ترجمۀ سیاسی – متن ۳

ترجمۀ سیاسی – متن ۳

Cameron Plays Down Prospect of In-Out EU Vote

British Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday played down the prospect of a referendum any time soon on whether Britain should leave the European Union, defying calls from within his Conservative Party and the public.

Cameron is expected to explain how he wants to change Britain’s relationship with the EU next week, in a speech that could set a course for leaving the 27-member bloc, deepen fractures within his own party, and strain ties with its Liberal Democrat coalition partners.

A weekend poll by the influential website ConservativeHome found that 78 percent of Conservative Party members either want Britain’s relationship with the EU reduced to access to its common market or to leave the bloc altogether.

“If we had an in-out referendum tomorrow, or very shortly, I don’t think that would be the right answer for the simple reason that I think we would be giving people a false choice,” Cameron told BBC radio.

Conservative infighting over Europe helped topple previous party leaders, and splits on the issue appear to be deepening as Cameron’s speech nears. Media reports say he will speak on January 22 or 23 in Germany or in the Netherlands. Cameron’s office declined to confirm the reports.

The Lib Dems, the Conservatives’ junior partners in coalition rule, are pro-Europe, and divisions over the issue threaten to put renewed strain on the partnership.

Cameron says he wants Britain to remain in the EU – a major trading partner – but is under pressure from an increasingly Eurosceptic public to repatriate powers from Brussels or leave the bloc altogether.

ترجمۀ سیاسی – متن ۲

ترجمۀ سیاسی – متن ۲

What sparked the protests in Ukraine?

The protests began in November as a pro-Europe gesture, underscoring the tensions in a country split between pro-European regions in the West and a more Russia-oriented East.

Thousands spilled onto the streets after President Viktor Yanukovych did a U-turn over a trade pact with the European Union that had been years in the making -- favoring closer relations with Russia instead.

Angered by this backpedaling, the demonstrators demanded the EU deal be signed, saying it would strengthen cooperation with the bloc.

Their daily protests soon escalated, drawing parallels to Ukraine's 2004 Orange Revolution, which toppled the government.

But with Ukraine desperately in need of a cash injection, Kiev cited the need for financial assistance if it were to do business with the EU. Yanukovych, in power since 2010, said Ukraine could not afford to sign the deal, alluding to economic pressure from Russia.

Another factor in Yanukovych's decision not to sign the deal is likely to have been the EU's demands that he free from jail former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, his political opponent. The Orange Revolution that swept him from office in 2004, when he was prime minister, also swept Tymoshenko to power.

Soon afterward, he flew to Moscow where he and President Vladimir Putin announced Russia would buy $15 billion in Ukrainian debt and slash the price Kiev pays for its gas.

While unhappy with that, what inflamed the demonstrators even more, however, was the adoption of a sweeping anti-protest law by the parliament on January 16.

The new law included provisions barring people from wearing helmets and masks to rallies and from setting up tents or sound equipment without prior police permission.

ترجمۀ سیاسی – متن ۱ – بهمن ۹۲

ترجمۀ سیاسی – متن شمارۀ ۱

(پنجشنبه ۲۴ بهمن ۹۲)

دانشجویان گرامی، لطفاً متن زیر را ترجمه و در دو نسخه همراه خود بیاورید.

After eight years of U.S.-led state-building efforts, thousands of coalition force fatalities, and nearly one trillion dollars spent, Iraq is drifting toward authoritarianism under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party while al-Qaeda-stoked violence is running at levels not seen in years. Although Washington's 2007 counterinsurgency strategy laid the groundwork for a pluralistic and representative government, as long as the country's current leaders have little motivation to abide by the rule of law, the future of a democratic Iraq looks grim.

Early Missteps

As the George W. Bush administration geared up for an intervention in 2003, it debated a post-invasion plan for leaving behind a state "based on moderation, pluralism, and democracy". But by April 2003, the chaos of post-Saddam Iraq prompted a change in plans. According to Bremer's 540-day "Iraq's Path to Sovereignty" plan, a constitution would need to be drafted, elections held, and a political framework developed before any handover of sovereignty.

If such an arrangement had taken place in a vacuum, the Coalition Provisional Authority's (CPA) emphasis on building the legitimacy of the nascent Iraqi state through process and elections would have been sound. But amid sectarian tensions and Sunni fears of disenfranchisement and retribution, process alone did little to bridge Iraq's "sovereignty gap." The CPA's fixation on procedure and sequencing overlooked a key insight highlighted by authors Ashraf Ghani and Clare Lockhart in Fixing Failed States: A "state based on the consent of citizens and legitimacy of rules is likely to be more enduring than one imposed by force."

