is an opportunity to reach this long-awaited “freedom” that will guarantee, to each and everyone, a perennial security rather than further illusions of calm during the ever-shorter periods between two wars.
French to English: Rule of Surveillance vs. Rule of Law General field: Other Detailed field: Journalism
Source text - French Ce ne sont pas des lois relatives à la sécurité intérieure dont manque la France. Vingt-cinq ont été votées ces quinze dernières années. Beaucoup d’entre elles ont été écrites en réactivité à des faits divers, à des chocs émotionnels, sans empêcher les derniers drames qu’a connus le pays. Pour le moins, il n’est donc pas prouvé que les lois de circonstance soient efficaces pour les buts qu’elles proclament.
Quand une loi concernant notre sécurité et nos libertés est votée selon le principe de « la procédure accélérée », induisant un temps court entre son examen en Conseil des ministres et celui à l’Assemblée nationale, sans débat dans la société, des questions se posent! Quand, avant même qu’elle ne soit votée, le président de la République annonce qu’il va lui-même la déférer au Conseil constitutionnel, on a des doutes! Quand un gouvernement se réclamant de la gauche refuse d’écouter les alertes d’une multitude d’associations, de la Quadrature du Net à Amnesty International, de la Ligue des droits de l’homme au Syndicat de la magistrature et à des autorités telles que les Commissions informatique et libertés ou de contrôle des interceptions de sécurité ou encore le commissaire aux Droits de l’homme du Conseil de l’Europe, et préfère faire voter ce texte avec la droite, alors il y a de quoi être inquiet !
Quand de surcroît, on vote en France une loi qui ressemble comme deux gouttes d’eau à celle que les législateurs américains avaient adoptée à la suite des attentats du 11 septembre 2001, qu’ils remettent en cause aujourd’hui, il y a danger! Non pas que nous penserions qu’il ne faudrait pas combattre le terrorisme. Bien sûr qu’il faut se donner les moyens de le battre. Mais les effrayants et criminels actes qui ont eu lieu sur notre sol sont le fait d’individus qui avaient, paraît-il, été repérés et suivis. La bonne question est donc de savoir pourquoi ces tueries n’ont pas été empêchées ? Pourquoi aucun bilan, aucune critique ne sont présentés au pays ?
Aujourd’hui, le pouvoir prétend organiser une surveillance généralisée des communications téléphoniques, capter des données informatiques, installer des mouchards pour localiser des personnes ou des véhicules en temps réel, sans contrôle de la justice, autrement dit, recueillir des milliards de données sur l’ensemble de la population pour, paraît-il, identifier ... « quinze », « vingt » terroristes présumés. Des milliards d’informations, sur nous tous, que la police conservera durant au moins cinq ans !
Pourtant, ce ne sont pas des lois relatives à la sécurité intérieure dont manque la France. Vingt-cinq ont été votées ces quinze dernières années. Beaucoup d’entre elles ont été écrites en réactivité à des faits divers, à des chocs émotionnels, sans empêcher les derniers drames qu’a connus le pays. Pour le moins, il n’est donc pas prouvé que les lois de circonstance soient efficaces pour les buts qu’elles proclament. Par contre, elles ne sont pas bonnes pour l’État de droit. Un pouvoir qui joue ainsi sur l’émotion pour imposer la régression enfonce un long poignard dans le corps déjà si maltraité de notre République dont le nom est si galvaudé aujourd’hui.
On peut même considérer que l’article huit de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, énonçant le « droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale », est bafoué.
Progressons-nous vers un État utilisant librement les nouveaux instruments technologiques pour accéder à la vie privée des individus, leurs relations, leurs pensées, leurs opinions, leurs déplacements et intimité ? La mise en cause de l’État de droit au bénéfice de l’émergence d’un État prétendument « sécuritaire » serait d’abord une victoire des terrorismes, ennemis des droits de l’homme et du citoyen. En contrepoint, la démocratie se restreint au bénéfice des dominants.
Malgré le vote en première lecture de cette loi sur le renseignement par l’Assemblée nationale, il n’est pas trop tard pour se faire entendre. Le pouvoir ne peut penser que les mouvements associatifs, les juristes, la société ont forcément tort. Il ne peut pas non plus considérer qu’en refusant cette loi « de surveillance généralisée », nous serions mal intentionnés. S’il est sûr de son fait, qu’il organise un débat public sur ce sujet et que toutes les autorités compétentes, du Conseil constitutionnel à la Cour européenne, puissent jouer un rôle et être entendues.
