jxh2624's blog

The world is growing increasingly smaller as the electronic communication age progresses. Suddenly people from all parts of the world can be connected with the click of a mouse or the stroke of a few keys. Business has grown in this way as well. A company may be headquartered in one country, but have offices in one or several other countries that more often than not may speak a different language. Business, in this way, has become increasingly international in scope as well. Many firms and companies conduct business abroad, but there is still the difference in language and culture to contend with. While translation of language is still useful, it is often the cultural barrier that can be an obstacle. Culture can be defined as: worldviews, mindsets, experiences, and habits held, experienced and expressed by members of a given community. It is also patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activities significance and importance, as well as patterns of communication and meaning.

Many businesses have websites geared for their home audience, but what happens when a company’s website is translated into another language; what are the cultural differences? How is the information culturally loaded from one culture and would people from another culture understand what information was being conveyed? How could information “get lost in translation?” Would someone reading a foreign website be offended by any pictures, graphics, logos, or text that they saw? So the process has evolved from just ’simple’ translation of words to how to bridge the culture barrier as well. Globalization, Internationalization, Localization, and Translation have all become paramount in today’s world of conducting business. All of these different techniques or specialties also provide people with chance to learn about different cultures around our little planet, that since the advent of the internet (thanks to Al Gore), has indeed become smaller.

The term globalization is more of a mindset than anything else. It is the process of making all necessary technical, financial, managerial, personnel, marketing, and other enterprise decisions that are necessary to facilitate international business. Internationalization is the process of insuring at a technical or design level, that a product or products can be easily localized, such as the date, time, phone numbers, and other pieces of coding. When a website is formatted for a different target language, web designers need to make sure that the reader on the other end can easily navigate his or her way around and be familiar with the page. Localization is the process of modifying products or services to account for differences in distinct markets, while translation is the means of communicating the meanings and messages of words. Many different translation tools have sprung up as the internet evolves, with such tools as compute-aided translation (CAT), translation memory (TM), machine translation (MT), as well as online dictionaries, or actual book form dictionaries.

For the final project, I chose two articles that dealt with a heated current international issue, that of Iran’s nuclear program. The article came from a Russian newspaper and focused on Russian-Iranian relations as well as American-Iranian relations (or lack thereof). Along the way I learned new vocabulary, and, from a Russian standpoint, more about the Iranian position and their way of thinking. To translate the mass amount of information, machine translation was a huge help. Google Translator and Bing Translator were used extensively, while more or less for a third opinion on a few items Babylon Translator was used, though the first two were more helpful. However, machine translation only goes so far. Going back and forth between Google and Bing helped provide keys to the puzzle. Sometimes they were almost spot on translations, while others it was a jumbled mess that I had to do my best to discern what was actually being said and put the puzzle together. My Russian-English/English-Russian dictionary became quite helpful as well when translations would pop up but I was not sure about a word here and there. Russian phrasing is often time very different from English, which presented a big challenge when dealing with diplomatic language or a lot of the technical language regarding nuclear power, which I quickly learned the vocabulary for nuclear fuel, power, and nuclear program. However, there was one phrase that Mahmud Ahmadinejad quoted from the Tajik language, «Aз зин фуромада бошанд хам, аз узанги нафуромадаанд,» for which I could not find a translation. Most online translation sites were still in the process of bringing Tajik translations online.

Part of the translation process uses small amounts of creative license to get the point across. Differences in phrasing present their own set of challenges, and the machine translation does not always provide a clear picture of what is being said. Picking through the jumbled mess of often literally translated words can be confusing, but if a translator sits back and thinks about it for a minute or two, more often the can phrase can be figured out. The only problem is the balance between how much creative license can be used before it stays to far from the original wording. I would translate a few sentences, then go back and double check the Russian wording for words I knew or could easily figure out by context clues; while others I would consult my dictionary to double check the meaning, at which point something would click and the English phrase would ‘appear’.

We are more connected than at any point in human history, and with that connection, we have the ability to learn about cultural intricacies that make the world such a vibrant place.

http://www.gazeta-bip.net/politics/187-2010-06-11-06-54-22

Returning to Iran’s nuclear program (Возвращаясь к ядерной программе Ирана)

