Join the new world

[The Untamed] A translation to show eSK the controversy in eROC on the NE act
[The Untamed] 為呈現給eSK國內對NE案的爭議態勢的所做的翻譯

This a translation of a recent editorial written by YomiYuri in his newspaper.(You can also check the original version in Chinese here.) I’m translating this article because I suppose people from different nations, due to the lack of translation, could not be aware of the controversy in eROC upon the recent NE proposal against eSK. And I found this article a good example of how at least a certain proportion of citizens in eROC think of the NE act.

So here you go with the translation.

這篇報紙譯自YomiYuri]YomiYuri在他的報紙中所發的社論。之所以要翻譯這篇文章是因為我認為其他國家的人可能會因為語言隔閡而無法了解現在國內對NE案的爭議態勢。我想這篇文章可以相當程度地反映至少一部份國人對此NE案的態度。

以下正文。（基本上就是一篇翻譯了。國人可直接看原文＆直接略過英文部分直接看最後中文譯註）

-

[Truth] Editorial: Instancy and Clarification Matter(No. 41)

Forewords:
The head banner is replaced with a new version, due to the mixed feeling I’m having now. This is the first time, in my newspaper, I comment and criticize on a current affair taking place in the e-world, starting with a sad smile on my face. I never expected that after 40 articles of comments on the real life, translations of the foreign news and spams, I’d have to start another set of 10 with such sorrow.

-

“NE against eSK”, as the most astonishing current affair, has received much attention and controversy as well in eROC.

It all begins with the NE proposal by eROC against eSK. As a congressman, I had no idea this proposal would ever go serious – until I was later formally informed to vote yes. Surprised that no heads-up about the proposal was given, on the other hand, I’m convinced with the necessity of military secrecy demanded by TWO.

However, as you may already know, that we’ve made a negotiation and an oral agreement* on the renewal of the NAP for another month. However, my point is, even if it was never a formal agreement, it was still what trust was built upon.

(* Annotation by the translator: The agreement proposed by the president of eROC in the letter titled with “East Asia Peace Accord” is widely considered as an informal, oral answer, could be due to the idea that such letter is regarded as a form of “meeting” instead of documents in the context of the local community. Such attitude toward the letter could be verified with the annotation in another newspaper, where the translator claimed in his own annotation that such answer was just an “oral agreement on the renewal of NAP (口頭答應 NAP 的續約)”)

I found myself with the mixed feeling of both hatred and interest in the ancient Chinese phrase, “All is fair in war”. However such “fairness” is extended from a more general and more basic recognition – which we just lost already.

We’re from a tiny nation, both in real life, and in the e-world, of only 3 regions of fish production and 1 with rubber. We’re always on the frontline of conflicts, with incompatible identifications, and even looked down upon by other nations. Yet I still have a dream deep in my heart, built upon my faith and loyalty to my nation.

A tiny nation can still be accommodating.
A tiny nation can still be trust-worthy.

I believed that a person stands on how trust-worthy he or she could be, and so does a nation. I believed that eROC could be a nation of trust. I was proven wrong.

I’m just too naïve.

In spite of such defeat, there’s still much anger in my heart, not about the act of our government, which broke my belief, but the attitude of our government on such issue.

This is quoted from the first “emergency announcement” (on the disagreement of NAP renewal and the NE proposal against eSK) by the president: “The NAP has expired, while the next world war between the two alliances is just heating up. As a member of TWO, we suggest that eROC go NE in the northeast asia to help draw more fire from the western frontline. That’s how the emergent decision was made. (近日NAP已完, 當真正要簽下NAP前, 兩個聯盟間的世界大戰即將展開, 身為two的一員，我們希望可以在東北亞開啟一個新的天敵戰場,適度分擔歐美地區戰場壓力,所以緊急立下此決定)”

I was actually even more confused after this clarification released. Are we trying to help our allies as we’ve promised, by breaking another promise? Is it legit to ruin our own credibility and fame ourselves for the cause of alliance?

And then here it comes with the second announcement.