À cet instant, nous ne pouvons que nous remémorer cet article écrit en 1899 par l’un des membres de l’équipe fondatrice de « l’Humanité » aux côtés de Jean Jaurès et aussi fondateur de la Ligue des droits de l’homme, Francis de Pressensé, critiquant les lois d’exception votées en 1893-1894, après des attentats ensanglantant la III e République: « La France a, comme à plusieurs reprises au cours de ce siècle, ces paniques provoquées par certains attentats, savamment exploités par la réaction et qui ont toujours fait payer à la liberté les frais d’une sécurité menteuse. » Nous demandons qu’il puisse être démenti.
Translation - English These laws do not improve the domestic security in which France is lacking. Twenty five similar laws have been adopted in the past fifteen years. Many of these were written in reaction to sensational news headlines – to emotional shocks – without preventing the latest tragedies the country has seen. To say the least, it’s yet to be proven that these ad hoc laws are effective in achieving their stated goals.
When a law concerning our security and our liberties is voted on with “fast track authority”, leading to a short time between its deliberation in the Council of Ministers and the National Assembly – without debate in society – some questions are raised. When, before it is even voted on, the President of the Republic announces that he will refer it himself to the Constitutional Counsel for a test of its constitutionality, we might have some doubts. When a cabinet calling itself leftist refuses to listen to the warnings of a multitude of organizations (from the Squaring of the Net to Amnesty International, from the Human Rights League to the Magistrate’s Trade Union, and from authorities such as the French Data Protection Authority and the Monitor of Security Interceptions, to even the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights) and prefers to push through this text with the Right, well, it’s worth worrying about!
Moreover, there is danger when in France we adopt a law that is cut from the same cloth as the one that American lawmakers adopted following the attacks of September 11, 2001 – a law they are reconsidering today. This is not to say that we think we shouldn’t combat terrorism. Of course we need to give ourselves the means to defeat it. But the horrifying and criminal acts which have taken place on our home soil are the acts of individuals who, it seems, had been identified and tracked by the authorities. Therefore, the real question is why these killings were not prevented. Why were no reports, no assessments presented to the country?
These days, the powers that be intend to organize a widespread surveillance of telephone communications, to capture computer data, to order surveillance planes to locate people or vehicles in real time, without judicial oversight. In other words, they mean to collect billions of pieces of data on the entire population, it seems, to identify … “fifteen”, perhaps “twenty” presumed terrorists. That’s a handful of results out of billions of pieces of information – on all of us – that the police have been keeping for at least five years!
However, these laws do not improve the domestic security in which France lacking. Twenty five similar laws have been adopted in the past fifteen years. Many of these were written in reaction to sensational news headlines – to emotional shocks – without preventing the latest tragedies the country has seen. To say the least, it’s yet to be proven that these ad hoc laws are effective in achieving their stated goals. On the contrary, they are detrimental to the rule of law. A power which plays on emotions this way in order to restrict rights thrusts a long dagger into the already abused body of our Republic. A Republic whose name is so tarnished these days.
We can even consider that article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights stating that the “right to respect for one’s private and family life” is being flouted.
Are we advancing towards a state that liberally uses new technological instruments to gain access to individuals’ private lives, their relationships, their thoughts, their opinions, their movements and privacy? An attempt to undermine the rule of law in favor of the emergence of a supposedly “safe” state would be first of all a victory for terrorism and the enemies of human rights and citizen’s rights. Simultaneously, democracy restrains itself to benefit the elites.
Despite the National Assembly’s vote in the first reading of this law on spying, it is not too late to make yourself heard. The powers that be cannot think that local organizations, legal experts, and society are always wrong. They can no longer think that by refusing this “widespread surveillance” law, we have bad intentions. If they were so sure of their actions, they should have organized a public debate on this subject with all the relevant authorities, from the Constitutional Council to the European Court, so that they could play a role and be heard.
At this moment, we cannot help but recall the words written in 1899 by Francis de Pressensé, a founder of the League of Human Rights, and one of the members of l’Humanité’s founding team alongside Jean Jaurès, criticizing the exceptional laws passed in 1893-1894, after the bombings bloodying the Third Republic: “Many times over the course of this century, when panics were provoked by certain attacks, France has skillfully exploited the reactionary attitude which has always charged liberty the fees of a liar’s security.” We hope that he will be proven wrong.
