The Interpreter, the Monitor and the Language Arbiter - “Trust” and “Power and Control” Issues in the Interpreting at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East Kayoko Takeda Monterey Institute of International Studies PhD Program, Translation and Intercultural Studies, Universitat Rovira i Virgili

Table of Contents “Trust” and “power & control” in history of interpreting Overview of IMTFE Interpreter arrangements Three tiers of J-E interpreters Why “Monitor”? Why “Language Arbitration Board”? The role of interpreters and the hierarchy of power Factors in the hierarchy of power at IMTFE Further studies

“Trust” and “power & control” in history of interpreters Ancient Egypt: “overseers of dragomans” Cortés: had someone back-translate to check accuracy A 1527 law: required that natives be accompanied by a Christian who could verify the accuracy Trial of Queen Caroline (1820): A second interpreter hired due to concerns about the impartiality of the prosecution interpreter

Overview of IMTFE (1) International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE): aka Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, Tokyo Trial “Tokyo Charter” by MacArthur May 3, 1946 – November 12, “Class A” defendants: JPN military and political leaders

Overview of IMTFE (2) 11 judges: US, USSR, UK, FRA, NED, ROC, AUS (president), NZ, CAN, IND, PHI A single prosecution: chief prosecutor (US) Indictment: crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity Verdict: death by hanging (7), life imprisonment (16), finite sentence (2)

Interpreter arrangements III. Fair Trial for Accused, Article 9 (b) (“Charter”) “Language. The trial and related proceedings shall be conducted in English and in the language of the accused. Translations of documents and other papers shall be provided as needed and requested.” Languages used: English & Japanese; Russian, Chinese, French, Dutch, German and Mongolian (ad-hoc) Cosec mode (simul only when translations were available)

Three tiers of J-E interpreters (1) 1. Interpreters: interpreted the proceedings Japanese nationals (27; 4 interpreted in more than 200 sessions): diplomats, bilingual civilians 2. Monitors: contemporaneously checked the interpretation and intervened; read translated indictment, judgment, etc. Japanese Americans (Nisei) (4): trained while interned; worked in military intelligence during the war

Three tiers of J-E interpreters (2) 3. Language Arbiters: Ruled on disagreements between the Interpreter and the Monitor; and on disputes over translations and interpretations American military officers (2+): trained in MIS; interrogators during the war; JPN proficiency (?)

Why “Monitor”? Why “Language Arbitration Board”? – official account (1) Judgment, Part A, Chapter I “… the need to have every word spoken in Court translated from English into Japanese, or vice versa, has at least doubled the length of the proceedings. Translations cannot be made from the one language into the other with the speed and certainty which can be attained in translating one Western speech into another. Literal translation from Japanese into English or the reverse is often impossible. To a large extent nothing but a paraphrase can be achieved, and experts in both languages will often differ as to the correct paraphrase. In the result the interpreters in Court often had difficulty as to the rendering they should announce, and the Tribunal was compelled to set up a Language Arbitration Board to settle matters of disputed interpretation.”

Why “Monitor”? Why “Language Arbitration Board”? – official account (2) - Difficulty of translation/interpretation between E and J, compared to between two Western languages - Acknowledgement of: - Interpreters/translators make mistakes. - There can be multiple ways of translating/interpreting.

Why “Monitor”? Why “Language Arbitration Board”? – possible explanation Possible explanation: - Couldn’t find competent non-Japanese - Had to rely on Japanese diplomats and other bilinguals - Didn’t trust Japanese nationals - Set up Monitors (Japanese Americans who were interned and trained, and worked in military intelligence during the war) - Didn’t trust Japanese Americans, and/or there were too may language disputes - Set up Language Arbitration Board

Interpreter’s role and the hierarchy of power The interpreter’s “position in the middle has the advantage of power in all positions which control scarce resources. (Anderson, 1976) Doubts on the quality of the interpretation and the impartiality of the interpreter A system to regulate and control the interpreting is placed: “Hierarchical control established, boundaries maintained” (Pym, 1998) “Trust may be more important than quality”. (Lefevere, 1992) “The role of interpreters… determined by the prevailing hierarchical constitution of power” (Cronin, 2002)

Factors in the hierarchy of power at IMTFE - The victor vs the defeated - Cultural affinity with the accused (Cronin’s heteronomous vs autonomous ?) - Former enemy, former “enemy aliens” - Military rankings - Race

Further studies 1. Backing up “the possible explanation”; any evidence of behavior driven by the interpreter’s position? - Search more documents on the interpreter recruitment and arrangement - Interview surviving participants 2. Military trials at Guantanamo Bay?