Tax payers: Should we pay for the translation cost of United Nations ?

If you thinking why your money is insufficient for your consumption. I would like to advise your to think of the cost of translation in United Nations and its affiliates.



If these world bodies can use only ONE language, without the translation, your countries would pay less for the membership, and in short, your pocket would have more money the government would tax you lesser.

Certainly, this translation is neither benefit the six languages in the UN, whether you speak English or Chinese, you still need to be translated into other five languages.

Now, if you accept Esperanto as the world major language, then your pocket will be richer and your life is cheaper. Not only that your future generations or you, the brain will be better.

The United Nations should revisit its own calculations. It has just six official and two working languages. The task of translation here in Geneva, home to most UN organs, is thus decidedly simpler. The UN’s official languages are geographically diverse—combined, native speakers of Arabic, English, French, Mandarin, Russian and Spanish number over 2.2 billion. But the two working languages are bound to tradition. The persistence of French is attributed to its history as the “language of diplomacy”. In the hallways of the New York headquarters, English is (naturally) favored, and French is preferred in Geneva. Treaties registered with the United Nations Treaty Series are always translated into French and English. Documents are always provided in French and English. This city’s Geneva Conventions, written in equally authentic French and English versions, laid part of the groundwork for the international system.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/04/languages-diplomacy