On the 16th September a group called ‘Friends of Spanish in the UN' was officially established at the United Nations. It involves the representatives of the Spanish-speaking States, who reported, in a letter of intent sent in February to the Secretary General of the UN, feeling convinced, committed, inspired and encouraged in the task of promoting and preserving the use of Spanish, a universal language – as they put it – and a vehicle for peace and tolerance. In that letter, the Friends of the Spanish recalled that Spanish is one of the six official languages of the United Nations. Of course, they could also have pointed out, for example, that Spanish is, according to the latest data published by Ethnologue.com, the second most spoken native language in the world, after China and ahead of English. Or that, outside the borders of Spanish-speaking countries, Spanish has strengthened its position as a highly demanded language in constant expansion.

Today, October 12th, Columbus Day, the ‘Friends of Spanish' group joins the celebrations of the ‘Day of the Spanish language in the United Nations', which has equivalents for the other official UN languages (English, French, Chinese, Arabic and Russian). With these celebrations, the United Nations seeks to make it even more evident that the promotion of multilingualism is closely linked to respect for cultural diversity and the promotion of intercultural dialogue (A/65/488 report,  October 4, 2010). No need to look far to put a face and name to these abstract concepts:  the same UN website offers, without much effort, seventeen stories of people of about 10 nationalities praising the usefulness and stimulation of learning and teaching Spanish.

"The RAE distances itself from the offensive to enforce Spanish." "Enllaçats per la llengua describes the Wert law's equal treatment as unjust.". "Is Wert the good or the bad guy for his defense of Spanish?". It was also easy to find a handful of recent headlines that will undoubtedly transform the linguistic reality of Spain into a battlefield. And if I affirm, for example, in the midst of the gunshots, that I feel happy speaking one language or another, I automatically win the distrust – or worse, the hate – of people who prefer to speak another language.

It's easy to realise that this situation has little bearing on the real heartbeat of languages: on the verses and stories created, on the first words of those who learn from their parents, or on terms that are incorporated into or eventually disappear from languages. And this heartbeat doesn't keep pace with political or economic interests, because – quite simply – it transcends them. In other words, we cannot designate as enemies two or three or four languages which are fortunate enough to coexist and share words, references and values in the same territory. We should not prevent our children and grandchildren becoming perfectly bilingual or trilingual, or multilingual – the scientific evidence has always shown that the human brain is perfectly prepared for it. Attacking a language that is understood to be unfairly majoritarian (Spanish, perhaps?), is as bad and barbaric as trying to stunt the life of languages, which, by mere chance, among other things, were not disseminated or exported to a hundred or a thousand miles away.

If we return to the reasoning proposed by the UN (one celebrates the good health of his or her language because it is capable of living and dialoguing with others), does it not prove that some people defend their language using the wrong strategy? Would it not be more coherent to be friendly towards other languages in order to give a better life to our own? After all, every language – mine, my neighbors, even strangers' – was born for the purpose of uniting and communicating.