French to English: Immigration: Judge blocks Obama’s reform; Republicans cheer General field: Other Detailed field: Journalism
Source text - French Les sans-papiers résidant aux États-Unis, qui espéraient une amélioration de leur situation après l’annonce d’un plan de régularisation lancé à l’automne 2014 par le président Obama, sont priés une nouvelle fois de prendre leur mal en patience.
Les sans-papiers résidant aux États-Unis, qui espéraient une amélioration de leur situation après l’annonce d’un plan de régularisation lancé à l’automne 2014 par le président Obama, sont priés une nouvelle fois de prendre leur mal en patience. Une cour d’appel fédérale a confirmé en effet, mardi soir, le verdict d’un tribunal du Texas qui avait suspendu le projet de réforme présidentielle à la veille de son entrée en vigueur, à la demande de 26 États pour la plupart républicains. La cour d’appel de La Nouvelle-Orléans avait été saisie en référé par l’administration Obama, en mars dernier, pour tenter de sauver ce texte. Présenté par Barack Obama le 20 novembre 2014, il prévoyait l’octroi de permis de travail de trois ans à près de cinq millions de personnes en situation irrégulière. Il concernait cependant déjà moins de la moitié des 11 millions de « clandestins » que compte le pays. B. O.
Translation - English Undocumented immigrants residing in the United States had been hoping for an improvement in their situation following President Obama’s Autumn 2014 announcement of a regularization plan. Instead, they have been asked once again to suffer in silence.
On Tuesday evening, a Federal Court of Appeals in effect confirmed a Texas court’s verdict, which had suspended the President’s reform project on the eve of its coming into force, at the request of 26 (mostly Republican) States.
The Obama administration filed an appeal last March with the Fifth Court of Appeals in New Orleans in an attempt to save this legislative text.
Presented by Barack Obama on Novmber 20th, 2014, it had envisaged providing three-year work permits for nearly five million people with illegal status. The law in itself, however, had affected less than half of the 11 million people residing ’illegally’ in the country. (Official Bulletin)
French to English: France strikes Syria General field: Other Detailed field: Journalism
Source text - French Les premières opérations aériennes ont été menées aujourd’hui dans le nord du pays. A la veille de l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU, les contacts se multiplient avec Moscou et Téhéran en vue d’une résolution politique. Le départ de Bachar Al-Assad n’est plus présenté comme un préalable..
Le symbole est ravageur. À la veille de l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies, la France a annoncé, hier, avoir mené ses premières frappes aériennes en Syrie contre le groupe « Etat islamique » (EI). Sans mandat de l’ONU, Paris s’est ainsi engagé dans une action militaire justifiée, selon l’Elysée, par la légitime défense dans un contexte de risques terroristes. La Défense assure qu’elle ne s’engagera pas dans une « campagne de frappes massives » mais d’actions ciblées contre les « centres de gravité » (centres de commandement de Daesh, camps d’entraînement, etc.). Alors que les djihadistes contrôlent 40% du territoire syrien, les opérations devraient dans un premier temps se concentrer sur Raqqa, place forte de l’insurrection islamiste, et sur un quartier général où les attentats contre l’Europe seraient planifiés.
Cet engagement au nord de la Syrie intervient alors même que tout semble se précipiter. Épaulée par Moscou, l’armée légale syrienne paraît de nouveau à l’offensive contre les djihadistes après plusieurs semaines de reculs militaires. La Russie aurait ainsi placé une trentaine d’avions de reconnaissance et d’attaque et appelle à une action concertée contre l’EI. Dans cette optique, le président Obama devrait rencontrer Vladimir Poutine à New York et signer la fin de la mise à l’écart de Moscou depuis la crise ukrainienne. Ces opérations dans un espace aérien restreint laissent par ailleurs présager une coordination de fait entre les forces françaises et les différentes nations y compris la Syrie. Enfin, le porte-avions chinois Liaoning-CV-16 s’est posté sur le port syrien de Tartous, renforcé par un croiseur lance-missiles. Pour la première fois depuis le début de la guerre, Pékin viendrait renforcer l’action russe grâce à mille marines, un escadron de chasseurs J-15, d’hélicoptères afin de poursuivre les djihadistes ouïghours, venus du Xinjiang, présents en Syrie.
