4th NITOBE SYMPOSIUM ON LANGUAGE POLICY

 

30.7. – 1.8.2005, VILNIUS/LIETUVA

 

Contribution by Michael Cwik, Brussel/Bruxelles

 

Attempts of making the EU institutions aware about

the communication and language problem in a multi-lingual community

-         a personal experience from an „insider“ between 1969 and 2005

 

  1. Background

 

As an economist who worked as a civil servant from 1969 to 2005 in the services of the European Commission (in particular, in the field of Economic and Monetary Union and the euro), I was mostly obliged, as my mother tongue was German, to  communicate with my colleagues in another langue than my mother tongue; in practice, these other languages were English and French. As I soon saw the impact of this communication practice, I became particularly interested in finding non-discriminatory language solutions for professional use.

For any change in the existent regulation or practice in language use (communication) of the European Institutions, it is worthwhile

a)      to remind everybody about the official rules and their short comes in practice, and,

b)      to inform all those, who like to see a reform in this field, about the various attempts which had been made within the EU institutions in order to make decision makers conscious about the existence of language discrimination and the lack of solutions to overcome these permanent deficiencies.

Ø    a) At EU level, one has clearly to distinguish between ‘Official languages  of the Union’ and ‘internal working languages of each EU institution`.

 

All treaties, legislation and official communication have to be published in the ‘Official languages`.

With the successive enlargement the ‘official languages’ increased from 4 (for the original 6 Member States in1952) to 6, 8, 9, 11, 20 in 2004 and with the decision about Irish (June 2005) to 21 official languages. Thus the institutions of the European Union are the only supra-national institutions in the world which have to work in 21 official languages.

 

Concerning the `real  internal working languages’, each institution of the Union has the right, or, even the autonomy, to organise its internal communication according to its needs.

The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has chosen FRENCH as only working language, the European Commission uses ENGLISH, FRENCH and GERMAN as working languages and others are just using ENGLISH and FRENCH for internal communication.

 

Theoretically, each civil servant has the right to speak and write in his mother tongue, but it is evident, in order to be ‘efficient’, all civil servants accept the need to communicate in one of the two most widespread languages of the staff members, which is ENGLISH or FRENCH, , instead of waiting for the translation of the document which might last some days or weeks.

–        This makes all persons who have another language as mother tongue than these ‘working’ languages to a second class civil servant.

–        More about “Languages in the European Union”, see website:

Ø      http://europa.eu.int/comm/publications/booklets/move/45/index_en.htm

 

Ø      b) As for any change of the present situation of official languages a vote on the basis of unanimity is required, it is evident, that only a global, non-discriminatory, universal and all Member States equally treating communication and language concept has the chance to be adopted in the long run.

 

As to the situation of `practiced working languages` in each institution of the EU, theoretically each institution could change its internal organisation as to `language use` (communication), but politically any such change would open a `box of Pandora`.

 

Ø      c) For both aspects, as to the official external relations of the EU institutions with the citizen or concerning the professional internal communication needs within the Institutions, there are not many legal and non-discriminatory options in language use (communication in a multilingual community) available, in particular, if one aims to realise the the universal objectives of the European Union, like equal treatment and non-discrimination, democracy and effieciency, diversity and mutual recognition.

 

–        Already in 1991, a study on “Language options in the European Union” which was presented by a working group on the communication and language problem in the EC, shows that in theory and in practice, only three options, each in one specific field of application, are at the disposal for an efficient and non-discriminatory global concept within a multi-lingual community like the European Union; the document can be read on the website:

 

Ø      http://www.europe-citizen.net/documents_symposium/lang-options.html

 

During the last 25 years, I can, at least, distinguish two different tendencies or periods, in which the EU institutions, the politicians and the public have been tried to make aware about the fact that there is an evident practical discrimination in language use (communication) within the institutions of the European Union.

 

  1. The period of language experiments and projects

 

- The first language experiment between civil servants of the European Commission was organised on the basis of a private initiative in 1983[1]);  the basic idea was to show to the Commission and to the outside world, whether it was possible or not to learn a planned or auxiliary language like the Internacia Lingvo/Esperanto in two weeks holidays.

The experiment in which finally 13 persons (of which 8 from the Commission services) took part on a voluntary and private basis, ended with astonishing results; after a 14 days stay in a comfortable three stars hotel in the Austrian Alpes, seven of nine participants declared in an opinion poll, one can conclude this language experiment by saying to friends that it is possible, within a fortnight, to grasp the basic needs for understanding, reading and communicating in such an auxiliary language. A more detailed report on that language experiment was published in the Commission’s internal Bulletin under the title “Une experience linguistique aux resultants surprenants” (see footnote 1).

