A common international language/linguistic standard significantly improves cross-cultural communication, dialogue and understanding among the global community. A common world language would be very useful, and could be considered necessary, to manage and facilitate both the rapid globalization of the world and her issues, and the communications and information revolution. The world's most widely spoken languages – English, Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Portuguese, French – have and are playing this very beneficial role. Of these languages, the nearest language to a world language (by a substantial margin) is the English language. One may argue that the existing and growing global reach of the English language has permitted a choice for a common international language to be considered (let alone to be made). However, a common world language should not be mistaken or allowed to undermine or replace the world's linguistic diversity. That is to say, a common international language should be considered as "the added but common language" of the Earth's linguistically diverse peoples.
The world already has a common international language, English. Certain languages, such as french and invented languages such as Esperanto, Interlingua, Glosa and Volapuk, have or are resisting the choice of English by actively promoting their own language for common adoption. But these languages cannot be compared with the existing and growing strength of English language use throughout the world. To suggest another candidate for a world common language is impractical and counterproductive. From a practical, economic and ecological point of view, consider for instance, that currently more than half the EUs annual administration costs, or 30% to 35% of the total operating budget of the EU, is allocated for translation and interpretation of the Union's many official and several authorized languages.
It takes one united decision and less that one generation for a universal language to become reality.