Recently, political circles and domestic and foreign media have been actively discussing the possibility of further political, economic, and military developments around the Iranian nuclear program and are even making forecasts for using them against Iran’s weapons of mass destruction.
The guide to relevant agencies of Russia, which have repeatedly called on the Iranian leadership to ensure full cooperation with the IAEA, are very careful to heed the unanimous decision of UN Security Council members on all remaining disputed issues after missed chance opportunities to sell nuclear fuel to fully support the IAEA. The fact that Russia supported the IAEA resolution on Iran, discussed in a report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation entitled, “On the statement of the Chairman of the Security Council regarding Iran’s nuclear program.” The Iranian public has been inadequately treated. Representatives of conservative circles sharply criticized the Russian leadership. They were confident that the resolution completely shut down all activities of Iran’s nuclear development.
Rapprochement of the Russian Federation toward Iran and China has disrupted the balance of U.S. global dominance and financial capital in Central Asia, which is currently in wide use for buying not only hydrocarbon fuels, but also uranium reserves, the fuel of the future. The need to control stocks of nuclear fuel has become more urgent after Iran’s position on its nuclear program was presented to the U.N. Security Council. To some extent, these processes have been linked with the interests of the West as Russia has sold nuclear fuel to Iran. In the first phase, Iran agreed to receive fuel from Russia, against no objections from the U.S. and Europe. However, there was a misunderstanding between Iran and Russia in the delivery and return of nuclear fuel. Iran began its research and in comparatively short time has achieved some success in enriching uranium.
Russia and the West have understood that the future may see yet another contender in the market of nuclear fuel, the fuel of the energy future. Iran will not stop. Policy has turned to blackmail and pressure by threats of weapons of mass destruction. True, Russia in defending her interests, has come to a political solution to the problem and therefore connecting her to other countries.
Not one of the world powers, unrelated to Iran’s nuclear program, contested the right of Iran to conduct atomic research. While recognizing Iran’s right to scientific research, they are motivated by the undesirability of the Iranian nuclear program’s capability to create an atomic bomb. As repeatedly stated, the world powers are well aware that uranium enrichment cannot only lead to an atomic bomb that can be employed in the modern world, and state suicide, but also to the possibility in scientific development in over 50 fields of science.
Nothing horrifies opponents of an Iranian atomic bomb and independent scientific research and development prospects more than other countries that can grab a portion of future income from the sale of enriched uranium for nuclear power plants branches of science.
In this situation, what’s next for Iran? It depends on relations between Russia and China, primarily from Russia’s attitude toward Iran’s nuclear program.
Why could Russia’s decision on Iran play a major role?
First of all, Russia is interested in the sale of nuclear fuel to Iran, and Russia may be the persuasive force in Iran’s strategic plan. With its uranium enrichment technology Iran could become a major competitor on nuclear fuel market and oppress Russia.
Secondly, some media outlets have sought to persuade Russia that the destabilizing effect of new conflicts in Iran so close to the Russian border cannot have a significant influence on Russia’s geopolitical situation, but rather can “open” the prospect of a possible advancement to the South of Russia that is incompatible with common sense.
Thirdly, under the same policy in Iraq where some of the figures and their patrons complained of deprivation in the future of Russian companies to participate in the development of Iraqi oil if Russia did not support sanctions against Iraq and the later military operation in the country. Now the determining factor for the position which Russia will take up on Iran’s nuclear program will be democracy in Russia.
The Russian foreign ministry stated the U.N. Security Council expressed support for the efforts of the IAEA and its Board of Governors to work with Iran to resolve outstanding issues, including resolutions of the IAEA Board and the steps required from Tehran for the restoration of confidence in the country’s nuclear program. First and foremost, Iran must suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment. What is this if not an ultimatum and a threat by a full member of the U.N.? The IAEA decision on the national nuclear program of Iran was adopted by 27 votes, and referred to the U.N. Security Council. Following the completion of negotiations in Paris, it was reported that representatives of Britain, China, Russia, the U.S., and France agreed that Iran’s nuclear program is “incompatible with the requirements of the international community that cannot cause anything but grave concern.” The question arises, ‘Can the resolution, supported by 27 members of the IAEA Board of Governors, mainly Western countries, be considered as an expression of the international community?’ What is the basis of the so-called “international community” and its distrust of Iran which aspires to the peaceful development of nuclear energy, as states are constantly at all levels of politics, and trust those countries that have repeatedly violated the rights of other peoples and international law?
The refusal of Iran to enrich uranium on Russian territory and its decision further aggravated the problem. Europeans hesitant of Russia on the problem understood in their own way and immediately offered a different game plan- the transfer of enriched uranium through France. That is understandable. If there is an alliance between the U.S. and Russia, Europe will lose not only its influence in many regions of the world, but also its clout. This was demonstrated by the recent negotiations and the agreement signed by Brazil, Turkey, and Iran, which provides for the exchange of Iranian low-enriched uranium to highly enriched uranium in Turkish territory. The plan is the same as that offered by the IAEA in October 2009, the difference being that France replaces Turkey.
The powers creating the problem of Iran’s nuclear program are well aware that the European countries, in their decisions on the problems of the Middle East, are more oriented towards Russia’s position, and the resoluteness of this position, and respectfully accept another decision not to interfere in the relations between the U.S. and Russia. The agreement on 17 May 2010 between Turkey, Brazil, and Russia actually supported Iran, declaring that “this plan is in the interest of a peaceful settlement of the situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear program.”
Despite the statements by Iranian President Ahmadinejad that Russia is supporting the issue of sanctions against Iran, the U.S. puts itself in the position of the historic enemy. Russia has actually been offered the exchange of Iranian low-enriched uranium. This provides another chance for Iran to strengthen relations with Russia on this issue.
The United States is well aware that the policy has no friends, and its enemies have interests as it further strengthens its own position on Iran. This is understandable. From the president, to the secretary of state and other officials, the U.S., having lost its reputation in Iran, the contention is that the credibility of the world community and the U.S. toward the Iranian issue is at stake. Yet Condoleezza Rice, on behalf of the “international community” stated that there is one choice: “We will either be responsible for our words when we say that Iran must comply, or we will continue to allow Iran to ignore our demands.”
Representatives of the European Troika and the United States in a meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors, which repeatedly discussed the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, not only could created a team of 27 managers, but also secured the transfer of Iran’s nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council.
According to the West, primarily Washington, only strong pressure will force Tehran to abandon development of “nuclear weapons.” The refusal of Iran in developments in the this area will still allow the West a certain period of superiority in the nuclear fuel market, but not forever. And if Iran, as a sovereign state defends its right to scientific research in the field of nuclear energy, what further leverage can the West use? It can be international sanctions against Iran, the decision on the introduction of which takes place in the U.N. Security Council. The permanent members of the U.N. Security Council failed to reach an agreement on further steps aimed at resolving the Iranian nuclear issue. However, according to representatives of the French Foreign Ministry, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, agreed on a resolution that will demonstrate to Iran the “tough stance” with regard to its nuclear program which is already in place.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the time warned that the U.S. is ready to bypass the U.N. Security Council to force Iran to abandon its nuclear program. In fact at the recent U.N. conference in America Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton have confirmed this. Condoleezza Rice said, “I’m quite sure that we have a lot of diplomatic arrows for the Security Council stocked in the quiver. (Well, as for Iran, even more so). But I also know that adhering to our position the state could be willing to take additional steps if the Security Council does not act quickly enough.” (Political blackmail in comparison with terrorism). She accused Iran of playing “games” with international community, explaining that for the pre-existing requirements there was enough time. “When the Iranians say things like, “We do not care about sanctions,” I wonder why they are trying to prevent the consideration in the Security Council?” For example, they are not afraid of U.S. sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council). According to Rice, the possible sanctions would not affect oil or gas because there “other options.”
What the options are that the United States and its financial capital will choose is the question. Iran also chose a path that was clearly laid out in a speech at the U.N. Conference. President Ahmadinejad, with some modifications, entered into an agreement, the content of which corresponds to the West’s previously proposed plan.