That basic knowledge was completed further on by regular practice in an existing Club which met regularly (once a week) in a place in Brussel/Bruxelles.

 

-         The next step was the creation of a ‘Cercle de Loisir’ within the European Commission with the name ‘Amis de la langue internationale Esperanto’, and the organisation of voluntary language courses for civil servants by that cercle.

 

-         At the same time (1983 to 1993), the working group on the “Communication and Language Problem in the EC” elaborated several language and communications projects which were aimed to be examined by the competent bodies of the European Institutions, as, for example:

 

Ø      NEIGHBOUR project

This project aims to use an auxiliary or planned language as an propedeutical tool to learn quicker and better the first foreign language, for example, English, at school; the idea of this experiment is to verify or not the results of a language experiment of the University of Paderborn/D on a larger statistical scale; “Paderborner Modell”; see more …

Ø      http://www.europe-citizen.net/documents_symposium/neighbour.html

and point E of the program of the symposium in the EP in May 2003:

Ø      http://www.europe-citizen.net/program.html

Ø      http://www.europe-citizen.net/documents.html#pointF1

 

Ø      RELAIS project

This project aims to use an auxiliary or planned language as ‘relais’ in interpretation; the major scientific challenge of this project exists in the question, whether a rational and logically constructed auxiliary language can increase the quality in `relais` interpretation, where a second, at the moment, national or `bridge` language is needed in interpretation, as qualified interpreters for a direct information transfer between the language combinations are not available. As the interpretation services of the European institutions had been confronted from 4 to 21 official languages, this `relais` interpretation had more and more been necessary in the successive enlargements of Member States and official languages in the last years.

The idea of that experiment is to verify whether a planned language could increase the quality of ‘relay interpretation’ in comparison to the use of a natural language; see more in the paper of Klaus Schubert on the website:)

Ø      http://www.europe-citizen.net/documents.html#pointF1

 

Ø      ECHANCE project

This is an experimental communication project between twin towns representing 3 and more cultural and linguistic backgrounds; the idea is to repeat the language experiment of the civil servants of the European Commission of 1983 (whether it is possible to learn within 2 or 3 weeks the basic needs for understanding, reading and speaking in an non-discriminatory auxiliary language), but this time on a larger and more differentiated statistical basis; a description of this project can be found on the website:

Ø      http://www.europe-citizen.net/documents_symposium/echange.html

 

  1. The period of working groups and symposia (1993 – 2003)

 

a)      In 1993 a private study group on the 'Communication and language problem in Europe' organized in collaboration with linguistic experts, the Hanns-Seidel Stiftung and Members of the EP a Symposium on ‘The Communication and Language Problem in the European Community – To what extent a ‘planned’ language could contribute to its solution and preserve at the same time the cultural and linguistic diversity in Europe?”  - see also copy of the program in the annex 1.

 

Ø      The results are assembled in a publication with the same subject of the Hanns-Seidel Stiftung; a conclusion in German is presented in annex 2.

 

b)    In the year 2000, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP), Mr. Richard Corbett, asked in a written question to the Commission to give its opinion about the two language projects, NEIGHBOUR and RELAIS, which had been elaborated by the mentioned study group and circulated, among others, within the European Parliament and the Commission.

 

The competent Commissioner, Mr. Kinnock, gave a mandate to the common interpretation services  (SCIC) to study the feasibility of both projects; as after two years no official result was formulated by the competent services, the same Commissioner replied to a written question from the Radical Party of the EP (in 2002), without making a reference to any document of the internal study group, that these studies were not concluding in favour of an auxiliary language like Esperanto.

Ø      see more:

–        written question E-0075/02 of MEP Maurizio Turco  and the answer of Commissioner Kinnock, annex 3

–        ‘Draft report` of the SCIC study group[2]) on the NEIGHBOUR and RELAIS project, annex 4

 

c)      On May 6, 2003, the Forum for language rights and cultural diversity[3]) organises together with other NGOs and in collaboration with MEPs a Symposium in the European Parliament in Brussel/Bruxelles about

 

“What Language Policies in a multilingual European Union?”

or

„Shall we write the citizens' communication rights and duties into a European Constitution?“

 

Ø      all documents concerning and the results of this symposium are available on the internet: > http://www.europe-citizen.net/symposium.html

 

The most striking results of this symposium was the co-existence and tolerance of two language concepts for internal professional communication in the European Institutions which could be considered as common, and, as contradictory, at the same time!

