Generally speaking in a translational context, hard conflicts usually arise from differences in political positions or ideological tendencies. In most cases concerning political or ideological elements, the author or the speaker would not thank the translator for his or her rewriting, for fear that the translator should come up with a distorted version. The situation is often complicated if the translator is insensitive to potential hard conflicts and has created a translation that misuses strategies and induces ideologically significant miscommunication. In fact, a translator or an interpreter must be politically or ideologically sensitive or s/he may fail or commit mistakes in translating written or oral texts carrying political or ideological implications.

In 2001, the former Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji presided over a press conference. During the press conference, a Taiwanese reporter suggested that

…huozheshi xiang qunian xiaban’nian qianfuzongli shuode na’yang, dalu he tanwan tong shuyu yige zhongguo, jiushi yong geng you tanxing de fangshi lai jieshi yigezhongguo

[…or to adopt a more flexible way to explain the concept of one-China just as VicePremier Qian said in the second half of last year that mainland and Taiwan are two parts of China]

What the Taiwanese reporter implied by "a flexible way to look at the oneChina principle" is to regard mainland and Taiwan as two parts of equal importance, which may be viewed as another presentation of two-China proposed by the provincial government. The political division is that the Chinese government views Taiwan as a province of China, but not a geopolitical counterpart, while the provincial government of Taiwan insists that Taiwan is a sovereign or an independent nation4. The interpreter failed to perceive the implication in the original question, and missed the target in interpretation:

Or, could you explain and interpret the one-China principle more flexibly to bring about the breaking of the deadlock? For instance, in the latter half of last year, Vice-Premier Qian Qichen has stated that there is but one China in the world, mainland and Taiwan are parts of one China and China's sovereignty and integrity brook no division, could such moves help solve the problem?

This translation failed as it expressed goodwill that was not in the original, such as in the phrases "to bring about the breaking of the deadlock" and "could such moves help solve the problem". Furthermore the translator obscured hidden meaning in the question—would Zhu accept "a more flexible way to look at the one-China principle"? This would, if it were to be confirmed, be a considerable political concession on the part of mainland China. This kind of mistake is diplomatically disastrous and politically unforgivable, but Zhu denied that there was any difference between Qian's words and those of other Chinese leaders. Another question raised at the press conference went as follows: