UNESCO sends a secret explanation on bilingualism

The recommendations disseminated by the United Nations in the field of minority education have resonated widely both in the domestic political environment and in the international community. Political parties are again positioning themselves as against the idea of bilingualism in schools, but UNESCO has sent some secret additional explanations to the Ministry of Education and Science.

UNESCO is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. So it is co-responsible for the content of the UN recommendations. When the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a statement at the beginning of March that “the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has published final conclusions on Latvia's report”, it did not generate any great interest. The UN conclusions have not yet been translated into Latvian, but the sections relating to the education of national minorities, i.e., Russian children, have been translated by Neatkarīgā with the help of a state-run translation site hugo.lv. And then the scandal broke out, because the text of the UN committee clearly recommends strengthening the bilingualism that still exists in Latvian schools. Here's the text, to remind you:

"Committee remains concerned that the recent amendments to the Education Law and the Cabinet Regulation No. 716 of 21 November 2018 have discriminatory effect on minority groups and that they create undue restrictions on teaching of and in minority languages in preschool and primary education in both public and private schools. (..) It also recommends that the State party consider revising its language policies and laws in education in order to promote the teaching of and teaching in minority languages and to ensure that they do not affect negatively the educational performance of children belonging to minority groups."

Why hide the document?

For some reason, the unofficial translation has alarmed the overseas sages who have provided this advice. Neatkarīgā's publication in English on how "The UN urges to restore the occupation regime education in Latvia" has become one of the most-read publications of Neatkarīgā in English, and an additional explanation has been sent to the Ministry of Education and Science on the recommendations provided by the UN. The press service of the Ministry acknowledges receiving such a document but refuses to give access to it. First of all, the publication of the UNESCO document should be coordinated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is perhaps something more sensitive in the explanatory document than in the recommendations themselves.

But for the time being, domestic politicians continue to position themselves on the issue of the language of education raised by the UN. Arvils Ašeradens, Chairman of the Education, Culture and Science Committee of the Saeima, representing the New Unity (Jaunā Vienotība), explains that he "does not see a call to return to bilingualism in the UN recommendation":

"After reading the text carefully, I did not really find any place anywhere where the concept of 'bilingualism' was mentioned and we were encouraged to return to it." In the opinion of the politician, there is no threat of the restoration of bilingualism in Latvia.

Although the recommendations explicitly call to review the language policy and "promote" teaching in minority languages. One can only rhetorically ask what it would be if not bilingualism in education, if the Russian language were in proportional balance with the Latvian language.

Dangerous recommendations for the domestic policy

It should be reminded that 30 years after the restoration of independence, Russian children still study mainly separately from Latvian children and are not provided with education in the state language. The percentage of education in the state language is increasing, but in essence minority children are still discriminated against. Until the 6th grade, only 50% of the lessons are taught in the state language, until the ninth grade - 20%, and until the 12th grade the subjects of language, culture and history are taught in Russian. And the UN recommendations call for a review of education policy so that this discrimination is exacerbated.

Arvils Ašeradens emphasizes that UN recommendations are not mandatory. The Ministry of Education also confirms that the state language policy will not be changed: the work of the UN is to worry, ours is to reassure. Meanwhile, it should be recalled, from another branch of the Ašeradens' party - the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - a different message has been sent:

"The concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are of a recommendatory nature, however, these recommendations are taken into account when developing the regulatory framework and legal policy planning documents." Thus, for the domestic policy if, for example, pro-Kremlin-oriented forces come to power, they can use such documents to set a new political agenda, namely, to expel the Latvian language from Russian schools.

The UN should replace its advisers

Some national conservative parties are aware of this risk. They have also published relevant posts. The Latvian Farmers' Union (Latvijas Zemnieku savienība) states that "The role of the state language in the existence of the nation must not be questioned." The party's statement makes an indirect reference to the circumstances in which the news of Russian discrimination in Latvia reached the UN. It was basically done by the organization МФПЧ Латвийский комитет по правам человека. And here's what the Farmers' Union thinks about it: “It is only normal for organizations with different views to make their recommendations, but organizations at the level of the UN need to assess all the consequences and the real situation in a country where everything seems to contradict the submitted accusations. (..) Latvia as a country has been tolerant of all minority language communities and their integration into everyday life.”

The National Alliance (Nacionālā apvienība) also emphasizes that weakening the position of the state language cannot be allowed. The news of the UN recommendations to review language policy and laws in the field of education came as an unpleasant surprise to the party:

"Latvian as the only state language is the core of our national identity and statehood. We have kept it through the ages because we were able not only to use our language, but also to fight for it and protect it. It is shameful that the struggle for the obvious is still relevant 31 years after the restoration of the country's independence. Those who long for Latvia to return to bilingualism won't see it happen even in their wildest dreams (..)”

The public discussions of the scandal shows that UN experts should in future be more careful about which advisers to listen to and which recommendations to disseminate.

Otherwise, the UN both discredits itself with such incompetence and unreasonably interferes in Latvia's domestic policy. It claims to care for minorities, but in fact, leads to the division of society and the strengthening of a bi-communal state. This is contrary to the ideals of peace declared by the UN.

*****

Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.