During President Barack Obama’s 2013 meeting with Vietnamese President Trương Tấn Sang, a key phrase in his remarks may have been lost in translation. Speaking to the press after their talks, Obama announced the establishment of a “comprehensive partnership” between the two countries—language signaling a significant step forward in bilateral ties.
His words were clear:
“Step by step, we have been able to build a level of trust and respect that now allows us to announce a comprehensive partnership between our two countries. This will enable greater cooperation across a wide range of issues—from trade to military cooperation, multilateral work on disaster relief, and exchanges in science and education.”
But the official interpreter’s Vietnamese rendering omitted the phrase “comprehensive partnership.” Instead, the translation came across as:
“We see steps toward mutual respect and trust so that we can continue seeking a partnership between the two countries. This will help expand cooperation in areas such as the military, disaster relief, science, and other fields.”
The softer wording, which appeared in the White House’s own video of the event, blurred the significance of Obama’s announcement.
Early Signs of Trouble
Even at the start of the meeting, the interpreter seemed uneasy. Obama began with:
“I am honored to welcome President Trương Tấn Sang to the White House and the Oval Office for our first bilateral meeting. This event represents steady progress and strengthens the relationship between our two countries.”
The translation delivered was clumsier and incomplete:
“I am very honored to welcome President Sang here for this bilateral meeting. This symbolizes [hesitates] symbolizes the cooperation that is growing stronger between the two and the progress between our countries.”
The South China Sea—Left Out Entirely
Perhaps most striking was the omission of Obama’s reference to maritime disputes in the South China Sea (which he called the “South China Sea” rather than Vietnam’s usual “East Sea”). While Obama stressed the importance of resolving disputes peacefully, that part of his statement never made it into the Vietnamese interpretation.
In diplomacy, precision matters—and here, a few missed words may have dulled the impact of what Washington considered an important milestone in U.S.–Vietnam relations.
Lost in Translation: When Diplomacy Depends on Every Word
Before facing the press, Presidents Barack Obama and Trương Tấn Sang held a private meeting. Speaking afterward, Obama emphasized:
“We discussed the need to continue efforts to peacefully resolve maritime issues that have arisen recently in the South China Sea and elsewhere in the Asia–Pacific. And we greatly appreciate Vietnam’s determination to work with ASEAN and the East Asia Summit so that we can achieve a Code of Conduct that will help address these issues in a peaceful and fair manner.”
Yet the interpreter condensed this into a much lighter version:
“We have determined to continue cooperation in order to resolve certain maritime issues in the Asia–Pacific region. I very much appreciate Vietnam’s efforts to work with ASEAN toward a COC document to resolve these issues in a peaceful way.”
Human Rights—A Sensitive Topic
Another delicate matter was human rights. Obama stated:
“We discussed the challenges that all of us face on human rights. We emphasized that the United States continues to believe that all of us must respect issues such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. And we had a very candid dialogue about both the progress Vietnam is making and the challenges that remain.”
The Vietnamese translation blurred the emphasis:
“Both sides particularly mentioned human rights issues and we understood that, in the spirit of mutual respect, we referred to freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. Both sides committed to making progress to address these challenges.”
By comparison, President Trương Tấn Sang’s interpreter delivered Obama’s words into English more faithfully. Even when he momentarily omitted a phrase, he corrected himself with a polite “I am sorry” before continuing—an unusual but appreciated gesture.
The only real slip came when interpreting Sang’s comments on human rights. His original words were:
“Regarding the field of overcoming the consequences of war, we discussed this in detail, including human-related issues, where our two countries still have differing views.”
But the interpreter’s rendering implied something different—that Vietnam considered human rights themselves as a “consequence of war,” which could easily mislead foreign listeners.
Interestingly, when Sang misspoke in Vietnamese, saying “phần lớn, người Việt gốc Mỹ hết sức thành đạt” (“for the most part, American Vietnamese have been very successful”), the interpreter caught the nuance and correctly conveyed it as “most Vietnamese-Americans.”
Why Accuracy Matters More in Asia
The BBC later subtitled Obama’s remarks to reflect their full meaning, underscoring the stakes of precise translation. In diplomacy, a few missed or misphrased words can have real consequences—a problem encapsulated in the Vietnamese saying “dịch là diệt” (“to translate is to destroy”).
Unlike European and American leaders, who interact frequently and often directly in English, Asian leaders such as those from Vietnam or China rarely engage in one-on-one conversations with U.S. presidents. This makes the role of interpreters all the more critical. Yet in practice, American leaders increasingly rely less on interpreters—since most foreign dignitaries visiting Washington can already communicate in English.