Iran’s Nuclear Cycle- Iran’s Nuclear Facilities (Ядерный цикл Ирана – ядерные объекты Ирана)
http://www.nationalsecurity.ru/maps/irannuclearfacilities.htm

In recent months, one of the key problems of international policy has been related to Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. suspects Iran of secretly developing nuclear weapons and is prepared to strike at its nuclear fuel cycle facilities. Iran accuses the U.S. of conducting a policy of “double standards,” and says that the nature of its nuclear program is peaceful, but is seeking to create a full nuclear fuel cycle. The leading European countries, Britain, France, and Germany, are offering Iran a complete halt to uranium enrichment in exchange for peaceful nuclear technology and the expansions of economic relations with the E.U. If there is a way out of this problem, which has taken on an international character, and has a direct impact on international security in countries in the Middle East and other regions of the world? Some Russian experts believe that is possible, but requires a joint effort by Iran, the U.S., Russia, the E.U., and Israel.
The Middle East is a highly volatile region. On one hand, there are huge energy resources, without which the very existence of the U.S. and European economies is impossible. On the other hand, bases of international terrorism are also located here and are occasionally exacerbated by the Arab-Israeli conflict, and a number of states such as Syria and Iran have been ranked by the American president as the “axis of evil.” Considerable stockpiles and military equipment have also accumulated here. Some states, such as Syria, have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and Israel stands as an unofficial member of the “nuclear club.”
In the last decade the Middle East has developed into a rather complicated situation in the area of international security. A number of states in the region began a nuclear program as the only means of salvation from the current external threats. In this instance, their leadership was aware that this goal can only be achieved by the extreme exertion of all domestic resources, and have taken into account the possibility of sanctions by the U.N. Security Council. Another factor that has contributed to the tense situation is the policy of official nuclear states, which not only sought to destroy their own nuclear weapons and vice versa, have now carried out a modernization program. In addition, the U.S. military action against Iraq, which led to the ouster of Saddam Hussein, has raised concern in several Middle Eastern countries, and the desire of some states in the region to achieve higher international status cannot be ignored. As a result, the political elites of these states have approved the prospect of countries having nuclear weapons as a reliable means of protection against any attack from the outside. The greatest successes in the region have been Israel and Iran.
Israel is surrounded by hostile Arab states. Of all the Arab states, only Egypt and Jordan have established diplomatic relations with Israel. The feeling of constant external threats and personal vulnerability has forced the country’s leadership to develop nuclear weapons. Despite the lack of formal evidence, the overwhelming majority of Russian experts do not doubt that Israel has nuclear weapons in the form of a full triad. Given the depth of contradictions between Israel and the Arabs countries, the destruction of their own nuclear weapons, even with solid security guarantees from the U.S. or NATO in the near future, is unlikely.
Since the 1970’s, Iran has been very ambitious about developing a nuclear program. Specifically, by 2020 it plans to build a significant number of nuclear power stations with low-enriched uranium, pressurized water reactors for electrical power, which is supposed to exceed 20,000 megawatts. The program was later adjusted to reflect the economic opportunities of the country in the direction of reducing the amount nuclear energy generated by 70%. The decision on the implementation of a military nuclear program was apparently made in the early 1990’s. Simultaneously, work began on the development of nuclear weapons from highly enriched uranium and plutonium. In 1995, highly enriched uranium was purchased with the help of A.Q. Khan in Pakistan and was collected in 500 P-1 centrifuges. High-level Iranian technicians will copy (reverse engineer) the centrifuges and allow Iran to begin its own production. As early as 1996, the CIA found evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.
In recent years, work on the Iranian military nuclear program has accelerated. In February 2003, Iran acknowledged the installation of 100 centrifuges for uranium enrichment at the Natanz experimental production facility, and planned by year’s end to increase the number to 900. There are underground facilities with a total area of 60,000 square meters, enough to accommodate up to 50,000 centrifuges. In May 2003, France which provided the Nuclear Suppliers Group materials, accused Iran of a nuclear weapons program. In August 2003, IAEA inspectors had information on traces of highly enriched uranium found at the Natanz plant. At present, Iran is building a plant to produce heavy water at Arak, and plans to build a heavy water research reactor in Karaj that can be used for plutonium production. Nevertheless, the greatest danger to the world community now is an Iranian weapons program. A nuclear bomb based on highly enriched uranium is presumably well under way.
Israel’s view of an Iranian military nuclear program is extremely negative, especially given the range of the Iranian Shahab-3 missile from its territory (a missile range up to 2,500 km). The Israeli leadership has repeatedly spoken about the possibility of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle facilities if it does not halt production of highly enriched uranium. Israel already has experience with such operations. In 1981, the Israeli Air Force attacked and destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. According to Russian experts, an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is much more complicated because they are scattered across the country, and the distance from Israel to these sites is much greater than it was in Iraq. In the event of such an attack, Iran would respond by launching its own missiles on Israeli territory, the effectiveness of which would depend on the ability of the Israeli missile defense system to intercept [incoming] missiles.
The relationship between the U.S. and Iran is rather complicated. Iran is counted among the “axis of evil” and is experiencing constant economic and military pressure from the United States, which suspects Iran of secretly developing nuclear weapons and aiding terrorists. In early 2005, fifty U.S. congressmen demanded that President Bush “to hold the current Iranian regime accountable for its threatening behavior,” and to support all pro-democracy forces in Iran. They proposed to begin federal funding to allocate grants to support independent radio and TV stations broadcasting in Iranian territory from abroad. The U.S. congressmen have demanded not only keeping already existing U.S. sanctions against Iran, but also to expand sanctions against foreign companies working with Iran. As a result, economic sanctions were introduced against eight Chinese companies, which in their opinion, render assistance to Iran by improving ballistic missiles. Previously, similar sanctions have been imposed against Russian and other foreign enterprises.
On January 18, 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that Iran halt its nuclear weapons development program. Otherwise, he did not rule out the possibility of military action. The announcement was made after a U.S. Defense Department official refuted the fact that a secret organization of special units in Iran’s intelligence operations collected information on 30 sites used in nuclear and missile programs. However, according information in the American magazine, The New Yorker, these special units collected information for six months, not only on nuclear and chemical facilities, but also on ballistic missile launchers. The identified sites can be destroyed by high-precision weapons and by subversive groups.
The Iranian leadership is in a difficult situation. On the hand, Iran is legally producing atomic power. It is a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) member, and has signed the Additional Protocol of 1997, allowing it to enter IAEA safeguards. On the other hand, Iran has practically completed a full closed nuclear fuel cycle, part of which can be used for producing weapons-grade nuclear materials. The Iranian leadership believes it has the right to acquire and develop technologies for enrichment of nuclear materials, if appropriate production is under IAEA supervision; indeed the NPT allows it. North Korea, for example, was a member of the NPT, which secretly established the scientific and technical background to develop nuclear weapons; then it announced it was exiting the treaty, to great concern of the world community.
Another reason to create a full closed nuclear fuel cycle, according to the Iranian leadership, is the need to secure its own fuel supply. Investing huge funds in the nuclear industry, the government does not want to depend on the fuel suppliers. Given Iran’s complex relations with several countries, one cannot exclude the use of this factor to exert pressure on the country’s leadership. At present, the international community is not prepared to provide Iran with credible guarantees of an uninterrupted supply of nuclear fuel at reasonable prices. However, many experts have even questioned the very need for nuclear power, due to Iran’s significant reserves of oil and natural gas.
The Iranian leadership also believes that the recent anti-Iranian attacks by George W. Bush and senior members of the administration are psychological in nature. Thus, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said the following: “The statements of U.S. President George W. Bush and other American officials about possible military action against Iran are playing a kind of psychological game to influence our decision. However, we already have experience in this area. We do not want to engage in a confrontation with anyone, but we will be ready with our full power to defend our national interests.” The Iranian leader, Mohammad Khatami agrees with him, saying, “I do not think that the Americans are able to accept such a stupid decision to start a war with Iran… We consider the probability of such an attack as very low, and this applies to other countries.” Apparently this is what defines Iran’s reserved attitude toward the collection of American intelligence on Iran.
