CESPE/UnB – 2009 – DIPLOMATA – CACD – WRITING EXAMINATION – LÍNGUA INGLESA – CONCURSO DE ADMISSÃO À CARREIRA DE DIPLOMATA.

Welcome back to another post!

➧ PROVA DE LÍNGUA INGLESA: CESPE/UnB-2009-DIPLOMATA-CACD-WRITING EXAMINATION.

➧ BANCA/ORGANIZADOR:http://www.cespe.unb.br/

➧ ESTRUTURA-WRITING EXAMINATION-2009:

➭ TRANSLATION (English/Portuguese) – 20 points.

- Text (3 parágrafos) – Intellectual exile:
expatriates and marginals. What is the proper role of the intellectual in today’s society?

➭ VERSION (Portuguese/English) – 15 points.

- Text (3 parágrafos) – A special Folha de São Paulo report on Sri Lanka.

➭ SUMMARY – 15 points.

-Text (16 parágrafos) – Open up.

➭ COMPOSITION – [Length: 400 to 450 words] – 50 points.

- Assunto (geral) – Introduction to World Migration 2008: managing labour mobility in the evolving global economy. .

- Tema (específico) – Discutir as principais questões envolvidas no debate político contemporâneo sobre migração.

➧ PROVA:

Translate into Portuguese the following excerpt adapted from Edward Said’s 1993 Reith Lecture

“Intellectual exile: expatriates and marginals. What is the proper role of the intellectual in today’s society?”             

Exile means being neither entirely at one with the new setting, nor fully disencumbered of the old; beset with half-involvements and half-detachments; nostalgic and sentimental yet equally a consummate mimic or secret outcast. Being adept at survival becomes the imperative, with the dangers of getting too comfortable and secure constituting a threat constantly to be guarded against.
            

Salim, the main character of V.S. Naipaul’s novel “A Bend in the River,” is an affecting instance of the modern intellectual in exile: an East African Muslim of Indian origin, he has left the coast and journeyed into the interior, where he survives precariously in a new state modelled on Mobutu's Zaire. Naipaul portrays Salim’s life at a 'bend in the river’ as a no-man’s-land, to which hail the European intellectual advisers (who succeed the idealistic missionaries of colonial times), as well as the assorted mercenaries, profiteers, and other Third World drifters in whose ambience Salim is forced to live, gradually forfeiting his property and integrity in the mounting confusion.
             

As the novel unravels, the natives themselves have become exiles in their own country, so preposterous and erratic are the whims of the ruler, Big Man, a symbol of all post-colonial regimes.

    Resposta                 

Exílio significa estar nem integrado por completo ao novo ambiente, tampouco totalmente desprendido do antigo; acometido de semi-envolvimentos e semi-destacamentos; nostálgico e sentimental, mas em igual medida um mímico contumaz ou um excluído secreto. A maestria na sobrevivência torna-se um imperativo, os perigos de acomodar-se e de tornar-se seguro demais constituindo uma ameaça contra a qual deve-se proteger constantemente.
           

Salim, o personagem principal do romance Uma curva no rio, de V. S. Naipaul, é um exemplo tocante do intelectual exilado moderno: muçulmano de origem indiana do leste africano, ele deixou o litoral e rumou ao interior, onde sobrevive precariamente em um Estado baseado no Zaire de Mobutu. Naipaul retrata a vida de Salim em uma “curva no rio” como uma terra de ninguém, para onde dirigem-se os conselheiros intelectuais europeus (sucessores dos missionários idealistas de épocas coloniais), bem como diversos mercenários, gananciosos e outros golpistas terceiro-mundistas em cuja companhia Salim é forçado a viver, gradualmente renunciando a suas propriedades e sua integridade no ambiente de crescente agitação.
            

Conforme o romance se desenvolve, os próprios nativos tornam-se exilados em seu próprio país, tão absurdos e erráticos são os desmandos do governante, Grande Homem, um símbolo de todos os regimes políticos pós-coloniais. 

Translate into English the following excerpt adapted from a special Folha de São Paulo report on Sri Lanka by Roberto Candelori published 18th May 2009:

O Sri Lanka vê-se diante de um conflito que já dura um quarto de século. Com uma população dividida entre cingaleses budistas (74%) e tâmeis de orientação hindu (18%), o antigo Ceilão tornou-se um "banho de sangue", segundo a ONU.
            

O país conquistou a independência dos britânicos em 1948, quando começou a implantação de políticas discriminatórias contra a minoria tâmil, que tivera lugar de destaque na administração colonial. Sucessivos governos baixaram leis que cercearam os direitos dos tâmeis ao impor-lhes o cingalês como língua oficial e restringir-lhes o acesso à educação superior e a cargos públicos.
            

Revoltados, os tâmeis passaram a reagir, exigindo a igualdade linguística, social e religiosa.
            

Em 25 anos de conflito, estima-se que tenham ocorrido até 100 mil mortes, e o futuro parece não menos assustador. Mais de 250 mil tâmeis encontram-se agora sob a mira dos fuzis e sob o silêncio da comunidade internacional. A ordem é atirar.