ترجمۀ سیاسی – متن ۷

ترجمۀ سیاسی – متن ۷

US President Barack Obama has barely won re-election and is already making waves with his first trip abroad after the crucial vote, as he spends four days in South-East Asia from Saturday through November 20. The itinerary explains more about the new foreign policy focus than a think-tank full of establishment experts ever could: Europe is no longer Washington's top priority.

The United States sees itself increasingly as a Pacific power. The United States' most pressing foreign policy challenges are Iran, Israel and Syria, and their challenges to peace. Obama is travelling to three relatively small countries — Myanmar, Cambodia and Thailand — which are in the orbit of China, whose military policies have long been giving Washington headaches.

He suggests that the US will "gradually adjust itself to a nuclear-capable Iran" that does not actually have nuclear arms. The United States would have to put up with Tehran holding large quantities of enriched uranium, while the regime refrains from assembling nuclear bombs or missiles to carry them to Israel.

So far, the official line in Washington has been to force Iran to give up its nuclear programme through increasingly tough sanctions. However, a Western diplomat in Washington recently said that "a satisfactory deal could not rely on Iran unilaterally backing off." Direct talks between the United States and Iran are regarded as likely in the near future, according to The New York Times.

The second smouldering problem for Obama is Syria. So far, no military role has even been considered by the White House. It is far too dangerous, and intervention in Syria would be far more complicated than the US-led no-fly zone that helped bring down the Libyan dictatorship in 2011, the US military says. Obama ended the war in Iraq and he wants to pull out of Afghanistan: a new military quagmire would be a nightmare. But pressure may mount for the US to do something as the death toll continues to rise into the scores of thousands.

ترجمۀ سیاسی - متن ۶

ترجمۀ سیاسی - متن ۶

If there is any hope for a peaceful resolution of the nuclear dispute with Iran, President Obama needs Congress to support negotiations. But negotiations and compromise are largely anathema in Washington, with many lawmakers insisting that any deal with Iran would be unacceptable — a stance that would make military action by Israel and the United States far more likely.

Last week, just as Iran and the major powers made some small progress in talks and agreed to meet again, two measures were introduced in Congress that could harm negotiations.

One is a Senate resolution sponsored by Robert Menendez, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican. It says that if Israel “is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military and economic support to the government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people and existence.” No one doubts that the United States would defend Israel if it was attacked by Iran; that commitment has been made repeatedly by President Obama and his predecessors. The nonbinding resolution, promoted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobbying group, would not authorize any specific action, but it would increase political pressure on Mr. Obama by putting Congress on record as backing a military operation initiated by Israel at a time of Israel’s choosing.

The second measure, a bipartisan bill, would pile on tougher sanctions just as the two sides are trying to create trust after decades of hostility. The bill would further restrict business dealings with Iran and widen the list of blacklisted Iranian companies and individuals. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel told the annual AIPA conference this week that there must be a “credible military threat” against Iran.

The best way to avert military conflict is by negotiating a credible, verifiable agreement. It is a very long shot. But Congress needs to give the talks time to play out and not make diplomatic efforts even harder.

 

ترجمۀ سیاسی - متن ۵

ترجمۀ متون سیاسی - ۵

TEHRAN — Iran’s parliament voted Sunday to impeach the country’s labor minister, the ninth minister from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s cabinet to be dismissed during the president’s second term in office.

In Sunday’s vote, 192 of 272 parliament members voted in favor of impeaching Labor Minister Abdul-Reza Sheikholeslami over his decision to make Iran’s former general prosecutor, Saeed Mortazavi, the head of the country’s social security fund. The move, the articles of impeachment said, was “against the expediency of the country, unlawful and against the interests of 33 million workers under this fund”.

Mortazavi was removed from the judiciary over his alleged role in the deaths of protesters held in custody after Ahmadinejad’s disputed 2009 reelection.

The impeachment of Sheikholeslami puts the Ahmadinejad government dangerously close to forcing a vote of confidence for the entire cabinet, which would almost certainly result in the removal of the president’s preferred ministers. Iran’s constitution states that if a majority of cabinet ministers are removed during a president’s term, the parliament must vote to reapprove the entire cabinet.

Larijani and one of his five brothers head two of Iran’s three branches of government, the parliament and the judiciary. There is wide speculation that the best-known of the Larijani brothers, the parliament speaker, will make a second bid for the presidency when Ahmadinejad completes his final term in June.

In an address to parliament at the Sunday hearing that was broadcast on state radio, Ahmadinejad said, “As the president, I’ve come here today to defend the constitution.” He went on to accuse the speaker, Larijani, of overstepping his power as Iran’s top lawmaker.

The president then spoke of a video in his possession that he said showed Larijani’s younger brother Fazel attempting to make illegal financial deals with Mortazavi. Ahmadinejad said he had given a copy of the video to parliament for its review.