At the same time, Iran’s leadership is aware of the real possibility of the use of force against their country. That is why is has taken concrete steps to alleviate the nuclear issue. In particular, the cascade of new centrifuges at Natanz and its uranium enrichment program has been temporarily halted, and the facility was placed under the IAEA control. The uranium conversion plant in Isfahan was put under IAEA control in September 2004. Despite the absence of the ratification of the 1997 NPT Additional Protocol, the country voted for the enforcement of its provisions and allowed IAEA inspectors its facilities.
Particularly noteworthy are the relations between Russia and Iran in the area of atomic energy. Despite numerous statements by U.S. officials on the transfer of Russian nuclear and missile technology to Iran, the cooperation between our two countries in this sphere is evolving and will continue. In particular, Russia will continue construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. The cost of the construction contract is in excess of one billion dollars.
Given the tensions between the U.S. and Iran in the short term, the prospect of a precision-guided weapons strike against Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle facilities and the production of missiles and ballistic missile launchers is a possibility. A similar impact can be applied by Israel. Moreover, such an attack could be carried out unilaterally, without U.N. Security Council sanctions, as Russia and China, being permanent members of the Security Council, would have a high probability of vetoing such a resolution. The consequences of the unresolved situation in Iraq and Afghanistan will be very negative for the Middle East region and for Russia.
Under the guise of combating the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the U.S. invaded Iraq. They scored a brilliant military victory, but failed to stabilize the situation in the country. The collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime allowed nationalist and radical forces, with financial support from a number of Middle Eastern countries and independent funding, to deploy the country’s partisan struggle. As a result of monthly U.S. military losses of more than fifty people, some European countries such as Spain, have decided to withdraw its troops from Iraq. The increase of various terrorist organizations and constant kidnappings for ransom have completely disrupted the life support system of major Iraqi cities. But, local parliament elections have shown that people’s freedom of expression has not stopped during the fighting.
The situation is somewhat better in Afghanistan, where the operation to overthrow the Taliban regime was mandated by the U.N. Security Council. However, terrorist activities have intensified after the war in Iraq. The lack of resources has meant that NATO forces control only the capital and several major cities. The central government is extremely weak and the provinces are controlled by independent warlords. Drug production has dramatically increased, which is rushed through Tajikistan to Russia and on to Europe. Soon the Russian frontier guards will withdraw from Tajikistan and the situation will worsen.
What is the solution to this situation? According to some Russian experts, the creation of Iranian nuclear weapons would not meet its national interests in the long term. Iran is already a regional power that has huge human resources and modern technology. The country’s economy is booming amid growing ties of friendship with Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, China, Ukraine, and several European countries. Iran is also creating an aviation and automobile industry, and in the near future a Russian orbiter will carry an Iranian satellite into space. However, Iranian society remains extremely closed to the West, which impedes the flow of foreign investment and the transfer of advanced technologies. The creation of nuclear weapons will only further isolate the country from the rest of the world and will inevitably affect the development of the economy and the welfare of Iranians.
In 2003, the Libyan leadership renounced weapons of mass destruction and undertook to destroy them. In exchange for eliminating their nuclear weapons program and chemical weapons stockpiles, the country’s leadership received favorable aid from the West that could compensate for previously incurred costs to develop WMD’s which experts estimate would top one billion dollars. In Iran, this approach is possible only in part. Improving relations with the leading European countries is a prerequisite for rapid economic development. In the interest of European countries, such is the need to guarantee delivery of Iranian energy resources. Apparently the Iranian leadership should seriously consider the proposal by the E.U. on a complete cessation of uranium enrichment activities in return for peaceful nuclear technology and the expansion of economic relations with the E.U.
The majority of Russian experts believe that even under the most favorable conditions for Iran to create its own nuclear weapons, will require one to three years. A precision-guided weapons strike would inevitably the program back at least five years. In addition, the political decision by Iran to develop nuclear weapons most likely is not accepted. Therefore, the situation can still change by firmly rejecting plans for a closed fuel cycle, which eliminates the possibility of Iran developing its own nuclear weapons.
Leading European countries are the “locomotive” of the negotiations on nuclear issues, but negotiations with Iran cannot be successful without the active participation of Russia and the United States. Currently Russia is building the Bushehr nuclear power plant on the basis of light nuclear reactors. In the future Russia may build nuclear power plants or similar type and take on commitments to supply nuclear fuel at fixed prices, and even export spent fuel to its territory. All of this will eliminate the use of Iran’s Russian reactors for plutonium production.
The U.S. plays a significant role in the solving the Iranian nuclear issue. Without the settlement of U.S.-Iranian relations and the provision of a non-aggression commitment to Iran by the U.S., progress on this issue is hardly possible. If Iran cannot accept the proposals of the E.U. and eliminate a number of key components of the nuclear fuel cycle, the use of force by the United States is still possible. In this instance, the Iranian leadership presumably would be forced to take a course to create its own nuclear weapons preserve its sovereignty.
Consequently, the present U.S. position on Iran is clearly hopeless, because a military solution to Iranian nuclear sites does not exist. According to Alexei Arbatov, the head of the Institute of World Economics and International Relations Center for International Security, the White House has threatened Iran to divert public attentions from the situation in Iraq, and to cover the political, moral, and military defeat in this region. Alexei Arbatov stated: “threatening Iran is another major American mistake, which if implemented, would have unpleasant consequences for the region, the U.S., and the entire world.”
However, Iran’s support of several terrorist organizations is proving very difficult for the process of improving U.S.-Iranian and Iranian-Israeli relations. The Iranian leadership should reconsider its relations with such organizations as the Lebanese group Hezbollah, the Palestinian group Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and others. Comprehensive support of these organizations not only strengthens terrorism in the Middle East, but also fosters a negative image in the eyes of the world community. It also gives ground for the U.S. and Israeli beliefs that Iran is one of the main terrorist bases.
Israel could provide substantial assistance in initiating the Iranian nuclear site. Only an extremely cautious stance on this issue, such as the rejection of unilateral action and seeking mutual compromises, could save quite a delicate balance in the region.
On 10 February 2005, the North Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs officially announced the North’s own weapons. A number of Russian experts believe this information to be a bluff due to increasing pressure by the United States on Iran’s current nuclear issue. In addition, North Korea seeks to remind the international community about itself to receive financial assistance.
This situation creates favorable conditions for the outbreak of Iranian nuclear sites because, unlike North Korea, Iran’s leadership takes a more realistic approach and is in contact with the IAEA. Apparently the United States relented on the position towards Iran because it is impossible to simultaneously decide between the Iranian and North Korean nuclear problems. The U.S. will be forced to switch to North Korea, where the support of the international community is provided for them.
Thus, Iran’s desire to create its own nuclear weapons is a dead end path, which does not account for the long term national interests of the country, and will worsen the state of security in the Middle East. The position of the U.S. regarding this issue is clearly hopeless and does not allow finding compromises. But there is a way out of this situation:
-adoption of E.U. proposals to Iran’s full cessation of uranium enrichment and accumulation of plutonium in exchange for peaceful nuclear technology and expansion of economic relations with European countries;
-ratification of the 1997 NPT Additional Protocol and cessation of the accumulation of plutonium;
-that Iran suspend all support for terrorist organizations and begin the normalization of relations with Israel;
-settlement of U.S.-Iranian relations and the provision of U.S. non-aggression guarantees to Iran;
-an ensured Russian supply of reactor fuel at fixed, low prices, as well as export into Russian territory of spent nuclear fuel.
All of this will lead to a radical improvement of the situation in the Middle East and the economic prosperity of Iran in the future.
All maps, photographs, and satellite images are protected by copyright and belong to either the author of National and Public Security resources of the Russian Federation, or posted with the permission of the public or private organizations or individuals. Any copying of the materials is prosecuted under criminal and civil legislation of the Russian Federation.

