Learning languages: To speak only English is to narrow your horizon
As the candidates on The Apprentice proved, faced with speaking a foreign language the British are losers
It was hardly music to the ears. Susan, Tom, Melody and colleagues from BBC 1's The Apprentice, described as "an entrepreneurial elite", ventured in last week's episode into Paris and briefly tried to engage the natives in their mother tongue. "Porcelaine?" said one of the team trying to coax the sale of a tea pot, starting out quite strongly before collapsing into: "Ah oui, fine bone china." "Un mobile phone shop?" asked another.
For many in the UK, English is their first and only language. On grounds of functionality, why would they want to get their heads around the grammar, vocabulary and literature of foreigners?
They comfort themselves with the belief that "everyone speaks English" – when that's not true of 75% of the world's population.
Andy Burnham, Labour MP and shadow secretary of state for education, said in a recent interview: "In parts of my constituency they struggle to see the relevance of learning French or Spanish. They are not going to go on holiday there, they don't want to work there… they are being very rational when they argue that a language wouldn't necessarily place them in the strongest position when entering the workforce."
This is at once the utilitarian view of learning – discard what isn't going to impact on your wage packet – and depressingly patronising of young people. It narrows their horizons to the life they are living now rather than encouraging them to expect that they will explore the wider world.
In 2004, learning a foreign language was removed from the core curriculum in secondary schools. Last year, French dropped out of the top 10 table of favourite GCSEs subjects. German and Spanish are also losing favour. Now 60% of state schools and three quarters of 14-year-olds do not study a modern language.
The new English baccalaureate requires a modern language as one of its key subjects but it's too soon to tell whether this reverses the trend of the last several years. In universities, too, the study of languages, except perhaps Mandarin, is gradually becoming extinct.
Learning a foreign language is obviously about communication, but as one academic has written, it also provides "a new mental landscape".
Books, films, poetry in a different tongue open the door to cultures, values and ways of seeing that would otherwise be barred. Translations provide only a peek through a crack in the door. Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and the less common languages each add to the understanding of joy, affection, happiness and the love of words.
We live in a digital age with Android phones and Google that can convert conversations into a different language instantly but in the process they also risk bleaching it of all colour.
So, to be good with languages may or may not help in the labour market or prove useful on a fortnight's holiday but arguably it is a passport to a more rounded life.
And that has to have a value.
Libya: Nato must up its game to finish what it started
100 days after the air strikes began, Gaddafi is still in power
In March, Benghazi, Libya's second city, seemed close to annihilation at the hands of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. He had promised to exact retribution from his citizens for their temerity in seeking freedom from his 40-year dictatorship. Influenced by the memory of Kosovo and backed by the Arab League, the United Nations security council passed resolution 1973. It authorised the imposition of a no-fly zone in Libya. It also instructed that "all necessary measures" should be taken to protect civilians under threat of attack. The wide support the measures received was bolstered by compelling images of terrified civilians in Benghazi awaiting what would undoubtedly have been a brutal and deadly onslaught by Gadaffi's forces, bolstered by mercenary forces and determined to crush a nascent democratic revolution. Three months ago it seemed possible that it would be only a matter of weeks before what US defence secretary Robert Gates called "the mightiest military alliance in history" would achieve its aim. And the warmth of the "Arab spring" would spread a little further into Africa.
Today, however, is the 100th day of the Nato air strikes and Gaddafi is still in power. Joint Nato operational support has come from 18 countries, including the UK and France, with 15 enforcing the no-fly zone and launching air-to-ground missiles. Yet not only is Gaddafi still in power; rebel progress around Misrata in the west of Libya has stalled, and the transitional national council in Benghazi says it is desperately short of funds because the $1 billion promised by Nato has yet to materialise. In addition, fissures have appeared in the Nato alliance, criticised for being "a confused coalition of the unwilling and unable".
At the same time, a million refugees have fled Libya, mainly into Tunisia and Egypt. Italy has called for a suspension of the air campaign to permit the delivery of humanitarian aid . Ironically, there is now a danger that the Nato mission is contributing to the very humanitarian crisis resolution 1973 was intended to avert. Meanwhile, in the UK, the cost of the Libyan intervention has escalated from the original estimates of "tens of millions of pounds" to over £260m, now that the mission has been extended by another three months to September. The heads of the Royal Air Force and the Navy have warned that continuing operations in Libya beyond the autumn could mean redeployment from other tasks and asking more of forces already "fragile " and overworked stretched by the additional demands, for instance, of Afghanistan.