 

Both language concepts clearly distinguish between external, official communication of the European Institutions with the citizens and the Member States and internal, professional communication within the institutions and their working groups.

While for external official communication purposes the citizen and language rights, like equal treatment and non-discrimination are standing as decisive criteria for the adoption of all official languages of the Union, the need for ‘efficiency’ and ‘cost reduction’ in the autonomous internal organisation of each EU institution is evidently pleading for only one  internal working language in the long run.

 

The only difference between the two communication concepts was the question: “Which common working language for internal and professional purposes, a national or an auxiliary non-discriminatory language?” or, in other words: Should or can an auxiliary language like the `Internacia lingvo Esperanto` replace, in the long run, the present working languages practised internally in each of the  EU institutions?.

Under the presidency of the MEP, Mr. Michael Galler,  who himself defended the idea of English as common working language, the idea of a non-discriminatory long-term solution in form of auxiliary language like Esperanto was included by the participants in the final conclusions of the symposium. These conclusions consisted of eight principles as to communication rights and duties within a multilingual Community like the European Union.

 

These eight principles are rapidly summed up; they concern:

 

1. The territorial principle

2.  The principle of integration

3.  The principle of local self-government

4.  The principle of professional qualification

5.  The principle of subsidiarity

6.  The distinction between external 'citizen' communication and internal 'professional' communication of the European Institutions

7.     The principle of equality and non-discrimination

8.  The principle of diversity in unity

 

I shall cite only the 6th  and 7th  principle which were extensively discussed and finally adopted with the following wordings:

 

>  6.   Communication of the Institutions of the European Union should be non-discriminatory, rational and efficient; therefore, as general guideline it can be said that external communication towards the citizen and within the framework of a political mandate has to cover all official languages of the Union, while internal communication needs a common means of communication; as long as such a working language consists of a national language, discrimination in communication persists. (Distinction between external 'citizen' communication and internal 'professional' communication)

>  7.   As long as discrimination in the internal communication of the institutions of the Union does exist, the competent bodies at the Union level and the education authorities in the Member States should undertake research in the field of a non-discriminatory system such as a universal language model (planned language), its conditions, capacities and limits, to support feasibility studies and to facilitate language experiments with view to ultimately resolving the remaining discrimination in internal and inter-ethnic communication. (Principle of equality and non-discrimination)

 

  1. The present discussions

 

Following the ‘break-through’ in the symposium of May 2003, in distinguishing at EU level between external, official communication and internal, professional communication needs, the eight adopted principles had their follow-up in the Congress of Bilbao in 2004 organised by the European Esperanto Union (EEU) and in a shorter version presented at the 100th anniversary in 2005 of the first Welt-Esperanto-Congress in Boulogne sur Mer in 1905 by formulating a “Declaration on communication rights and duties within a multilingual Community like the European Union”.

In the last version of that “Declaration” the eight principles of the EP conclusion and the Bilbao text had been tailor made to “rights and duties in language use” (communication) of five major legal actors in daily life, as there are:

 “Rights and duties in language use” (communication)

1.      for any individual or legal personality communicating with public authorities

2.      for every citizen who settles in a municipality having another official language(s)

3.      for all political parties,  associations, movements or groups

4.      for all decision making bodies at EU level

5.      for the authorities in Member States responsible for education

 

The last formulation was elaborated in English, French and Esperanto in Boulogne sur Mer in March 2005 and is available in the annex 5.

I only cite the present formulation about “rights and duties” of the EU level and of the Member States: 

 

> 4.  For all decision making bodies at EU level

 

Every person may write to the institutions of the European Union in one of the languages of the Treaties and shall receive an answer in the same language; everyone has also the right to read the official and legal texts of the Union in one of the official languages, and, any political representative has the right, in his official function at EU level to express him/herself in one of these languages, and, even to ask for interpretation, if he/she needs it (external and political mandate aspect of the EU institutions), but each Institution at the European level has the right to organise its daily internal professional activities according to criteria like rationality, efficiency and good administration, including its internal communication. As long as this communication is based on a limited number of official EU languages, discrimination for staff members of other languages persists. Without prejudice to the their institutional autonomy, the competent bodies at the Union level and in the Member States have therefore the duty to promote research and experiments in possible language solutions1), aiming in the medium and long-term that the professional and internal communication between staff members at EU level is based on the principle of non-discrimination.

