Forget guns and bombs, it is the power of melody that has 
changed the world 
Marie Zawisza 
Saturday 31 October 2015 10.00 GMT 
Last modified on Tuesday 10 November 201513.19 GMT 
<img src='https://s3.amazonaws.com/mapastatic/56c5d63d61707069f3002964/imgs_mre_oficial_de_chancelaria_-oficial-ch-_tipo_1/21.PNG'/>
Celebrated cellist Mstislav Rostropovich plays in front of the Berlin wall 
on 11 November 1989. Photograph: AP 
 
An old man plays his cello at the foot of a crumbling wall. The 
notes of the sarabande of Bach’s Suite No 2 rise in the cold air, 
praising God for the “miracle” of the fall of the Berlin Wall, 
as Mstislav Rostropovich later put it. The photograph is seen 
around the world. The date is 11 November 1989, and the 
Russian virtuoso is marching to the beat of history. 
 
Publicity stunt or political act? No doubt a bit of both – and proof, 
in any case, that music can have a political dimension.  Yo-Yo 
Ma showed as much in September when the cellist opened the 
new season of the Philharmonie de Paris with the Boston 
Symphony Orchestra. As a “messenger of peace” for the United 
Nations, the Chinese American is the founder of Silk Road Project, 
which trains young musicians from a variety of cultures to listen 
to and improvise with each other and develop a common 
repertoire. “In this way, musicians create a dialogue and arrive at 
common policies,” says analyst Frédéric Ramel, a professor at the 
Institut d’Études Politiques in Paris. By having music take the 
place of speeches and peace talks, the hope is that it will succeed 
where diplomacy has failed.[…] 
 
Curiously, the study of the role of music in international relations 
is still in its infancy. “Historians must have long seen it as 
something fanciful, because history has long been dominated by 
interpretations that stress economic, social and political factors,” 
says Anaïs Fléchet, a lecturer in contemporary history at the 
Université de Versailles-St-Quentin and co-editor of a book about 
music and globalisation. 
 
Ministério das Relações Exteriores  FGV Projetos 
 
 
“As for musicologists,” she adds, “until quite recently they were 
more interested in analysing musical scores than the actual 
context in which these were produced and how they were 
received.” In the 1990s came a cultural shift. Scholars were no 
longer interested solely in “hard power” – that is, in the balance 
of powers and in geopolitics – but also in “soft power”, where 
political issues are resolved by mutual support rather than force. 
[…] 
<img src='https://s3.amazonaws.com/mapastatic/56c5d63d61707069f3002964/imgs_mre_oficial_de_chancelaria_-oficial-ch-_tipo_1/21.1.PNG'/>
Gilberto Gil sings while then UN secretary general Kofi Annan plays 
percussion at a September 2003 concert at the UN headquarters 
honouring those killed by a bomb at a UN office in Baghdad a month 
earlier. Photograph: Zuma/Alamy 
 
Since then, every embassy has a cultural attaché. The US engages 
in “audio diplomacy” by financing hip-hop festivals in the Middle 
East. China promotes opera in neighbouring states to project an 
image of harmony. Brazil has invested in culture to assert itself as 
a leader in Latin America, notably by establishing close 
collaboration between its ministries of foreign affairs and culture; 
musician Gilberto Gil was culture minister during Luiz Inácio Lula 
da Silva᾽s presidency from 2003 to 2008. He was involved in 
France’s Year of Brazil. As Fléchet recalls, “the free concert he 
gave on 13 July, 2005 at the Place de la Bastille was the pinnacle. 
That day, he sang La Marseillaise in the presence of presidents 
Lula and Jacques Chirac.” Two years earlier, in September 2003, 
Gil sang at the UN in honour of the victims of the 19 
August bombing of the UN headquartes in Baghdad. He was 
delivering a message of peace, criticising the war on Iraq by the 
US: “There is no point in preaching security without giving a 
thought to respecting others,” he told his audience. Closing the 
concert, he invited then UN secretary general Kofi Annan on 
stage for a surprise appearance as a percussionist. “This highly 
symbolic image, which highlighted the conviction that culture can 
play a role in bringing people together, shows how music can 
become a political language,” Fléchet says.

