Absolutely seething over ridiculous article in the Telegraph that I read whilst I was eating lunch. Unusual this; whilst the Daily Mail regularly reduces me to impotent, frothy mouthed rage, I'm normally fairly safe with the good old ploddy Telegraph. Hence the choice to read it over lunch; fury tends to be bad for the digestion. I'm going to regret those olives later, I just know it.
Anyway, digestive inconveniences aside, this article is certainly going to repeat on me for the rest of the day. The title itself was inflammatory enough; 'One in 40 UK diplomats fluent in language of country in which they work' it bugled, causing me to drop my fork. For one moment I wasn't entirely sure if they were criticising, or boasting. Such are the delicate nuances of our language. But no, reading on I was reassured to see that they were indeed decrying the lack of linguistic skills posessed by our representatives abroad. Just one in 40 British diplomats is fluent in the language of the country where they work with the majority lacking even basic grasp sufficient for day-to-day exchanges. Then came a more detailed, horrifying break-down of the numbers. Snorting, I read on, eager to learn what the Telegraph proposed we do about this terrible situation. But no, the Telegraph was too busy playing the Blame Game to come up with a solution. So then, who or what is to blame for this travesty? Why, Gordon Brown of course. For he it was who closed down the Foreign Office Language school. Without a Foreign Office language school, how on earth can we expect Foreign Officers to speak foreign languages?
I don't mind telling you I choked on my fusilli. Steam came out of my ears, and I became seriously empurpled. My vision of the world rocked, and awfully, horribly, all of our moronic Foreign Policy decisions started to make sense.
For a start, I would like to ask a very basic question; what qualifications does one need to become a diplomat? I freely admit that, not having met any diplomats, I genuinely don't know. However I have always assumed that, at the very least, a firm grasp of the language of your country of choice would be a pre-requisite. For me personally, it would be at the top of the list. In letters of fire. Honestly, I am staggered. What extraordinarily wonderful qualities must a candidate possess for them to be selected despite not knowing more of the required language than "Where is the station?" and the numbers from one to ten? Or maybe they are relying on International Man Language to get them by. "David Beckham! Yessss! Ver' gooooood!" Looking at the statistics, we have in this country a true plethora of linguists, some of them are even involved in politics too. So why are we resorting to people who need the "At the Diplomatic Meeting" section of their pocket guide just to do their job properly?
I hate to jump to conclusions, and I promise I am not one for sweeping generalisations, but I can't shut out the niggling voice at the back of my mind that says it might be a question of Who You Know. How else to explain it? Imagine there was a job going as a plumber. Ten candidates turn up, nine of whom were qualified in plumbing, and one of whom was not. If the unqualified person got the job, don't you think there would be raised eyebrows, possibly even questions asked?
Maybe I'm overly suspicious. Maybe it is simply that our politicians, in that typically British way, completely underestimate the importance of speaking foreign language. Maybe they truly do believe that by pointing, smiling,and speaking slowly and clearly, they will be able to communicate the subtleties and nuances of the political policies they are trying to promote. How they hope to understand their counterpart though is beyond me. The Telegraph quotes Charles Crawford, former British ambassador to Poland as saying "You are always going to be more efficient if you can speak the language". Really, Charles? What masterly understatement. It's rather like saying that you will be a more effective literary critic if you can read. Although, to be fair to Mr Crawford, he does apparently speak five languages so clearly practices what he preaches.
The thing is, you see, almost everybody undervalues the power of language. In these days of soundbite and image, of slash and slang, people have forgotten the power of sentences and phrases, quips, and speeches. And yet they forget to their cost, because we are still wholly in the power of language. Language helps a teacher to motivate us, or our mothers to comfort us. It allows authority figures to intimidate us, and of course politicians to persuade us. But, as with any weapon, in the wrong hands it can be dangerous. When wielded with precision and dexterity it confers upon the bearer a tremendous power, however used clumsily it is just as likely to turn upon the speaker and inflict irreparable damage. Viz: Jimmy Carter attempting to convince the people of Poland that he wished to know their desires for the future. What he actually said to the surprised and frightened Poles, via a bungling translator, was that he desired them carnally. Political disaster.
So when I say that diplomats and ambassadors should speak the language of the country in which they are based, I do not just mean a working knowledge. It is not enough to be able to hold a stilted conversation about the weather, or to make a joke about food for the reporters. Language is the key to understanding the psyche and history of its people, and surely it is understanding and communication which are the most important aspects of an ambassador's job. Nuance, dialect, trends; all are paramount. Heaven knows how many ghastly blunders have already been made by our well-meaning, uncomprehending representatives. And how many more will be made before the government realises the importance of actually being able to talk to the people you work with every day?
Do I think the Foreign Office Langauge School is a good thing? Am I glad that the Conservatives have re-opened it? Yes, and yes. Of course. Anything that promotes better communication and understanding between nations can only be a good thing. I just hope that the Foreign Office makes good use of it, and doesn't dismiss it as a PR stunt. However I also believe that fluency in the required language should be a pre-requisite for any ambassador or diplomat worth their salt before they are even offered the post, and that it is not only shameful, but detrimental for Britain if that is not the case.
Right. I can stop breathing fire now. Unless those olives have other ideas.
To read the full article go to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/9194006/One-in-40-UK-diplomats-fluent-in-language-of-country-in-which-they-work.html
No comments:
Post a Comment