Tony DeyalTHERE ARE different definitions of diplomacy, from the art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a rock to "the art of nearly deceiving all your friends but not quite deceiving all your enemies". Some definitions are more forthright. Diplomacy is "lying in state". K.M. Pannikar says, "If an ambassador says yes, it means perhaps; if he says perhaps, it means no; if he ever said no, he would cease to be an ambassador."
However, for most people, diplomacy is about linguistic obfuscation. While not a diplomat, but understanding the need to be diplomatic, a Professor at Lehigh University in the United States, Robert Thornton, has compiled something called LIAR or the Lexicon of Internationally Ambiguous Recommendations. He points out that writing the truth might get you in trouble if the contents are negative. Some good examples from the LIAR files include (to describe an inept person), "I enthusiastically recommend this candidate with no qualifications whatsoever." An ex-employee who had problems getting along with his co-workers, "I am pleased to say that this is a former colleague of mine." To describe an unproductive candidate, "I can assure you that no person would be better for the job" and for an applicant not worth considering: "I would urge you to waste no time in making this candidate an offer of employment."
George Washington, America's first President, and a man famous for not telling lies, was once asked by the French Revolutionist, Constantin Volney, for a letter of recommendation. Not wishing to offend the Frenchman, but also anxious to avoid controversy over the man's opinions, Washington wrote, "C. Volney needs no recommendation from Geo. Washington." My favourite recommendation is one that read simply, "If you have a berth in your organisation to give this gentleman, please make sure it is a wide one."
In addition to the problems of language, diplomats also face the complex task of understanding foreign concepts. At a United Nations cocktail party, the Mexican ambassador walked over to a group of his colleagues and asked, "Pardon me Excellencies, but what is your opinion of the meat shortage?"
The American ambassador scratched his head quizzically and asked, "What's a shortage?" The Indian ambassador asked, "What's meat?" And the Israeli ambassador demanded, "What's 'pardon me'?"
The recent and ongoing negotiations between the United States and China adequately demonstrate all the attributes, and attest to the appropriateness of all the definitions, of diplomacy and diplomats that can be found with one exception. It is that "a true diplomat is someone who can tell you to go to hell in a way that makes you look forward to the trip." The good news in the present scenario is that not even the American media were brash enough to ask the occupants of the spy plane upon their triumphant return to the United States, "Apart from that, how did you enjoy your trip to China?" The bad news is that the American Senate is brash enough to tell the Chinese "go to hell" but not "enjoy the trip." They are considering economic sanctions to China. Additionally, the Chinese, satisfied with an apology that was not strictly speaking the apology they wanted, are now demanding more than an apology.
According to Time Magazine, "if China and the US spoke the same language, the job of US and Chinese diplomats negotiating the text of a letter from Washington that would allow them to end the Hainan stand-off would have been a lot more difficult." The Chinese wanted the US to use the word 'daoqian', a formal apology that accepts blame. The US, considering itself blameless and fully prepared to resume the spy flights, did not even want to use 'shenbiao qianyi', a deep apology, for an incident it would be more inclined to blame on the other side.
Instead, the US twice used the English phrase "very sorry," first for the loss of the Chinese pilot, Wang Wei, and second for the failure of the pilot of the stricken EP-3 spy plane to seek verbal clearance for entering Chinese airspace and landing at Hainan. In the Chinese version of its letter, the US used 'wan xi' (deep sorrow and regret) over the missing pilot, 'feichang baoqian' (extremely sorry) for landing without permission, and 'feichang wanxi' (extreme sympathy) for Wang's family over their loss.
The Chinese media, however, translated the English version of the US letter into 'shenbiao qianyi' (deep expression of apology or regret) and has not printed the Chinese version.
While this is a case in which the language gap has worked for both parties, there are other examples in which it has not. The advertising slogan, 'Come alive with the Pepsi Generation' was translated into Chinese as, 'Pepsi brings back your dead ancestors'. The name of Pepsi's competitor, Coca-Cola, was first rendered as 'ke-kou-ke-la'.
Unfortunately, the company did not discover until after thousands of signs had been printed that, depending on the dialect, the phrase means 'bite the wax tadpole' or 'female horse stuffed with wax'. The Kentucky Fried Chicken slogan "finger-lickin' good" came out as "eat your fingers off". In one case, a businessman hired a young Chinese person to be in charge of supplies for the company. At the end of a week, all the foremen were complaining about the lack of materials.
The businessman went to the warehouse to find out why things weren't moving. As he walked into the warehouse, the young Chinese jumped up from behind a crate and yelled, "Supplise!"
Tony Deyal was last seen in a Chinese restaurant asking, "Why are Chinese fortune cookies written in English?" He also asked, "What do you call over 2,000 pounds of Chinese soup?" Won ton.