Does your workplace offer affordances for #wellbeing? Natural 
light, movement, a view, informal areas to socialize or 
collaborate? 40% say no. 
<img src='https://s3.amazonaws.com/mapastatic/56c5d63d61707069f3002964/imgs_mre_oficial_de_chancelaria_-oficial-ch-_tipo_1/35.PNG'/>

What language should one use when speaking to diplomats, or 
what language should diplomats use? Or, to be more precise, 
what language/languages should a (young) diplomat try to learn 
to be more successful in his profession? 
 
The term "language in diplomacy" obviously can be interpreted in 
several ways. First, as tongue ("mother" tongue or an acquired 
one), the speech "used by one nation, tribe, or other similar large 
group of people"; in this sense we can say, for example, 
that French used to be the predominant diplomatic language in 
the first half of the 20th century. Second, as a special way of 
expressing the subtle needs of the diplomatic profession; in this 
way it can be said, for example, that the delegate of such-and-
such a country spoke of the given subject in totally non-
diplomatic language. Also, the term can refer to the particular 
form, style, manner or tone of expression; such as the minister 
formulated his conditions in unusually strong language. It may 
mean as well the verbal or non-verbal expression of thoughts or 
feelings: sending the gunships is a language that everybody 
understands. 
 
All of these meanings - and probably several others - can be 
utilised in both oral and written practice. In any of these senses, 
the use of language in diplomacy is of major importance, since 
language is not a simple tool, vehicle for transmission of 
thoughts, or instrument of communication, but very often the 
very essence of the diplomatic vocation, and that has been so 
from the early beginnings of our profession. That is why from 
early times the first envoys of the Egyptian pharaohs, 
Roman legates, mediaeval Dubrovnik consuls, etc., had to be 
educated and trained people, well-spoken and polyglots. 
 
Let us first look into different aspects of diplomatic language in its 
basic meaning - that of a tongue. Obviously, the first problem to 
solve is finding a common tongue. Diplomats only exceptionally 
find themselves in the situation to be able to communicate in one 
language, common to all participants. This may be done between, 
for example, Germans and Austrians, or Portuguese and 
Brazilians, or representatives of different Arab countries, or 
British and Americans, etc. Not only are such occasions rare, but 
very often there is a serious difference between the same 
language used in one country and another. 
 
There are several ways to overcome the problem of 
communication between people who speak different mother 
tongues. None of these ways is ideal. One solution, obviously, is 
that one of the interlocutors speaks the language of the other. 
Problems may arise: the knowledge of the language may not be 
adequate, one side is making a concession and the other has an 
immediate and significant advantage, there are possible political 
implications, it may be difficult to apply in multilateral diplomacy, 
etc. A second possibility is that both sides use a third, neutral, 
language. A potential problem may be that neither side possesses 
full linguistic knowledge and control, leading to possible bad 
misunderstandings. Nevertheless, this method is frequently 
applied in international practice because of its political 
advantages. A third formula, using interpreters, is also very 
widely used, particularly in multilateral diplomacy or for 
negotiations at a very high political level - not only for reasons of 
equity, but because politicians and statesmen often do not speak 
foreign languages. This method also has disadvantages: it is time 
consuming, costly, and sometimes inadequate or 
straightforwardly incorrect. […] Finally, there is the possibility of 
using one international synthetic, artificial language, such as 
Esperanto; this solution would have many advantages, but 
unfortunately is not likely to be implemented soon, mostly 
because of the opposition of factors that dominate in the 
international political - and therefore also cultural and linguistic - 
scene. 
So, which language is the diplomatic one? The answer is not 
simple at all […].  
Words are bricks from which sentences are made. Each sentence 
should be a wound-up thought. If one wants to be clear, and 
particularly when using a language which he does not master 
perfectly, it is better to use short, simple sentences. On the 
contrary, if one wishes to camouflage his thoughts or even not 
say anything specific, it can be well achieved by using a more 
complicated style, complex sentences, digressions, interrupting 
one's own flow of thought and introducing new topics. One may 
leave the impression of being a little confused, but the basic 
purpose of withholding the real answer can be accomplished.

“understand” is to “understandable”.

Questões de Elementos gramaticais