    Resposta     

Sri Lanka faces a conflict that has already been going on for a quarter of a century. With a population divided between Buddhist Singalis (74%) and Hindu Tamils (18%), former Ceylan has become a “blood bath”, according to the UN.

            

The country achieved its independence from the British in 1948, when it started the implementation of discriminatory measures against the Tamil minority which had occupied key positions in the colonial administration. Successive governments passed laws that curtailed Tamils' rights, by imposing Singali on them as an official language and denying them access to higher education and public offices.
           

The Tamils, outraged, began to fight back, demanding linguistic, social, and religious equality.
            

In 25 years of conflict, one hundred thousand deaths have been estimated, and the future seems no less dreadful. Over 250 thousand Tamils are now under guns' sights and under the silence of international society. The order is to shoot. 

Write a summary in your own words not over 200 words in length of the following excerpt adapted from “Open up,” an Economist special report on migration published 3rd January 2008.

Enoch Powell had a point. The radical British Conservative politician warned, nearly four decades ago, that immigrants were causing such strife that “like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood.” That proved to be nonsense, as did his advice that migrants should be encouraged to leave. Had they done so, Britain and other rich countries that depend heavily on foreign labour would be in a dreadful state. One prediction he made was spot on, however: that by about now, one in ten people in Britain would be migrants. At the last count in 2005, the foreign-born made up 9.7% of the British population.
            

By historical standards, that is high but consistent with that in other rich economies. In America the proportion is now about 13%, not far off the 15% peak reached shortly before World War I. What is particularly striking in Europe is that countries which had hitherto known only emigration, e.g. Ireland or Greece, now have an influx typical of countries like Australia and the U.S.
            

This special report argues that both emigration and immigration countries, as well as the migrants themselves, have been coping remarkably well with this new force reshaping our world. Yet ominous signs are emerging of a shrill backlash against immigration on both sides of the Atlantic.
            

Politicians may tinker with migration policies. They will certainly, under public pressure, pump extra resources and energy into building more fences and walls to keep foreigners out. By linking immigration to terrorism, they may even make their societies more fiercely policed. The basic forces driving migration, though, are unlikely to ebb.
            

Migrants move mainly for economic reasons. Most appear to do so legally. The number of illegal migrants is by definition hard to ascertain, but likely to be smaller than the legal sort. They probably comprise the bulk of those seen floating on rafts in the Mediterranean or scrabbling over the fence from Mexico to America. Others do not risk the high seas or physical borders, entering instead under some other guise, perhaps as tourists, and then staying on.
            

Lastly, there are refugees and asylum-seekers, strictly defined as those escaping persecution but often including anybody forced to flee, for example from a war. According to the UN's refugee agency, at the close of 2006 some 10m people fell under this category.
           

The number of migrants worldwide has been reckoned at 200m. That sounds a lot, but actually adds up to only 3% of the world's population, so there is ample potential for growth. Migration has proved a successful ploy for the world's poor to improve their lot. Nor is it the very poorest who travel, for money is required to travel overseas.
            

In the 100 years to 1920, brighter prospects encouraged some 60m Europeans to uproot and move to the New World. A European crossing the Atlantic could expect to double his income. Today the incentives are even more enticing. Those moving from a poor country to a rich one can expect to see their income rise fivefold. As long as such differentials persist, the draw will continue.
            

Demography too plays a big part. Not every migrant is bound for America or Europe: two in every five head for another poor or middle-income destination. Those aiming for the richest parts of the world, however, do their inhabitants a favour. Without them, the greying and increasingly choosy populations across the rich world would already be on the decline. That is paramount for their fast-changing economies, which consistently demand either highly skilled workers or those willing to do unpleasant and tiring jobs.

One reason why much of the world has enjoyed a sustained economic boom with low inflation in the past decade is that the effective global workforce is expanding apace. The IMF estimates it has quadrupled since 1980. In all likelihood it will continue to grow, though at a slower rate, with a 40% increase in the world's working-age population forecast by 2050. According to the UN, the global stock of migrants has more than doubled in four decades. Not enough young natives have the skills or motivation, so the rich must hope outsiders will keep coming.

            

And they will. Luckily for Europe and America, there are huge pools of workers eager to jump on the next plane, train or leaking raft to work abroad. This can prove beneficial for their countries of origin as well.
            

If exporting brawn generally makes sense for a poor country, letting its better brains drain away may not. Most poor and middle-income countries grapple with chronic shortages of skilled labour. Professionals in demand abroad are the hardest to keep at home. In fact, if the lure is strong enough, it is virtually impossible to block the exit of the highly skilled.
           

Rich countries are taking in more highly skilled migrants than ever before. Yet emigration of skilled workers may be a consequence rather than a cause of problems in the sending country. For example, nurses may be emigrating because their salaries are not being paid or because hospitals are crumbling; entrepreneurs may be relocating because the local business climate is wretched. Halting emigration - even if that were feasible - would not solve these problems. Nurses might still quit their jobs, would-be entrepreneurs might sit on their hands.
            

