Speaking a Different Language Than Everyone Else

I was reading the latest article in Embassy about Romeo Dallaire's response to the change in diplomatic language regarding child soldiers (or "children in armed conflict") and it got me thinking about the effect this might have on Canada's efforts on this issue and the other areas that received a "Harper-izing" of diplomatic language. If we start changing the language our diplomats can use from the language that is normally used by the majority of others in the international community, isn't the chance for communication failures greater? Why is it necessary for Canada to be using a different language from everyone else when talking about subjects that require a great deal of multilateral cooperation for any real progress to be made? Changing the language that diplomats are allowed to use makes confusion more likely and cooperation more difficult and timely.

The Harper government has maintained that the change in language was done in order to have Canada's diplomats using words that are more in line with the policies of the current government. Doesn't this then indicate that the priorities of the government of Canada are changing from the priorities of the rest of the international community? If, though, Canada's priorities in these areas are not different from everyone else then I would view the changes as creating more trouble than they are worth and likely problematic.

One interesting view considered by the article was that the change reflects an expansion of policy to consider more than just children who act as soldiers:

" 'Child soldiers' generally includes only youth and children who act as armed militants, while 'children in armed conflict' would theoretically encompass those used as porters, water carriers and in other support activities. It would also include girls and young women who are held as sex slaves or used to manage an operation's logistics. Essentially, it enlarges the definition to include those who participate in combat or are exploited by it, but aren't armed."

Now, I might be more inclined to believe that the change in language represented an expansion of the focus of the policies to account for a more inclusive definition if the Harper government had not been fighting efforts to repatriate Omar Khadr so vigourously. In my opinion Mr. Khadr falls under the subject of child soldier, but even if you disagree with that, he would definitely be counted as a child in armed conflict give the fact that he was a minor when captured. As such, it is clear from the actions of the Harper government that the change in language does not represent an expansion of term but merely more political games by the Conservative government.

- blenCOWe