DEAR UN SPECIAL STAFF

RUDI TANGERMANN

Issue 667 of “UN Special” was devoted to the “Francophony” – and I found it interesting to read the interviews and articles. The arguments made around the use of French internationally or in specific countries could obviously well have been made by people speaking some of the 10+ languages globally that outrank French in terms of population speaking it as mother tongue (see below).

None of the pieces you published contain any rational, convincing arguments why French should remain the second UN “working language”. Its days as “language of diplomacy” are obviously long gone. The argument used by the “Francophony” to maintain French as an official working language could be made for several other languages in the same way (i.e., if there was a “Russophony” pushing for it for example) – but would be equally invalid of course.

The emergence of English as a global “lingua franca” is a good thing; many of us working internationally know that, unlike what speakers of other languages may think, this does NOT threaten other cultures and languages in any way.

This has nothing to do at all with the fact that expatriate international civil servants should be encouraged to learn and use the language of their host country, i.e. English in Washington, French in Geneva, possibly Arabic in Cairo.

I realize that your journal is trying to reflect the official current status of two UN working languages. However, I found issue 667 not well balanced and would encourage you to also give room for views like mine, which I (not speaking English or French as a mother tongue) am convinced are held by the great majority of people working in the UN.