Two or three stories by Edgar Allan Poe have already been translated into Russian in our magazines. We offer the readers three more stories. Here is an extraordinarily strange writer, albeit one with great talent. His works are impossible to really be considered among the fantasy genre. However, if he is considered a fantasy writer, so to speak, it is in outward appearance only.
For example, he allows us to see the rebirth of the galvanizing Egyptian mummy lying in a pyramid for five thousand years. He admits that the deceased man tells about the state of his soul et cetera. But this is not just another fantastic tale. Edgar Allan Poe only allows for the outer possibility of unnatural events (although the possibility and sometimes even his extraordinary genius) and allowing this event, is otherwise perfectly real.
These are not the fantastic examples of the German writer, E.T.A. Hoffmann. This represents the force of nature in images: delve into their stories of magic and spirits, and even sometimes look for their ideal outer earth, in some extraordinary world, taking this world for the highest, as his absolute personal belief in the mysterious magical world… Edgar Allan Poe cannot quickly be labeled a fantasy writer, but rather a capricious one. And what strange whims, which are boldly in these whims! It is almost always the most exceptional reality to put his hero in the most exclusive external or psychological situation, and with what power of discernment, which he faithfully defeats as he tells on the state of the soul of this person? Besides Edgar Allan Poe, there is exactly one feature that distinguishes him emphatically from all other writers and drastically makes his feature: the power of imagination. His imagination did not surpass those of other writers, but his stories are filled with great detail not seen by other writers in this genre.
Try, for example, to imagine yourself in something quite ordinary or not even encountered in reality and possibly an image will appear in front of you. Always conclude one or more than less common features of a whole picture or to install on some features, especially her. But in Poe’s tales you so clearly see all the details of the convincingly real image or event, that is quite impossible to tell whether it has ever happened in the world or not. An example of one of his stories is a narrative of traveling to the moon. It provides the reader a detailed description of an almost hour by hour account and almost convinces the reader that it could happen. He also accurately described in an American newspaper a flight from Europe across the ocean to America. This description was so detailed, so precise and full of unexpected random facts that it seemed real, that the whole journey was true. Naturally, after a few hours help it turned out that no such journey had happened and that the story by Edgar Allan Poe was hog-wash. The same power of imagination has been illustrated in stories about a lost letter; about a murder committed in Paris by an orangutan; and in a story about locating buried treasure, et cetera.
He has been compared to Hoffmann, but we have already said that it is not true. At the same time, Hoffman is infinitely superior to Poe as a poet. Hoffman’s ideal is sometimes inaccurately interpreted, but in his ideal there is purity, a true beauty inherent in man. It is only visible in his non-fantasy stories, for example, Master Martin, or the elegant, delightful story: Salvator Rosa. We no longer talk about his best work: The Life and Opinions of the Tomcat Murr. What true, mature humor, what power of reality, what anger, what types and portraits, and what craving beauty, what a bright idea! In Poe if there is fantasy, the kind of material was not expressed. It is evident that he is quite American, even in his most fantastic works. In order to acquaint readers with this whimsical talent, we present three of his short stories.