(The "principle of non-discrimination”)

 

> 5. For the authorities in Member States responsible for education

 

Member States of the Union have the right to organise their educational system and the method of language learning according to their constitutional framework and their respective priorities, but, without prejudice to the repartition of competencies within Member States, the authorities responsible for education and language teaching have also the duty to prepare the citizen for the private and professional challenges in communication within a multilingual community like the European Union.

 (The "unity in diversity principle")

 

  1. The possible/desirable scenario in communication policies within the EU

 

As language policies are in the competence of Member States, the EU level can only initiate framework decision as to conditions for official, administrative (internal) and professional communication at the European  and international level as well as legal proposal for equal and non-discriminatory treatment of citizens within the territories forming the European Union.

 

Although each institution of the European Union has officially the right to decide about its internal  organisation according to criteria as efficiency and good administration, Member States are suspiciously looking at the daily “language use” (communication) in each of the European Institutions. Finally, all depends on a political consensus between the Member States of the Union.

 

It is therefore not very likely that the present privileges of some national languages in some of the EU institutions like English, French and German in the European Commission or French as only working language of the European Court in Luxemburg will be voluntarily abandoned or tolerated by the concerned privileged Member State.

 

Although the aspect of internal communication falls officially into the autonomous competence of each of the concerned EU institution to organise its internal structure, without a balanced long-term concept about a neutral and non-discriminatory approach, there is no chance for a change in the present discriminatory situation in language use within the EU institutions. But it is clear, that the daily practice within a multilingual staff will tend towards using only one national language as internal working language, as this is already the official case for French in the European Court. In the other EU institutions it will probably be English as it is the most widely instructed first foreign language in the education systems of the Member States,

 

The only possible and realistic scenario for bringing a change into the present discriminatory situation in the internal language use in the EU institutions would be an extensive discussion about “how to realise, in the long run, equality and non-discrimination in communication, within the EU institutions, and, eventually, in the EU relations with third countries and international institutions?”

 

This discussion would include feasibility studies about auxiliary languages, their possibilities and limits, voluntary and official language experiments, scientific research and control of such experiments,  common educational programmes in and between Member States, in particular, about learning the first foreign language by means of an auxiliary language as a propedeutical instrument.

Therefore, there is still a chance, or even and increased need, for realising projects like the NEIGHBOUR, RELAIS and EXCHANGE project.

 

Only after a conclusive experimental phase in the attempt of non-discriminatory communication, a political decision at EU level about the adoption of a common auxiliary language could be made, and this, in particular, under the aspect of a possible beforehand cooperation with other main actors at world level like China, Russia, India, Japan and Brazil.

 

Within the EU institutions, such a decision about a common auxiliary language could only be placed on a voluntary process as to its active use.  Nevertheless, from a certain date which should be fixed in advance (after one to two years) at least the passive knowledge of that auxiliary language should be required by every staff member. Thus, at least, all those staff members and persons whose mother tongue is not a working language of the concerned EU institution can write and express themselves in a non-discriminatory way with those who still can use their mother tongue as working language. As the active use of the auxiliary (now working) language would be placed on a voluntary basis, the use of that auxiliary language depends largely on the priority of those staff members which cannot work in their mother tongue and, thus, on their eventual preference to change to an non-discriminatory communication means in their working relations.

 

Only in case that the use of the national working language(s) in an EU institution is decreasing towards a specific share in relations to its mother tongue speakers, the last discrimination in language use can be phased out by adopting the auxiliary language as only official working language of the concerned institution.

 

As to external and official communication of the EU institutions all official languages will guarantee that every EU citizen can read official and legislative texts of the Union in one official language of his or her member country.

 

“The necessary translation and interpretation costs are the price for democracy in diversity! “

 

Vilnius, 31.7.2005                                                                    Michael Cwik


[1] ) see Courrier du Personnel, No. 450, Janvier 1984, « Une experience linguistique aux resultats surprenants » by Michael Cwik.

[2] ) This draft report of  15.2.2002 was sent by a member of the SCIC working group  (Michael Cwik) to the Director of the Commission`s Interpretation Service (SCIC), Mr. Noel Muylle, as conclusions of the discussions within the group.

[3] ) see website:

Ø       www.europe-citizen.net