Sur le plan diplomatique, la chancelière allemande Angela Merkel a confirmé le tournant pris depuis plusieurs semaines par les diplomates occidentaux. Après Londres, cette dernière a estimé qu’un processus de discussions devait être engagé avec le président syrien. Alors que les principales puissances faisaient du départ de Bachar Al-Assad un préalable à la transition, le président turc Recep Tayyip Erdogan a expliqué que le raïs syrien pourrait être partie prenante du processus de transition. À New York, la chef de la diplomatie européenne Federica Mogherini et le ministre des Affaires étrangères iranien Mohammad Javad Zarif « se sont dits prêts à coopérer, dans le cadre des efforts menés par l'ONU », selon un communiqué européen. Tenu à distance des négociations de Genève, Téhéran est de fait un acteur incontournable de la résolution du conflit. Après une rencontre avec le secrétaire d’Etat américain John Kerry, le diplomate iranien devrait rencontrer Laurent Fabius, jusqu’alors méfiant à l’égard de l’Iran. Concernant l’avenir politique de Bachar al Assad, le ministre français a également opéré un virage à 180 degrés malgré les circonvolutions : « Cette négociation ne peut pas avoir comme préalable que Bachar al-Assad sera l'éternel futur de la Syrie. Mais il faut qu'une négociation se noue ». Si l’on est encore loin d’un plan de paix aux objectifs clairs, Laurent Fabius plaide pour « la formation d'un gouvernement incluant des éléments du régime et des membres de l'opposition qui refusent le terrorisme ».
Translation - English The first aerial operations were carried out today in the north of Syria. On the eve of the UN General Assembly, diplomatic ties are multiplying between Moscow and Tehran in preparation for a political resolution. The departure of Bashar al-Assad is no longer a prerequisite.
The symbol is devastating. Yesterday, on the eve of the General Assembly of the United Nations, France announced that it had launched its first aerial strikes in Syria against the terrorist group “Islamic State” (IS). According to the Elysée, Paris’s engagement without a mandate from the UN is a justified military action as a legitimate defense in light of terrorist threats. The Defense Ministry assures that it will not engage in a “campaign of massive strikes” but of targeted actions against “centers of gravity” (IS command centers, training camps, etc.). While the jihadists control 40% of Syrian territory, initially the operations should be concentrated on Raqqa, a stronghold of the Islamist insurrection, and on a general area where attacks against Europe may be being planned.
This engagement in the north of Syria is happening even though events seem to be racing ahead. Assisted by Moscow, Syrian government forces appeared to be once again on the offensive against the jihadists after several weeks of military setbacks. Russia had placed around thirty reconnaissance and attack aircraft in Syria and called for a concerted action against IS. With this in mind, President Obama is due to meet Vladimir Putin in New York and signal the end of side-lining Moscow since the Ukrainian crisis. Moreover, these limited airspace operations allow us to envision a de facto coordination between French forces and those of other nations, including Syria [1]. Finally, the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning-CV-16 has been posted at the Syrian port of Tartus, accompanied by a missile cruiser. For the first time since the beginning of the war, Beijing has arrived to materially support Russian actions with a thousand sailors, a squadron of J-15 fighter jets, and helicopters in order to hunt down Uighur jihadists, from Xinjiang, present in Syria.
On the diplomatic level, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel has confirmed the turning point taken by Western diplomats several weeks ago. After London, she finally felt that a process of discussions had to engage with the Syrian President. While the main powers made the departure of Bashar al-Assad a precondition to any peace talks, the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan explained that the Syrian leader could figure significantly in the transition process. In New York, the head of the European diplomatic corps Federica Mogherini and the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif “have told each other they are ready to cooperate, in the framework of UN-led efforts” according to a European communique.
Kept away from the Geneva negotiations, Tehran is in fact an unavoidable actor in the resolution of the conflict. After meeting the American Secretary of State John Kerry, the Iranian diplomat is due to meet Laurent Fabius, who was until recently suspicious with regard to Iran. Concerning the political future of Bashar al-Assad, the French Minister has also made a U-turn despite the complexity of the situation: “These negotiations cannot have the precondition that Bashar al-Assad will be the eternal future of Syria, but negotiations must be developed.” Although we are still far from a peace plan with clear objectives, Laurent Fabius speaks in favor of “the formation of a government including elements of the regime and members of the opposition who reject terrorism.”