In Dostoevsky’s ТРИ РАЗСКАЗА ЭДГАРА ПОЭ, the initial mini-challenge was to decipher the Old Russian graphemic system. While the bulk of the text is readable to students of Modern Russian, the little differences in some of the letters were not as familiar. The first step was to change the old script into the modern equivalents, i.e.: и instead of i; e instead of ѣ. Also, Old Russian loved the use of ъ (hard sign) at the end of most words with a hard consonant, as opposed to Modern Russian which makes use of the hard sign less often.
Spelling of certain words has also changed somewhat; the words разсказа, разсказываетъ, or представленнаго, to name a few, have changed spelling since Dostoevsky’s time. In working with the machine translations on sites like Google Translator Toolkit (GTT), Google Translator, or Bing, the words with different spellings would not translate correctly, often providing only transliterations of the words. Upon completion of “modernizing” the script, the process of translation could be done with relative ease.
The “historical moment” in which the piece was written was in the nineteenth century, the same century as the life of Edgar Allan Poe. The piece was written in 1861, twelve years after the famous American author’s death, and the beginning year of the American Civil War. Some research into Dostoevsky’s background also aided in learning about the historical context of the piece. Dostoevsky had been arrested in 1849 for joining a group of radical utopian socialists and for reading ‘Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends,’ a letter written by Vissarion Belinsky. On the word of an undercover agent placed in the group by the secret police, he was sentenced to hard labor in Siberia, where became very religious, and was later released in 1854. He also served time in the military. He moved to St. Petersburg in 1859 to become a writer. In the 1860’s he seemed to emulate the downtrodden life of Edgar Allan Poe himself. He was plagued with gambling debts, drank excessively, and his works received mixed reviews. His works were psychological studies, ‘Notes from the Underground,’ dark tales, and detective fictions, ‘Crime and Punishment‘, which were similar to the works of Poe.
In gaining knowledge of the time period and the author’s life during this time, I was better able to understand the background of the historical piece. The historical context is important in translating a primary source because it allows the translator insight into what was occurring in a particular time and ‘flavor’ the translation accordingly.

ORIGINAL:

“What else can we do,

born on deserts

occupied haphazard

by borax traders

aspiring to a

stucco elegance if

they’re really lucky?