So, what can be done? How can the original UN mandate to protect the lives of Libyan citizens be honoured quickly and the current stalemate broken without Nato drifting into the illegal waters of pursuing regime change for which it has no mandate? Is it possible to act within resolution 1973 to encourage a chain reaction that may lead to Libyans effecting their own regime change?
The success of the Nato mission is that a no-fly zone and the creation of a protective cordon around Benghazi were accomplished in the first few weeks following the UN vote – undoubtedly saving lives. Nato spokesmen also say that Gaddafi's fighting ability has been degraded by 50%, and many of his entourage have defected.
However, the rebels in the west in the Nafusa mountains and in the port of Misrata insist that without more intensive support from Nato it is difficult to make further advances. They lack the firepower and military discipline to take command on the ground. On the contrary, the rebels appear stranded in a no man's land, served by social networking and mobile phones, but not the aerial support and arms they require.
It is vital that Nato is more proactive both in the air and on the ground to break this current impasse. Critics of the Nato mission point out that during the 78 days of of the short, sharp Kosovo campaign, four times as many aircraft were used to conduct three times as many sorties in a country very much smaller.
In Libya, in contrast, Nato appears to be stuck in second gear while Obama's decision not to have the US participate in ground attacks has also had a negative impact. Last week, the House of Representatives prohibited the use of money for military operations in Libya, requiring an end to direct US combat, but it did allow finance for support operations such as surveillance and intelligence.
Nato is hampered and split. It is hampered because the terms of resolution 1973 do not permit it to arm Gaddafi's rebels. However, given the political will, it could provide more support on the ground and much more than the current few air sorties a day. It is split because while some Nato members have repeatedly said that enforcement action will end if "violence is stopped", others have also insisted that Gaddafi must go, not in the context of regime change, but as part of the remit to protect vulnerable Libyan citizens.
Russia now shares that view, in spite of its initial scepticism about the Nato action. David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy have the most to lose among Nato leaders if intervention in Libya is protracted – or collapses. Both say they refuse to consider a ceasefire that allows Gaddafi to remain.
He, as yet, appears disinclined to consider his own removal as "brother leader of the revolution". He still considers himself to be the only revolutionary force in town. He may calculate that if Nato fails to increase the pressure via aerial attacks and more "boot power" on the ground, and if the numbers of civilian deaths as a result of Nato bombing begin to rise, the alliance will fragment. The evidence that he has a point is already visible. Last Monday a Nato strike on a compound west of Tripoli killed 19 civilians, including women and children. Amr Moussa, the outgoing head of the Arab League, has added his voice to those calling for a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement with Gaddafi. "When I see children being killed," Moussa said, " I must have misgivings."'
Misgivings must also arise, however, if realpolitik results in a settlement that sees Libya divided, Gaddafi still in power with the power to destabilise the region and the lives of citizens who defied him once more at risk. David Cameron's response is that time is on the alliance's side: perhaps. That still requires Nato to abandon its limited, cautious, low-risk approach and flex far more of its muscle. If the Libyans are not to lose the opportunity to develop and establish a democratic government, one that has legitimacy and widespread support, then Nato must finish what it set out to do 100 days ago — and soon.
Olympic tickets: Got any spares?
The disappointments of the ballot have cast a shadow over what is already a major achievement
Your perception of whether the Olympic ticket ballot was fair will probably depend on whether you ended up with front row seats or whether, like the mum of double Olympic champion Bradley Wiggins, you got nothing at all. There have been PR embarrassments but was the ticketing system essentially unjust? The insistence that buyers could pay only using a Visa card was an unnecessary stipulation, a gift of exclusivity for a sponsor. One might also wonder if it were beyond the wit of the system's designers to ensure that tickets were more evenly spread. Some ended up with plenty; others none at all.
The ticket chaos has brought an air of disappointment to an otherwise impressive process. The site itself has been all but completed on time and on budget: Lord Coe and his team have managed to attract all their required sponsorship. And, as those of us fighting on Friday morning in our pyjamas to get ringside for the Greco-Roman can attest, the Games are pretty much sold out. Even if you are now set to watch it on TV, that looks a lot like an unlikely victory.
0 comments:
Post a Comment