[1] Editor’s comment: In the meanwhile, the President Bashar Al Assad of Syria has made it clear that the French strikes have not been coordinated with the Syrian government.
Italian to English: Everything Stays the Same, the Words Change General field: Social Sciences Detailed field: Government / Politics
Source text - Italian Pubblicato il 3 lug 2014
intervento di Barbara Spinelli a Strasburgo - il manifesto -
Da Renzi molta retorica e nessuna indicazione su come e dove trovare le risorse economiche per un New Deal che aiuti l’Europa a invertire la rotta. Servono project bond, Tobin e carbon tax, una conferenza sul debito come quella che aiutò la Germania nel ’53.
Ha detto Matteo Renzi che l’Europa muore, se non cambia. Che la stabilità senza crescita diventa immobilismo. Che non basta avere una moneta unica per condividere un destino insieme.
Sarei senz’altro d’accordo, se alle parole corrispondessero fatti concreti. Tutto deve cambiare nell’Unione – le regole economiche, le istituzioni, le nomine di chi guida i suoi organi, il suo poco democratico funzionamento – se si vuole che l’unità fra europei non diventi una parola priva d’ogni senso.
Invece il semestre italiano comincia con un’assicurazione inquietante: l’obbedienza alle regole economiche non è ridiscussa – anche se sono precisamente queste regole ad aver enormemente aggravato la recessione. Ad aver prodotto una crisi di fiducia nelle istituzioni europee che non ha eguali nella storia dell’Unione. Né è in discussione il credo liberista che ha permesso a tali regole di solidificarsi e ossificarsi, e che tiene ancor oggi prigioniere le menti di chi ci governa: le cosiddette riforme strutturali (lavoro sempre più precario, prevalenza ormai incontrovertibile del «plebiscito dei mercati» sul voto popolare, riduzione delle spese pubbliche, diminuzione dei diritti, svuotamento dei Parlamenti e delle Costituzioni democratiche) sono ancor oggi considerate condizioni indispensabili per la crescita. Tutto resta com’è, solo le parole per dirlo cambiano. «Non c’è crescita senza rigore perché il rigore è premessa della crescita»: il sillogismo è divenuto intollerabile. È un circolo vizioso da cui bisogna uscire al più presto.
Quel che chiediamo al governo italiano che nel prossimo semestre presiederà il Consiglio dei ministri è non una retorica, ma l’inizio di un’Unione radicalmente rifondata. Non basta la flessibilità dei parametri europei sugli investimenti, se le risorse nazionali mancano. Quel che occorre è un vero New Deal europeo, una svolta alla Roosevelt, e non piccole e fittizie esenzioni negoziate fra Stati forti e deboli di un’Unione che non è più degna del nome che porta, basata com’è su ottocenteschi «equilibri di potenze». Occorre un’Unione che abbia risorse proprie adeguate, perché il New Deal venga in aiuto dell’intera Comunità, e specialmente dei paesi che più hanno patito l’austerità. Perché venga dato lavoro alle persone (25,7 milioni nello spazio UE) che l’hanno perduto o non l’hanno mai trovato.
È quanto rivendicano da tempo i sindacati, tra cui il Dgb tedesco. Il finanziamento è possibile attraverso la Banca europea degli investimenti, i project bond, la tassa sulle transazioni finanziarie e sulle emissioni di anidride carbonica (carbon tax): due tasse significative, perché frenano gli eccessi di finanziarizzazione dell’economia e rispettano gli obblighi derivanti dal deterioramento del clima. Altri piani esistono: sono stati discussi dalla Lista L’Altra Europa con Tsipras; aspettano solo di essere intrapresi. Parliamo di un programma gestito dalla Banca Europea degli Investimenti e dal Fondo Europeo per gli Investimenti, proposto tempo fa da un economista greco, Yanis Varoufakis, e uno americano, James K. Galbraith. I due enti raccoglierebbero per intero i capitali necessari sui mercati finanziari. Parliamo anche di una Conferenza sul debito simile a quella che nel ‘53 condonò gran parte dei debiti di guerra della Germania, e l’aiutò a rinascere. Non dimentichiamolo: furono i paesi oggi colpevolizzati per il debito – Grecia e Italia fra molti altri – a tendere la mano alla moribonda Repubblica federale.