Someone has to

get here before

the mythology, to be

happy in the first

tailings of industry

and of course lonely

and susceptible to

to the opinions of

donkeys since donkeys

are the main company

out here among the

claims. …”

SECONDARY VERSION:

What else can we do,

dragged out to deserts

randomly occupied

by borax miners

who should be

so lucky as to yearn for the

elegance of stucco homes?

Someone should

arrive before

the chaos of society, to be

happy in the

dawn of industry

and who are isolated

and susceptible to

the opinions of

donkeys, as donkeys

are the main comrades

out here among the

desolation. …

RUSSIAN TRANSLATION:

Что еще мы можем сделать,

вытащили до пустынь

случайно оккупированных

по буры шахтеров

, которые должны быть

так повезло, как тосковать по

элегантность штукатурка дома?

Кто-то должен

прибыть до

хаоса общества, которое будет

счастливы в

заре промышленности

и которые являются изолированными

и восприимчивы к

мнение

ослы, а ослов

являются основными товарищи

здесь среди

запустение. …

The machine translation provided by Google Translator Toolkit (GTT) appears to want to translate the NPR theme fairly literally. While this is fine in a blueprint sense, perhaps the machine translation looses some of the meaning with the literal translation as opposed to finding something in colloquial or vernacular Russian that would make sense to a Russian reader. Take the term ‘nutty’ as in “this group of nutty people walked in and said ‘Let’s do radio.” The MT translated nutty in the literal sense, taking the adjectival form of nut. I ended up finding the Russian equivalent to the word silly as a substitute.

The title of the excerpt is All Programs Considered, which is a spin on NPR’s radio program of similar name, “All Things Considered.” The word considered provided my teammates and myself with coming up with a definition of what ‘considered’ meant. We came up with meanings such as: examined, viewed, to think about, among others and landed on a word that seemed like a cross between examined and viewed. For the program, All Things Considered, we had to come up with what ‘things’ meant in the title; the MT in Google translator and Bing translator and GTT came up with differing variations, some using the Russian word for ‘things,’ and others that translated the whole title as ‘Considering all the Circumstances.’
Another word was ‘audience’ used for a radio audience. The original MT kept the word as audience, but I felt it may not carry the same meaning. I looked up audience in Google translator and the thesaurus provided a list of several choices ranging from the public, to listeners, to radio listeners, to a courtroom audience. I chose radio listeners in place of audience to more clearly define the word. Another interesting program name was On the Media; the MT chose the literal form На СМИ, which did not carry the same meaning. I chose Изучение СМИ, which more accurately seemed to carry the same meaning of the program’s title.
Thus far, the main challenge has been how exactly to translate the names of NPR radio programs that would convey the same meaning in Russian as in English. The program names are titled in American English and or are more Western in meaning such as the business broadcast, “Marketplace.” The trick was coming up with a good polished translation that carries the same or similar meanings in Russian as in English.

Все Программы Просмотрены

Билл Маккиббен

Нью-Йорк Обзор Книг

11 ноября 2010

Радио получает мало критического внимания. Из различных методов для передачи идей и эмоций, книги, газеты, изобразительное искусство, музыка, кино, телевидения, и интернет- радио может быть наименее обсуждали, и понял. Это, вероятно, потому что он служит в основном в качестве передающего устройства, способ принимать и другие формы искусства (песни, проповеди), и разложил их в мир. Радио также довольно часто используется, а также: спортивные мероприятия и повторяющиеся, если очень эффективный, консервативные коммерческое информационное радио. Раш Лимбо чемпион радио рейтинги; по торговле журнал отрасли он достигает 14,25 миллион слушателей в среднем за неделю. Шон Хэннити, который представляет аналогичную программу радио, немного позади него в рейтингах.

Но столь же большой радиослушателей превращается в части циферблата, где общественное радио в различных ее формах может быть найдено. Общественное радио утверждает по крайней мере 5 процентов от радио рынке. Национальное общественное радио флагманских программ новостей, Утренний издание и Всё просмотрено содержащие в себе новости и комментарии наряду подробные отчеты и истории, которые могут растянуться на двадцать минут, являются второй и третий по популярности программ радио в стране, каждый рисунок около 13 миллионов уникальных слушателей в течение недели. Эти NPR программы, имеют гораздо более широкую аудиторию, чем новости по кабельному телевидению, более того, все четыре сети телевизионного вещания комбинированных рисовать только в два раза больше аудитории для своих выпусках вечером. Утренний Издание и Всё Просмотрено дополнить хорошо рассматривать такие программы, как Mир, совместное производство с Би-Би-Си WGBH Бостоне, и бизнес вещания Рынок- программирование производится за пределами NPR себя, но в более широком мире общественного радио. В опросы, общественное радио оценивается как наиболее надежным источником информации в стране. Аудитория для большинства своих программ намного превышает количество подписчиков на The New York Times или The New Yorker, или число людей, которые читают даже крупнейших бестселлеров.

Примерно один из десяти американцев настроиться на общественное радио каждую неделю, если вы приземлились в космический корабль где-нибудь в Америке поиска для думающих и беспартийный культуры, ваша первая остановка будет общественные радиостанции, которые обычно появляются ниже 92 на циферблате FM. . Вы найдете не только большой показывает новости, а также различных вызовов в шоу: национальные, как Конкретно говоря, Диана Рим Шоу, или Разговоры о нации, с ее столь любимые Научная пятницу издание, но и количество превосходных местных программ говорить, с хозяевами, как Леонард Лопейт и Брайан Лерер в Нью-Йорке, Майкл Красный в Сан-Франциско, Стив Шер в Сиэтле, Ларри Мэнтл в Лос-Анджелес- список очень длинный.

