Definitions of conflict inevitably draw on notions of power, and vice versa. Traditional scholarship assumed that power is something that some people have over others. Some theorists of power, such as Bachrach and Baratz (1962, 1970), further insisted that power is only present in situations of observable conflict, where one party forces another to act against its will or what it perceives to be its own interest. More robust definitions of power, however, acknowledge that the supreme exercise of power involves shaping and influencing another party's desires and wants in such a way as to avert observable conflict, that 'the most effective and insidious use of power is to prevent ... conflict from arising in the first place' (Lukes 1974: 23). Good (1989), Clegg (1993), Ehrenhaus (1993) and Philips (2001) provide excellent overviews of the relevant issues. The standard reference on power is Lukes (1974).

In its broadest meaning, conflict refers to a situation in which two or more parties seek to undermine each other because they have incompatible goals, competing interests, or fundamentally different values. In this sense, conflict is a natural part of everyday life rather than an exceptional circumstance. However, most people understand conflict in its political sense, as a state of hostility between groups of people, usually belonging to different races, religions or nation states. It also assumes that translation and interpreting are part of the institution ofwar and hence play a major role in the management of conflict – by all parties, from warmongers to peace activists.

Translation and interpreting participate in shaping the way in which conflict unfolds in a number of ways. First, as Chilton (1997: 175) reminds us, a declaration of war is, after all, 'a linguistic act'. Clearly, this verbal declaration has to be communicated to other parties in their own languages; there is no point in the USA declaring war on Iraq without ensuring that the Iraqis and the rest of the world 'hear' that declaration. Second, once war is declared, the relevant military operations can only begin and continue through verbal activity (1997: 175). Much of modern warfare is based on coordinating several armies from different countries and linguistic communities; recent examples include the UN in Bosnia and the US command in Iraq. The very process of mobilizing military power then is heavily dependent on continuous acts of translation and interpreting, including – crucially – acts of translation and interpreting that allow military personnel to communicate with civilians living in the region. Propaganda leaflets dropped by US forces over Iraq in March 2003 communicated a variety of messages to Iraqi civilians and soldiers, such as 'The Coalition does not wish to destroy your landmarks' and 'Coalition Air Power can strike at will. Any time. Any place' (Moss 2003: 12–13). The legend underneath photographs of these leaflets in The Guardian read: 'English translations of some of the propaganda leaflets dropped in Iraq by US planes and targeted at soldiers and civilians' (1997: 175; emphasis added). More likely, the leaflets were first prepared in English and then translated and dropped in Iraq in Arabic, but the media often confuse these issues.

Third, it is not only the military but also ordinary people who have to be mobilized to initiate and support a war. Smith (1997: 200) reminds us that in the wake of the break-ups of the USSR and Yugoslavia successful political leaders were those who employed effective strategies for mobilizing ordinary people. Declaring and sustaining a war have to be discursively justified and legitimated; politicians have to pave the way for war to be accepted, for human sacrifice to be justified. Contemporary wars have to be sold to an international and not just domestic audiences, and translation is a major variable influencing the circulation and legitimation of the narratives that sustain these activities. And finally, once war is underway, attempts to broker and manage an end to the conflict typically take the form of meetings, conferences and public seminars, in addition to secret negotiations. All these require the mediation of translators and interpreters. Smith (1997: 210) recognizes that 'if the meeting is conducted through language interpreters, the problems of translation, especially of emotionally charged terms, adds a further layer to the uncertainty generated by the incompatible discursive interpretations of the two conflict parties and the third party'.

More important perhaps than all the above, translation and interpreting are essential for circulating and resisting the narratives that create the intellectual and moral environment for violent conflict in the first place, even though the narratives in question may not directly depict conflict or war. Indeed, some of these narratives, as we will see, may be packaged as disinterested, abstract scientific theories, others as literary texts, cartoons, or innocent entertainment.

责任编辑：admin