One-on-one meetings, like one-on-one phone calls, aren't that uncommon.
Interpreters, by virtue of their code of ethics and professional duties, aren't ever included in the number. So a one-on-one might be two people in a room or it might be two people and their interpreters. The escort interpreter is no more or less present in the room than the simultaneous interpreter in his or her booth with a mic and headphones.
The rule for an interpreter is that you are the conduit and, as such, aren't there. You do not participate in the meeting or, really, interact except to elicit clarification; you do not intentionally impose alternate, less likely meanings on the text you're interpreting whatever your beliefs, and try to keep your views out of things. What happens during an interpretation session stays there, and if the person you're working for completely misrepresents the content, that's absolutely none of your business. I've never been a fan of Cuban denunciations of US "imperialism," but when my interpretation class visited the UN and we all took our turn in the booth I found myself, entirely appropriately, shouting into the mic and pounding the desk in front of me while interpreting for the Cuban whatever-she-was giving a pro forma speech before an audience of 10 people.
The one place where you shade the truth is in finding cultural equivalents--arguably not shading the truth at all, but simply providing a culturally appropriate translation to convey the original truth. If to call somebody a bastard is less than a very extreme insult in the source language but all the equivalents in the target language are fighting words or worse, you interpret accordingly. It is not your job to get in the way; but it is your job to ensure understanding as the speaker intends it. For that reason you typically, esp. at such a high level, interpret into your L1 and not into your L2, but as you're on duty to interpret for your client you're also monitoring the output of the other participant's interpreter to make sure that your client's words aren't being misrepresented. (Of course, if you're interpreting for a dictator like Kim you might do more than a little hedging--either way, your life might be at risk, so go with the less obvious, lethal, risk.)
BTW, "interpreter" is oral; "translator," in the jargon, is written. I've translated professionally in the last year; I haven't interpreted since '94 and would never bill myself as an interpreter.
= new reply since forum marked as read
