Breaking News: Translation enters the Sudan war!

-Elrayah Abdelgadir- It seems that translation has finally decided to 'mobilize' and respond to the 'call to arms'! Yesterday, international news agencies published a report about the United States withholding Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s visa, stating: 'US withholding Sudanese leader’s visa.' In the same context, Reuters described al-Burhan as: 'Sudanese army leader,' meaning the commander of the Sudanese army. However, some of al-Burhan’s supporters translated the news into Arabic in a different format: 'The United States withholds the Sudanese leader’s visa!' Here, it seems the translator did not settle for just relaying the news, but added something of their own to the wording. It is as if you bought a regular 'serving of fava beans' from the 'pot,' then added extra oil and 'fennel' to it! Instead of having an 'army commander,' we suddenly have a 'leader of Sudan'! Someone might say: What is the problem? Doesn't the word 'leader' mean 'za'eem' (leader)? Yes, it can be translated that way in some contexts. But translation is not a process of random selection from a dictionary; a single word may have ten potential equivalents, but that does not mean every term performs the same function in every context. In English, 'leader' is a broad and relatively neutral term: someone who leads a group, an institution, an army, or a movement. As for 'za'eem' in Arabic, it carries a greater social and political weight. Depending on the context, it implies prominence, status, recognition, and sometimes celebration. Therefore, the difference between 'Sudanese commander' and 'Sudanese leader' is not just a matter of synonyms. The former describes a function. The latter can imply status, legitimacy, and rank. And who among you does not know the difference between plain fava beans, boiled fava beans, fava bean salad... and 'fully loaded' fava beans... the works! Here, an issue arises that is known in discourse studies as 'framing': we do not necessarily change the facts, but we choose the words that place the event within a specific frame, so the reader receives the event from a different angle that we choose carefully and intentionally. This is neither a Sudanese invention nor an accusation against a specific translator; political and media translation studies have discussed for years how lexical choices during translation can change the way a political event is framed, and grant the translated text weight that was not necessarily present in the original. Interestingly, 'leader' itself can be very precise if it is said, for example: 'de facto leader of Sudan.' Here we could say: 'the de facto commander of Sudan' or 'the de facto ruler,' depending on the intent. In the context of the news reported by Reuters, it is correct to translate it as 'Sudanese army commander,' because that description is already present within the report, and thus the meaning intended by the word 'leader'—the army commander—is clarified. As long as the text explicitly pointed out in some paragraphs to 'Sudanese army leader,' then 'Sudanese army commander' can convey the meaning directly, without needing a 'supra-military' promotion to 'Sudanese leader.' The problem, therefore, is not that the word 'za'eem' represents a dictionary error, but that a word that is lexicographically correct can become politically misleading if it carries a stronger connotation in the target language than the one present in the original. Interestingly, the word 'za'eem,' which some translators preferred for 'framing' purposes, can carry negative meanings in some contexts, perhaps as a form of irony or sarcasm. We say 'gang leader' (za'eem) but we do not say 'gang commander' (qa'id). Thus, in a time of absurd war, we may see a translation wearing a 'cap' or wearing a 'kidmol' (a scarf worn by masked militia). We do not need to change the news to change its effect; sometimes it is enough to change a single word in it. Therefore, when we read news translated from another language, it is useful to ask a simple question: Did the translator convey the fava beans plain, according to protocol, or did they 'add too much fennel' to it?