“As you may know, eROC values her allies' and friends' battlefields as her own. Last year we've assisted EDEN's operation in South American to aid eColombia, and free them from the invasion of their enemies.
Today, when TWO is in need of our assistance in order to fight COT, we shall take the fight straight to one of theirs and fulfill the promise we've given to our brothrens in the alliance[sic]**”
(**Annotation by the translator: as an extended “official” translation for the Chinese version, “如同去年我們接受EDEN的徵招前往南美進行馳援任務，本次我們確實收到TWO的軍事派任，所以才必須進行對eSK的軍事行動”, our president failed to clearly state that “this NE act was an assigned task by TWO”, which was stated clearly in the Chinese version. Instead, the president conclude the cause with the saying that “TWO is in need of our assistance”, which I consider as a serious flaw.)

Oh great. Let’s rewind the tape: ““this NE act was an assigned task by TWO” . If this was some kind of top secret due to the necessity of military operation, I could have understood the decision. BUT WHY ON EARTH SUCH OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT COMES SO LATE EVEN AFTER THE PROPOSAL AND APPROVAL OF THE NE ACT AGAINST ESK??
(***Annotation by the translator: This is a translated quote from the Chinese version, not the official English version.)

Is there anything misunderstood here? Because I thought that as the decision went public with the NE act, there should be no such necessity of secrecy anymore!

And that’s where diplomacy matters. While we should have answered instantly and clarified our standpoint in this matter, such delay and the one-sided, partially clarification instead in the announcements could already cause much misunderstanding between nations, not to mention the language barrier between Chinese and English users.

Now, there’s a call of duty for us to participate in this war. For the nation, I can give up my long-holding belief, which doesn’t matters anymore. Yet I still totally couldn’t accept the approach of our president in this issue.

What’s been done is done anyway. We’ll have to put the controversy to diplomacy approach.

Again, the instancy and clarification matter. We’ve already missed the right time to answer and failed to clarify our own standpoint, which should be officially addressed in English later on to regain our credibility among the other nations.


譯註（Annotation）中文：

(* Annotation by the translator: The agreement proposed by the president of eROC in letter titled with “East Asia Peace Accord” is widely considered as an informal, oral answer, could be due to the idea that such letter is regarded as a form of “meeting” instead of documents in the context of the local community. Such attitude toward the letter could be verified with the annotation in another newspaper http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-m-amp-n-esk-ne--2276258/1/20
, where the translator claimed in his own annotation that such answer was just an “oral agreement on the renewal of NAP (口頭答應 NAP 的續約)”)
(* 譯註：由我方總統於「東亞和平協議（East Asia Peace Accord）」群組信中所提出的同意聲明被廣泛認為僅是一個非正式、口頭的回應。部分原因也許是因為如此的群組信在本地社群的脈絡當中多被認為僅是一種會議而非正式文件的形式。如此的態度可以在另一篇翻譯報中譯者認為如此的回應僅是「口頭答應NAP的續約」得中到驗證。)

(**Annotation by the translator: as an extended “official” translation for the Chinese version, “如同去年我們接受EDEN的徵招前往南美進行馳援任務，本次我們確實收到TWO的軍事派任，所以才必須進行對eSK的軍事行動”, our president failed to clearly state that “this NE act was an assigned task by TWO”, which was stated clearly in the Chinese version. Instead, the president conclude the cause with the saying that “TWO is in need of our assistance”, which I consider as a serious flaw.)
(*譯註：上述引文為基於中文原文中「如同去年我們接受EDEN的徵招前往南美進行馳援任務，本次我們確實收到TWO的軍事派任，所以才必須進行對eSK的軍事行動」的官方延伸英譯版本。但是我們的總統並沒有成功地於英譯裏頭澄清「該NE法案為TWO的軍事派任」這點，僅以TWO需要援助為歸因。我認為這是個嚴重的瑕疵)

(***Annotation by the translator: This is a translated quote from the Chinese version, not the official English version.)
(***譯註：此句為中文版本的非官方直翻。)

http://info.flagcounter.com/LPYv">http://s10.flagcounter.com/count/LPYv/bg_FFFFFF/txt_000000/border_CCCCCC/columns_2/maxflags_20/viewers_0/labels_0/pageviews_0/flags_0/" alt="Flag Counter" border="0">