Indeed, some argue that emigration can actually enhance the stock of brainpower. Migrants spend longer studying, pick up more skills and experience, and may then return home. Remittances are often used to fund schooling. Moreover, the prospect of emigration and prosperity abroad may induce others to get an education. All this suggests that the consequences of emigration, albeit not negligible, are tricky to measure. Governments should thus endeavour to tackle the factors pushing their skilled professionals out. If émigrés can be enticed back home, even for short spells, so much the better.
            

Unfettered movement of capital and goods has made the world a far richer place while greater human mobility has not only created wealth but also helped share it out more evenly. The billions in remittances repatriated each year eloquently testify to that. The cost of keeping people out would be steep.
            

Nasty surprises are constantly sprung on us. Wars can suddenly displace millions, who may start out as refugees but frequently end up as migrants. Some claim that climate change may forcibly relocate tens of millions of people in the space of decades. Misguided policies, a backlash over terrorism or a failure to integrate migrants could all pose serious problems. Nonetheless, 40 years on, it seems clear that Mr Powell was utterly amiss in everything save his sums.

    Resposta     
Modelo 1:            

As Conservative politician Enoch Powell once predicted, migrants constitute nowadays one tenth of the entire British population, a rate comparable to that of other developed societies. Contrary to his expectations, however, violence has not ensued. Instead, migration has brought positive overall results to the persons and countries involved, including those formerly used to emigration which are now in the receiving end, such as Greece and Ireland.
            

While governments may adopt harsh migration policies, the phenomenon is too vigorous to be stopped. Migrants are mostly legal, though clandestine flows exist. They constitute roughly 200 million people, 10 million of whom are refugees or asylum-seekers.
            

Income inequalty and demographic growth are key factors. Migrants may earn five times as much when abroad; around 60% of them head to wealthy countries, thus helping overcome the trends towards populational decrease in these parts. This could be a problem for developing nations, but may turn out to be a blessing instead, since successful migrants may return home or repatriate their earnings.
            

It would be unwise to curtail migration, as it fosters global prosperity. Nevertheless, since unexpected tragedies may occur, it is crucial to promote sound integration measures. 

At the beginning of the 21st century, migration continues to loom large as a subject of media interest, of community preoccupation and of political controversy. Nevertheless, the discourse has evolved significantly in recent years, both in terms of substance and tone, and is now conducted with noticeably less acrimony than before and with much reduced levels of distrust between developed and developing countries. For instance, at [several recent high-level international conferences] participants were, in general, disposed to agree that migration holds considerable potential for economic and social development. At the same time, however, it was apparent that there is much more to be done before agreement can be reached on appropriate management strategies to be put in place, both nationally and on the international level, for that promise to be realized. The task of formulating a workable global approach to the management of international migration remains a formidable challenge, and one that will require both time and

effort over the coming years.

An extract from the Introduction to World Migration 2008: managing labour mobility in the

evolving global economy. Geneva: International Organization for Migration, 2008, p. 1.

Taking into account the points made above, discuss the main issues involved in the contemporary political debate on migration.

(Length: 350-400 words)

    Resposta     

Modelo 01:

Due to the persistent gap between industrialized and underdeveloped countries, migration remains a vital issue in contemporary world politics. As humanity evolves towards a near-consensus on the inevitability of this phenomenon and its potential to generate global progress, the topic gradually becomes less controversial. Notwithstanding this trend, numerous disagreements regarding migration policy still exist. The debate concerns three complex subjects above all others: the economic consequences of human mobility, the risks involved in terms of trafficking and terrorism, and the impact of migration upon national cultures and identities.
            

The economic side of migration, if examined through the lenses of sheer and cold rationality, would seen to be utterly simple: while some countries have a diminishing workforce, others can barely feed their ever-expanding population, so it would be logical to encourage human flows from the latter group of nations to the former. Unsurprisingly, the issue is not that straightforward. Not all developing states are willing to cede their best and brightest citizens, as they fear the impact of an unequal flux of skilled workers, the so-called brain drain. Conversely, some industrial countries do not feel they can accommodate every potential migrant. Hence, limits and quotas are often established.
            

Secondly, the security threats possibly linked to the increasing migration flows are manifold. As the United States painfully learned on September 11th, 2001, not all foreigners legally settled are harmless. Beyond terrorism, other risks may be ushered by the uncontrolled movement of humans, namely drug trafficking and the clandestine trade of arms and other goods. Even diseases, such as the swine flu from Mexico, can be transmitted freely through migration.
            

Last but not least, it is evident that the cultural features of some countries, such as their language, religion and habits, will be partially under pressure if and when large inflows of migrants arrive. This is a delicate issue in Europe, where it often leads to prejudice and even xenophobia. Two opposite sets of policies claim to offer the best solution in this sense: the British usually allow foreigners to gather and form their own separate communities, whereas the French prefer to assimilate all migrants by imposing the so-called “Republican values” upon them.
           

Whether we study it from the economic perspective, the security angle, or the cultural point of view, migration continues to raise concerns and generate opportunities. One thing is clear, though: no country or society will be able to design and implement sound migration policies without paying the utmost attention to the quintessential human values of tolerance, respect, and cooperation.