Ahmadinejad and Larijani said they would hold news conferences Sunday evening, but the plans were canceled.

ترجمۀ سیاسی - متن ۴

ترجمۀ سیاسی – متن ۴

CAIRO — Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi rebuilt his cabinet Sunday, replacing 10 ministers and amplifying the Islamist presence in the government. The move, in which at least three Islamists were appointed to head major economic ministries, comes a day ahead of a planned visit by a top International Monetary Fund official to discuss an impending $4.8 billion loan.

The shake-up also marked the latest in a series of appointments and forced resignations that have rattled Egypt’s government in the two years of political turmoil since a popular uprising ousted President Hosni Mubarak. Morsi, as well as the transitional leaders who ruled before his June election, have used cabinet shuffles as a means to assuage popular frustration at the slow pace of economic and political reforms.

Islamist political parties gave their support to the latest move, but some opposition members criticized it, saying it served only to further consolidate Islamist control of top government positions weeks after a conflict over the religious character of Egypt’s new constitution left the country bitterly divided.

Mohamed Adel, a leader in the April 6th youth opposition movement, said in a statement Sunday that Morsi’s administration had not consulted opposition parties on the move and that the Muslim Brotherhood would bear responsibility for any bad policies to come. Morsi is a former leader of the powerful Islamist organization.

At least three of the new ministers are long-serving members of the Muslim Brotherhood, including those heading the ministries of supply and domestic trade, and local development. The new finance minister, Al-Mursi al-Sayed Hegazy, is not a member of the Islamist organization, but local media described him as a specialist in Islamic banking who may be sympathetic to the group.

Many of the Brotherhood’s allies from the more-conservative Salafist parties have called on the government to implement a system of Islamic banking, which would ban interest on loans, as an alternative mechanism for economic reform.

ترجمۀ سیاسی - متن ۳

ترجمۀ سیاسی - متن ۳

Arms Control: Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

An international agreement to prohibit diffusion of nuclear weapons among non-nuclear states. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was hammered out during four years of intensive negotiations in the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee (ENDC) and in the General Assembly's Political and Security Committee, leading to approval of the draft treaty by the assembly in June 1968. Under the terms of the treaty, each nuclear-weapon State agrees “not to transfer... assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons”.

Each non-nuclear State agrees “not to receive... manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons”. The eleven-article treaty took effect after its ratification by three nuclear powers (Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States) and by forty non-nuclear countries. Today, most nations are signatories to the treaty and accept its terms as a limitation on their freedom of action in the nuclear weapons field. To counter the threat of future “nuclear blackmail”, the three nuclear powers offered in a Security Council action to provide “immediate assistance, in accordance with the Charter, to any non-nuclear-weapon” State that is the victim of an act or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

ترجمۀ سیاسی- متن ۲

ترجمۀ سیاسی- متن ۲

Cameron Plays Down Prospect of In-Out EU Vote

British Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday played down the prospect of a referendum any time soon on whether Britain should leave the European Union, defying calls from within his Conservative Party and the public.

Cameron is expected to explain how he wants to change Britain’s relationship with the EU next week, in a speech that could set a course for leaving the 27-member bloc, deepen fractures within his own party, and strain ties with its Liberal Democrat coalition partners.

A weekend poll by the influential website ConservativeHome found that 78 percent of Conservative Party members either want Britain’s relationship with the EU reduced to access to its common market or to leave the bloc altogether.

“If we had an in-out referendum tomorrow, or very shortly, I don’t think that would be the right answer for the simple reason that I think we would be giving people a false choice,” Cameron told BBC radio.

Conservative infighting over Europe helped topple previous party leaders, and splits on the issue appear to be deepening as Cameron’s speech nears. Media reports say he will speak on January 22 or 23 in Germany or in the Netherlands. Cameron’s office declined to confirm the reports.

Eric Pickles, a Conservative, said on Sunday he hoped it was in Britain’s interest to stay in the EU, but “we shouldn’t stay at any price”.

On the other side of the debate, Conservative Party grandee Michael Heseltine said on Saturday Cameron’s plan to change Britain’s relationship with the EU was an “unnecessary gamble”, and put the country’s status as a business destination at risk.

The Lib Dems, the Conservatives’ junior partners in coalition rule, are pro-Europe, and divisions over the issue threaten to put renewed strain on the partnership.

Cameron says he wants Britain to remain in the EU – a major trading partner – but is under pressure from an increasingly Eurosceptic public to repatriate powers from Brussels or leave the bloc altogether.

The anti-Europe UK Independence Party has surged in popularity in the last year, wooing Conservative voters and threatening to split the right-wing vote ahead of a 2015 general election.