Opinion: The power — and peril — of language

Two humanitarian crises — an earthquake in Haiti and the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan — are playing out thousands of miles from each other. On the surface, they are very different tragedies. Yet, in one way, they are textbook examples of how language controls the world. The power of language is subtle. But when harnessed, it demands attention, asserting who wins, who loses, and who is left behind.

In Afghanistan, language was used for 20 years to support powerful and wealthy foreign forces. If not for the language assistance offered by highly skilled — albeit underpaid — local linguists, it would not have been possible to carry on humanitarian and military operations for two decades. Now, as the public gasps at horrific scenes at Kabul airport, there is newfound interest in aiding these linguists who face grave danger for having helped foreigners do their jobs.

In recent years, the U.S. drastically cut approvals of Special Immigrant Visas and many applicants to the U.S. — and other governments — waited more than two years for review and approval. Supporting letters from sympathetic troops sat in the inboxes of government officials year after year — never the right moment to move them forward.

Until, of course, it became too public that these governments were doing nothing to protect those who had quietly and dutifully protected their armed forces.

Now the words of appreciation and horror flow for the people whose words were, at times, all that stood between us and the “enemy” for 20 years. In yet another twist of fate, it is now the language skills of these professionals that will finally — hopefully — help them and their families escape the dangers presented by the new regime. Language has power.

Meanwhile, in Haiti, where the majority language is Haitian Creole, spoken by 95%of the population, and the next most widely understood language is French, powerful governments are again funding international agencies to provide rescue and recovery operations in English.

The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs situation report used by donors and international agencies to assess if and how they can support efforts, does not even mention the languages used by the people in need. In fact, it states that the language of operations is English.

Eleven years after the 2010 earthquake killed thousands and humanitarian chaos and corruption reigned in the aftermath, UNOCHA still could not bother to get the language right. And despite its public image as educator and communicator for marginalized populations, UNICEF makes no mention at all of the fact that the mother tongue of those children is Haitian Creole.

Those working directly with marginalized communities speaking languages other than English or French also have learned the power of language. Within the humanitarian sector’s communications and community engagement niche, there is now far greater understanding of language: Surveys are translated and attempts are made to communicate concepts more than just words. These efforts increase levels of trust and improve outcomes.

But in the 10 years I worked to integrate language into the humanitarian sector, there was never an attempt by those in power — those coordinating responses — to shift away from English or French.

It is shocking to walk into a well-funded international coordination meeting in Bengali-speaking Bangladesh, Amharic-speaking Ethiopia, or Swahili-speaking eastern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo and hear all communications — in English. Small steps would make a big difference and would, over time, put language in the center.

Humanitarians, governments, and intergovernmental bodies should commit globally to the protection of linguists in conflict zones. While linguists provide the bridge that makes communication possible in difficult settings, they have almost no protections as the Afghanistan crisis has shown.

The United Nations should work with the global language community to adopt a resolution to protect linguists in the same vein as Resolution 1738, passed in 2006, which condemns attacks on journalists. The Geneva Conventions governing armed conflict also should recognize the unique role of linguists, and intergovernmental guidelines on working with and working as a linguist in conflict situations should be developed.

More broadly in the humanitarian and development sectors, global terminologies should be adopted. Terminologies, which “translate” the concept of specialized words relating to a specific field — humanitarian/development, in this case — are a simple way to improve communications in crisis settings.

This would reduce confusion in local languages for concepts such as “protection,” “shelter,” “food security,” “rape,” and so much more. Terminologies should be agreed upon across agencies, be developed in written and audio form, and made available widely and openly as an app to all humanitarians and people working in crisis situations.

Humanitarian agencies, intergovernmental agencies and donor institutions should commit to a global language policy and make sure all staff understand this commitment. The policy should require plain language text for non-native speakers, commit to pay trained linguists for language skills, state that international responders have some skills in the language of those they are assisting, and pledge to conduct all local meetings first in the majority language of the locale, with the international responders having an interpreter as needed.

Donors should take further steps to accept grant applications in the language of the project or agency, include local-language criteria in evaluations of grant applications, and require that money be put aside for communication in the local language.

Finally, and crucially, humanitarians must raise their voices to support the digitization of language — the ultimate equalizer. When a language is available digitally, speakers of that language are able to use technology to convey ideas and gather information across languages.

Automatic machine translation tools are game changers in cross-language communications.

Making these tools useful to billions of people who do not speak a “world” language is extremely challenging, but as more and more people have computers or phones, the biggest barrier is the lack of data in these languages that are not considered “marketable” by tech companies. The humanitarian sector should push the tech industry to prioritize these languages. Starting now will ensure that speakers of these languages are not left further behind.

Language matters. It is time to give it more than lip service.