Они отличаются от коммерческих консервативных шоу, что они ежедневно особенность гости из широкого спектра американской политической и культурной жизни: по утрам я пишу это, например, Том Ашбрук из Конкретно говоря в Бостоне провели час обсуждения рост социальной игр на Facebook, Красный покрыты “проблемных строительной отрасли”, и Леонард Лопейт Шоу рассмотрены текущее состояние компании Google.Непременным условием этих усилий является Терри Гросса неустанно интеллектуальных интервью шоу, Свежий воздух, который базируется в Филадельфии, была в эфире в течение тридцати пяти лет, является синдицированный к более чем 450 станций, а также требования почти 4,5 миллиона слушателей.

И еще очень мало получает письменное об общественном радио. У нас нет эквивалента поздно, и сетовал британского журнала Слушатель, который объединил независимые комментарии с эссе и функции, которые первоначально были вещания, как радио штук; даже собственной NPR (отлично) Журналистика форум, Изучение СМИ, как правило, концентрируется на телевизоре или печати.Там нет известных радио эквивалент “Эмми” или “Грэмми” или Оскар (или даже Тонис). В смысле, я думаю, это отражает общественное радио гладкой профессионализм- это стало так хорошо на своей основной задачей, что это само собой разумеющимся, какую информацию полезности.

Я говорил недавно с Робертом Кралвич, который первым вступил NPR сети всего за несколько лет после Всё просмотрено первый эфир в эпоху Никсона и теперь представляет программы общественного радио Радиолаб, и он вспоминает те дни, как заполнены изобретения:

Радио был мертв-он был топ-40. Все проницательных людей были в “Таймс” или “Вашингтон Пост”, или если вы не хотите быть Вудворд и Бернстайн вы работали на Уолтер Кронкайт в сети Тиффани. Эта группа глупые люди пришли и сказал, давайте делать радио. Мы будем изобретать его. Перейти тридцать пять или сорок лет вперед и где Уолтер Кронкайт? Что случилось с Вашингтон Пост? И что вы думаете, глупые людей радио вдруг стала в центре внимания на огромную аудиторию. И теперь у них есть немного чутье мужчин Times.

Moscow to Kursk Station
Everyone talks about the Kremlin the Kremlin. I’ve heard all about the Kremlin, but have never seen it. I must have stumbled drunk and hung-over a thousand times all over Moscow and have never once seen this Kremlin.

Well, yesterday the Kremlin still wasn’t there and I spent the whole evening stumbling about the vicinity and realized that I wasn’t at all inebriated. So, as soon as I left Savelovskaya Station, I downed a glass of Zubrovka vodka. Experience has taught me that this is the best cure for  morning headaches.

So, down went the Zubrovka. Then at Kalyaevskaya Station, I had another glass, only this time it wasn’t Zubrovka, but coriander vodka. An old acquaintance said that coriander dehumanizes people. For, while it refreshes the body, it weakens the soul. But, in my case the opposite was true. My soul was refreshed, but my extremities weakened. And that is why at Kalyaevskaya I added to the mix two mugs of Zhigulevsky beer and some port wine.

Of course, you ask, “Hey, Venichka, what have you been drinking?” Well, even I can’t keep track of what I’ve had to drink. I do remember putting away two glasses of Hunter’s vodka on Chekhov Street. But, then, I crossed Garden Ring Road. But, how could I have crossed the Garden Ring without a drink? I must have had something else to drink.

From there I ended up in the center of town, because that’s what always happens to me. Every time I look for the Kremlin I end up at the Kursk train station. Actually, I needed to go to the Kursk station and not to the center, but while I was there I would try to find this Kremlin. I knew that I still would not see the Kremlin but would go straight to Kursk station.

What a shame, it almost brings me to tears. It’s not that I didn’t get to the Kursk station yesterday (bollocks, if I didn’t get there yesterday, I will get there today). And it’s not so much that I woke up this morning in a strange doorway (come to find out, I sat down in a stairwell some forty stairs from the bottom, curled up with my suitcase, and passed out). This is not the real shame. The real shame is that I just found out that between Chekhov Street and the stairwell I drank another six rubles worth- what was it and where did I drink? And in what order? Did I feel better or worse? Nobody knows and nobody will ever know. Just as nobody to this day knows whether or not Prince Dmitri was killed by Boris Godunov. Or was it the other way round?

Just where was this doorway exactly? I haven’t the foggiest idea, but so be it. All is well. Everything must be slow and wrong, that way a man cannot shield himself from the sadness and confusion.

It was dawn when I ventured outside. Everyone knows- everyone, that is, who unconsciously ends up in a strange doorway and leaves at dawn- knows how heavy my heart was when I carried myself up those forty steps, and how heavy it was when I ventured outside again.

Never mind, never mind, I said to myself, never mind. Over there, the pharmacy- do you see it? And over there, that bugger in a brown jacket sweeping the pavement. You see that also. Just keep calm. Everything is as follows. If you want to go left, Venichka, go left, I’m not forcing you to do anything. If you want to go right- go right.

I went right, swaying slightly from cold and sorrow, yes that’s right, cold and sorrow. Oh, this morning burden on my heart! Oh, the illusion of disaster! What is this irreparable burden which nobody has dared call by name? Is it paralysis or nausea? Is it exhaustion of the nerves or anguish of death somewhere near the heart? And if these things are all equal, what does it mean: stupor or fever?

Never mind, never mind, I said to myself, close up your collar to the wind and go quietly. And breathe slowly. That way your feet won’t catch your knees