Il New Deal dovrà scommettere su uno sviluppo profondamente diverso da quello di ieri: che faccia fronte al disastro della disoccupazione, che sia ecologicamente sostenibile, che protegga il diritto dei cittadini alla tutela dei beni comuni e a servizi pubblici non ridotti allo stremo, che rafforzi le democrazie anziché aggirarle e umiliarle come è avvenuto progressivamente dall’inizio della crisi iniziata nel 2007–2008. Investire nelle infrastrutture, nelle energie rinnovabili, nella ricerca, nella scuola, nei trasporti: ecco il compito dell’Unione. Già nell’Unione si stanno raccogliendo firme per un’Iniziativa Cittadina (New Deal 4-Europe) che vuol ottenere proprio questo. Il lavoro, dice il Presidente del Consiglio, sarà al centro del semestre italiano. Ma il decreto Poletti, che precarizza sistematicamente e nel lungo periodo il lavoro dei giovani, non è di buon auspicio. Ancor meno di buon auspicio, anzi scandalosa, è la decisione di rinviare alla fine del semestre la grande Conferenza europea sul lavoro, solennemente annunciata dalla presidenza italiana per il mese di luglio a Torino.
Un’analoga svolta è urgente sull’immigrazione, che va governata creando veri corridoi umanitari per i richiedenti asilo (le guerre da cui fuggono, siamo noi il più delle volte ad attizzarle). Non è la linea scelta dall’ultimo Consiglio, secondo cui spetta solo ai paesi del Sud salvare le vite nel Mediterraneo. Il commissario Cecilia Malmström è giunta sino a dire che «non ci sono soldi» per il piano Mare Nostrum, quando ce ne sono stati, a profusione lungo gli anni, per salvare le banche private. Allo stesso modo è urgente una politica culturale capace di arginare il razzismo e la xenofobia che si estendono in Europa.
Compito dei governi e di noi parlamentari è ascoltare innanzitutto le persone, che si sono espresse nel voto europeo esigendo una netta rottura di continuità con le politiche fin qui attuate. Rottura nelle politiche economiche-sociali, e rottura anche in politica estera: dobbiamo entrare nell’ordine di idee che è finito il tempo in cui la pace in Europa viene decisa negli Stati Uniti, con l’Europa che s’accoda e tace come nell’epoca della guerra fredda. Ai nostri confini con la Russia, e nel Mediterraneo, è di una pax europea che abbiamo bisogno. Il modello di federazione che l’Europa sarà in grado di incarnare potrà divenire modello di convivenza etnica e politica anche nei paesi del nostro «vicinato». E anche con l’America occorre una svolta. Renzi promette di concludere presto il Trattato sul commercio (TTIP) fra Commissione e multinazionali Usa. Sembra ignaro dei pericoli – distruzione di regole europee e nazionali concernenti il rispetto dell’ambiente, l’alimentazione sana, i beni comuni non privatizzabili – né pare battersi perché cessi la scandalosa segretezza dei negoziati.
I governi fanno finta che il messaggio delle elezioni europee sia un altro: che i cittadini si siano limitati a propiziare la vittoria di questo o quel capopartito. Non è così. I politici che nella campagna elettorale erano candidati alla presidenza della Commissione, e che sono usciti numericamente vincenti, hanno ottenuto un’assai magra vittoria, se nel calcolo includiamo la vasta massa di astenuti e l’avanzata di forze euro-ostili o euroscettiche o euro-critiche.
Ben altro domanda la stragrande maggioranza dei cittadini: che i dogmi liberisti ancor oggi prevalenti vengano meno, per il semplice motivo che non hanno funzionato. Che quando si calcola il Pil non si inserisca nel conteggio la prostituzione e la droga, o la ricchezza sommersa derivante dall’evasione fiscale, o il contrabbando di sigarette e alcol, come comunicato dall’Istat nel maggio 2014, ma si introducano altre variabili della ricchezza nazionale come il volontariato o il lavoro delle casalinghe. Il New Deal che rivendichiamo deve avere al centro la crescita del ben vivere, del Buen vivir. Non del Pil.
Per esser più precisi: gli elettori esigono che le autorità europee – tutte, non solo le euroburocrazie criticate da Renzi ma anche i governi, che sono i primi responsabili delle politiche di austerità – ammettano pubblicamente di essersi sbagliate: ideologicamente e praticamente.
