Izvestia,
Russia
'Overloaded' With
U.S. English as the Language of Diplomacy
"The
flowering of diplomacy was in no small measure associated with choosing an effective
international language for negotiations and treaties. Now the American language of diplomacy reigns, which is
anything but an instrument that uses words with geometric precision."
By Maxim Sokolov
Translated by
Yekaterina Blinova
March 12, 2009
Russia - Izvestia - Original Article
(Russian)
The faux pas in Geneva,
where Condoleeza Rice's successor Hillary Clinton
gave Foreign Minister Lavrov a symbolic button with
the inscription “Overload” instead of the more appropriate word “Reset” resulted in many interpretations. In fact the Russian
language is fairly complex. Russian has something called a confix, i.e., a word formed by a prefix plus a
suffix, where both components necessarily exist together. For example,
“re-root-ing.” Besides that, a prefix can be added to
a word with a confix, which is something quite
difficult for foreigners to understand. Perhaps during the preparation of the
U.S. State Department's surprise gift, a native Russian speaker couldn’t be
found.
There
have certainly been similar and even more interesting such instances in the history of diplomacy.
During the 1960s when London decided to "reset" Russia-British
relations and thaw the old ice, the head of Britain's Foreign Office, heeding
the advice of Russia experts, happily greeted his Soviet colleague Andrei
Gromyko by exclaiming, “Hey, Andryushka!”
[this is like saying 'hey Andy,' which is extremely informal]. Contrary to the
expectations of Britain's experts, the exclamation "Andryushka"
didn't reboot relations, but took the Soviet minister aback - although relations
didn't suffer significantly. This is why one shouldn't look for any scintillating
signs coming out of the situation with Hillary. After all, the Department of
State is as much a budget office as anything else. [In other words, its bean-counting
skills are as good or better than its diplomatic ones].
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
The real question, rather, is
about the condition of the modern language of diplomacy, full of redundant
metaphors that inevitably result in numerous interpretations. Diplomats of the
past expressed themselves with much greater clarity. It's enough to compare the
metaphorical “restart” announced by the U.S. Vice President Biden at the
Munich Conference in February, which everyone interpreted to their own liking,
and the old formula that carries the same meaning:
“Sigismund and
we, the lords, wish …
Already to forget
this rivalry with Moscow.
King Batur and Czar Ivan clashed …
Let that conflict
be on their souls!
But you are
starting a new dynasty …
and Your Majesty
doesn’t need …
To bother with that
old quarrel”
[From a work of Leo Tolstoy called
Czar Boris, unavailable in English].
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
Then of course, one must negotiate the conditions
under which the quarrel will be a thing of the past - but that's what the diplomatic
machinery is for - to haggle.
The flowering of
diplomacy in the old days was in no small measure associated with choosing an effective
international language for negotiations and treaties. Initially, it was Latin (a
dead language which has tried and true expressions and terms of precision - this
was ideal). Later, Latin was replaced by French, about which, when this too
receded into the past, a British diplomat wrote nostalgically: “If precision is
one of the most important qualities of diplomacy, one must regret discarding
one of the most precise languages ever invented by the human mind as a means of
negotiation.”
Now the American
language of diplomacy reigns, which is anything but an instrument that uses
words with geometric precision. It is distinguished by its abundant use of
metaphors. Wherever you look, there are more: decisive power, torch
of freedom, or many others of similar effect. Official persons incessantly
“enjoy” and “feel a sense of pride” over any and all natural and social events
[in other words, events they have nothing to do with]. When one speaks of a
national language, complaints of this type are out of place. But what else can
one do in such an unfortunate situation [i.e.: when American English is the international
language]. Especially considering that, while complaining of high-flown
metaphors, we haven't yet tried the Latin American variety of Spanish as an
international language of diplomacy. Such a thing would make us miss the
“decisive power” of American English. But recognizing the status quo, it's
necessary to take note of the features of today's international language without
pulling one's hair out over American metaphors. After all, one still has good
old “détente” to turn to.
CLICK HERE FOR RUSSIAN VERSION
[Posted by WORLDMEETS.US March 23, 11:14pm]
