Languages, diplomacy and national security: five key issues

Important points from authorities on the value of languages for diplomacy and national security. Photograph: Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters

Safeguarding Britain’s interests abroad calls for diplomats who can communicate languages. In a latest dwell chat on the Guardian, a panel of experts debated the value of languages for diplomacy and national security. 5 important themes emerged from that conversation.

Diplomacy and national protection

The want for languages in diplomacy and nationwide security is vital, but also nuanced. Diplomacy refers to the promotion of a country’s interests overseas, even though nationwide protection is concerned with preserving a country’s energy, be that military or political.

Charles Crawford, a former diplomat, pointed out the distinction early on in the debate: “Diplomacy is a single thing, nationwide protection another”.

Crawford explained that getting in a position to pick up the language of the nation a diplomat is posted to in order to talk with locals, or even appear on their nationwide Television, is a core diplomatic talent. It is, nevertheless, a very different skill to that essential in best-end intelligence perform, which requires the capacity to understand complex intercepts and military terminology.

The scale of the threats

Panelists outlined the threats posed to the Uk if the languages issue is not addressed. Robin Niblett, the director of Chatham Residence, explained that the clear security danger is that from “the broad area of global terrorism”. Even though language capabilities alone will not stop individuals threats, they can enable the men and women accountable for the UK’s safety to prepare and react.

Language expertise also enable United kingdom diplomats to be far more engaged with locals, strengthening their capability to collect intelligence and pre-empt emerging risks.

Crawford gave particular examples about the wide variety of conditions in which languages are needed to tackle security threats.

Fluency vs. performance

A current British Council report about the ten most important languages for the UK’s financial future discovered that there is a greater require for languages to be spoken to a functional degree, rather than for comprehensive fluency. The panelists who have previously worked in diplomatic posts explained how they located fluency not to be essential in their operate abroad.

Afzal Amin, former army serviceman and now potential MP candidate for Dudley Afzal Amin, explained he prefers depth to width in language. “Knowing a little properly is considerably far more helpful than realizing huge amounts of vocabulary but struggling to concoct coherent sentences. One particular of the crucial training deficiencies is that this is sacrificed at the alter of covering volume.”

Crawford felt that diplomatic training needs to consist of the cultural facets of languages. “Diplomats ought to know a tiny about the prime twenty writers, poets, sports activities men and women, books, pop songs, legends, famous background moments, swearwords, jokes and so forth in any nation they are going to,” he explained.

The cost of language training

Language instruction is not low cost. It really is one of the causes for the latest spat of university language department closures. 1 reader put it bluntly, asking the panelists if investment in language instruction for diplomats is worth it.

Matthew Rycroft, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s chief working officer, stated that however excellent diplomats are at languages, they will never be as proficient as native speakers, but that doesn’t suggest that investment in languages isn’t worth it for the Uk. Quoting the foreign secretary, William Hague, Rycroft mentioned that without having language abilities, diplomats cannot get beneath the skim of a nation and really understand its folks.

Amin outlined his estimates of language coaching: “At the Defence School of Languages we utilised to say the expense to Defence to train each linguists in a tough language for 18 months was £250K which integrated living expenses, salary, time out of one’s typical function”.

One particular resolution for maintaining the cost of language coaching down is to use native speakers in embassies and consulates to help the diplomats. Bill Rivers, the executive director for the US Joint Nationwide Committee for Languages, mentioned that native speakers are not a panacea for diplomacy. Rivers explained that “outsourcing” language not only runs a safety risk, but also impacts on a technical degree. “There is immense value in obtaining personnel who comprehend the total operational context, to contain that of the Army/Intelligence services/FCO/and so forth, as well as that of the target country.”

The American point of view

Two panelists, Bill Rivers and Richard Brecht, who joined the conversation from America (despite the early morning commence), mentioned the language problems the US shares with the Uk, and people problems unique to the States.

Rivers summarised the core of the dilemma: “We have a cultural tendency to look for quick options”.

The US faces the added issue of scale to the Uk, so its list of languages is comparatively longer than the UK’s. That becoming stated, Rivers explained that the core languages for the States are the exact same as people for the United kingdom.

1 key variation among the two nations is the move towards treating languages as a STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) subject.

Richard Brecht, the former executive director of the University of Maryland Center for Sophisticated Review of Language, explained the US is starting to see a amount of grassroots initiatives blossoming at a state degree. “They are shifting the picture gradually but substantially.”

Languages, diplomacy and national security: five key issues