Open Letter to Barack Obama

Dear President-elect Obama:

At a moment when we all recognize that we have to fundamentally change how we interact with the rest of the world, I would like the Obama administration to consider an opportunity to begin a long-term shift toward a more just form of international communication. English, in spite of its drawbacks, has become the de-facto international language. This distributes benefits to some (primarily global elites) and disadvantages everyone else. I believe it is in the interests of the United States to advocate for a different solution that will contribute to more equitable relationships among all peoples of the world.

English doesn't work very well as an international language. It's extremely complicated to master and requires many years of education. Only those non-native speakers with access to advanced education -- often by traveling to a country where English is spoken -- become truly fluent. Furthermore, due to its close association with the United States (and, historically, the colonialism of England) it will always represent a bitter pill to many countries.

The use of English as an international language does not clearly benefit the United States. It may save some money in reducing the amount of language learning required by our population, but it also produces unintended consequences. Our current language policy creates three classes of people in the world: those who speak some other language, those who natively speak English, and the global elites who can mediate between their native language and English. Those who speak some other language are worst off, cut off from international culture. We who speak English natively receive many benefits: we have access to the global culture without the need for additional education. The global elites, who have access to advanced education, can straddle their own culture and international culture. This gives them a privileged position to mediate between the two, which disadvantages both those who speak only their native language and native English speakers.

A more just system would put everyone on a level playing field. What is needed is a language which is easy to learn as a second language and which is not the national language of any country. Esperanto was designed to be this language and 100 years of use by its small, but active, community of speakers have shown it capable of fulfilling this role. It could not happen overnight: it would require a huge commitment for a decade to make the transition. We would need to train teachers, gain international consent on terminology, and establish legal foundations. But if the world could agree on a single language for definitive texts, it could reduce or eliminate the huge translation and language difference costs that the world bears. Francois Grin, studying language policy for Europe estimated the savings could be thousands of millions of dollars.

No other country could set in motion the steps necessary to bring this about. The economic hegemony of the United States currently extends to a linguistic hegemony in which the burden of learning English is shifted onto the rest of the world. We could choose to exercise leadership and assume our share of the costs of a just language policy. It would mean giving up the privileged position English enjoys in order to level the playing field among all countries. If we committed ourselves to addressing this injustice, I believe Europe, China, and the rest of the world could be persuaded to follow.

(Submitted to change.gov on Nov 25, 2008.)