Keynes diceva, nel ‘36, poco dopo l’inizio del New Deal, che «le idee degli economisti e dei filosofi politici, giuste o sbagliate, sono più potenti di quanto si creda. Gli uomini pratici, che si ritengono completamente liberi da ogni influenza intellettuale, sono generalmente schiavi di qualche economista defunto». Quel che chiedo al semestre guidato dal governo di Matteo Renzi è di non farci credere che il Nuovo consista nella denuncia dei tecnocrati. Se l’Unione sta messa così male, non è a causa di burocrazie che impedirebbero agli «uomini pratici» di decidere, ma a causa dei politici che usano le burocrazie di Bruxelles come scusa per non far nulla, e per consegnarsi mani e piedi a qualche economista (o stratega atlantico) defunto. Quel che chiedo al Parlamento europeo, è di dare un forte segnale che l’inizio del cambiamento dovrà nascere in quest’aula.
*Intervento al Parlamento europeo per “L’Altra Europa con Tsipras”-Gruppo Gue-Ngl
Translation - English A Speech by MEP Barbara Spinelli to the European Parliament
Published July 3rd, 2014
[Italian Prime Minister Matteo] Renzi has given us a lot of empty rhetoric but no indication of how or where to find the economic resources for a New Deal to help Europe reverse its decline. We need a conference on debt like the one that helped Germany in ‘53, project bonds, the Tobin Tax and the Carbon Tax.
Matteo Renzi has said that Europe will perish if it does not change, and that stability without growth will become stagnation. He has said that it's not enough to have a single market in order to share a common destiny.
I would certainly agree, if the concrete facts had corresponded to words.
Everything must change in the European Union - the economic rules, the institutions, the nominated leaders who control its agencies, its lack of democratic functions - if it doesn’t want the “unity” between Europeans to become a word lacking any meaning.
Instead, the Italian term for the Presidency of the Council of the EU begins with a worrying lack of security: slavish obedience to the economic rules is not being debated - even if these are precisely the rules which have seriously exacerbated the recession and produced a crisis of faith in European institutions never before seen in the history of the EU.
Nor is the laissez-faire belief which has allowed these rules to solidify and fossilize themselves up for discussion. The belief that holds our leaders' minds prisoner even today is that the so-called “structural reforms” (the ever more precarious work, the by now undeniable predominance of the “market consensus” over the popular vote, the reduction of public spaces, the restriction of rights, the emptying of Parliaments and of democratic Constitutions) are still today considered essential preconditions for growth.
Everything stays the same, only the words to describe it change.
“There isn’t growth without harshness because harshness is a precondition of growth.” The syllogism has become unacceptable. It is a vicious circle we need to exit from as soon as possible.
We aren’t calling on the Italian government (who is presiding over the Council of Ministers in the next term) for empty rhetoric, but for the beginning of a radically reformed European Union.
Flexibility of European standards on investments aren’t enough if national resources are lacking.
What’s needed is a true European New Deal, a turning point à la Roosevelt and not fake little exemptions you negotiate between strong and weak Member States of a Union which no longer deserves its name, based on a nineteenth century “balance of power”.
A European Union which would have its own adequate resources is needed so that the New Deal would come to the aid of the entire Community, especially the countries which have most acutely suffered from austerity. It’s needed so that work would be given to the people (25.7 million in the EU) who have lost it or have never been able to find it.
It is as much as the labor unions, including the German DGB, have demanded for a long time.
The financing is possible through the European Investment Bank, project bonds, and taxes on financial transactions (the Tobin Tax) and carbon emissions (the Carbon Tax). These are two significant taxes, because they reign in the excesses of the financialization of the economy and recognize the obligations that come with the destruction of the climate.
Other plans exist which have been discussed by the “Other Europe with Tsipras” group; they are only waiting to be taken up.
We are talking about a program developed by the European Investment Bank and by the European Investment Fund, proposed some time ago by a Greek and an American one, Yanis Varoufakis and James K. Galbraith. The two bodies would collaborate for the whole of the required capital on the financial markets.
We are also talking about a conference on debt similar to the one which forgave a large part of Germany’s war debts in ‘53 and helped it to be reborn.
Let’s not forget that it was the countries that are being made to feel guilty about their debt today - Greece and Italy among many others - who offered a hand to that dying federal Republic.
*A speech to the European Parliament by “The Other Europe with Tsipras” - European United Left/Nordic Green Left European Parliamentary Group
More
Less
Translation education
Master's degree - Cardiff University
Experience
Years of experience: 9. Registered at ProZ.com: Feb 2016.
Expertise