Postagens
www.inglesparaconcursos.blog.br
❑ PROVA DE LÍNGUA INGLESA:
• CESPE/UnB/CEBRASPE-2018-DIPLOMATA-CACD-WRITING EXAMINATION.
cespe.unb.br
cebraspe.org.br
❑ ESTRUTURA-PROVA:
• COMPOSITION – | Why the World Went to War. | Extensão: 400 a 450 palavras | 50 points |
• TRANSLATION (Eng./Port.) – | Moby Dick | 20 points |
• VERSION (Port./Eng) – | Raízes do Brasil | 15 points |
• SUMMARY – | Diplomacy in the digital age | 15 points |
❑ PROVA:
❑ REDAÇÃO:
Read the following texts carefully.
When the statesmen who took Europe to war in 1914 came to write their memoirs, they agreed on
one thing: that war had been inevitable — the result of such vast historical forces that no human agency
could have prevented it. “The nations slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war,” wrote David
Lloyd George in a famous passage in his War Memoirs. Nor was this the only metaphor he employed to
convey the vast, impersonal forces at work...
Niall Ferguson. Why the World Went to War.
Penguin, 2005, p. 1 (adapted).
In light of the quote above, comment on the conclusion the statesmen had come to, regarding the inevitability of the First World War.
Mention and explain some of the circumstances that induced them individually to arrive at such a common judgement.
Extensão: 400 a 450 palavras
[valor: 50,00 pontos]
❑ TRADUÇÃO 1:
Translate the following excerpt into Portuguese.
[valor: 20,00 pontos]
Consider the subtleness of the sea; how its most dreaded creatures glide under water, unapparent
for the most part, and treacherously hidden beneath the loveliest tints of azure. Consider also the devilish
brilliance and beauty of many of its most remorseless tribes, as the dainty embellished shape of many
species of sharks. Consider, once more, the universal cannibalism of the sea; all whose creatures prey upon
each other, carrying on the eternal war since the world began. Consider all this; and then turn to this green,
gentle, and most docile earth; consider them both, the sea and the land; and do you not find a strange
analogy to something in yourself? For as this appalling ocean surrounds the verdant land, so in the soul of
man there lies one insular Tahiti, full of peace and joy, but surrounded by all the horrors of the half-known
life. God keep thee! Push not off from that isle, thou canst never return!
Herman Melville. Moby Dick.
Penguin books, 1994 (adapted).
❑ TRADUÇÃO 2:
Translate the following excerpt into English.
[valor: 15,00 pontos]
Nenhum povo está mais distante dessa noção ritualista da vida do que o brasileiro. Nossa forma
ordinária de relações sociais é fundamentalmente o oposto de polidez. Ela pode iludir na aparência, e isso
se explica pelo fato de a atitude polida consistir precisamente em uma espécie de mímica deliberada de
manifestações que são espontâneas no “homem cordial”; é a forma natural e viva convertida em fórmula.
Além disso a polidez é, de algum modo, uma organização da defesa ante a sociedade. Está na parte exterior,
superficial do indivíduo, podendo mesmo servir, quando necessário, de meio de resistência. Equivale a um
disfarce que permitirá a cada um de nós preservar intatas nossa sensibilidade e emoções.
Por meio de semelhante padronização das formas exteriores da cordialidade, que não precisam ser
legítimas para se manifestarem, revela-se um decisivo triunfo do espírito. Armado dessa máscara, o indivíduo
mantém sua supremacia ante a sociedade. Com efeito, a polidez implica uma presença contínua e soberana
do indivíduo.
Sérgio Buarque de Holanda.
Raízes do Brasil. 26.ª ed. São Paulo:
Companhia das Letras, 1995, p. 147
(com adaptações).
❑ RESUMO:
Write a summary in your own words (280 minimum to 400 maximum) of the following text.
[valor: 15,00 pontos]
People have huge amounts of information to deal with. How do you do this as diplomats? Do you
keep it close to your chest? Does information mean power? Or do you share the information with the
network in which you are increasingly operating? The playing field is changing very rapidly, partly as a result
of digitalisation.
Operating in a network
I used to tell my students that 90% of diplomatic information was in the public domain, but the figure
is even higher now. Of course, confidentiality, and even secrecy, are important in diplomacy, particularly
when it comes to matters like peace and security. However, diplomatic success depends increasingly
on collaboration with others. Collaboration takes place in networks, which are becoming increasingly digital.
The rules are not the same as in your own diplomatic circles, where you know roughly how your counterparts
work, whatever country they come from. In a network you are not merely an official representative of
a government; what defines you more is probably the information you bring to the network. That kind
of added value is what people are judged on. That is what you are worth. It is a changing playing field
through which information now flows much faster, via your network. And that network is what you rely on.
Role of social media
Everyone immediately thinks of people like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi or US President
Barack Obama, who practise “Twiplomacy” — diplomacy via Twitter. Social media make things more personal
and bring people who traditionally operate in the shadows into the limelight, giving an ambassador a face.
You can find out what they are doing by following them on their social media account. People also get more
“digital personality”. You can be sure that political leaders are cultivating this quite carefully.
It’s still the early days. Institutions and individuals still have to adjust and find their voice in the
digital age. They are wondering what exactly to do on Twitter. What should they say? A personal note must
also serve their professional goals. My opinion is that, in reality, diplomats, who have always been quite
focused on their own professional group, might continue in the same vein on social media. Meanwhile,
it is important to remember that there are different ways of using social media. We often assume that
you interact with those around you on social media. You make sure you tweet every day, you join
the conversation. But diplomats also use it passively, following what’s happening. It’s a useful tool that
allows you to discover things you might not otherwise find, or at least not as quickly. So, in fact you see
a conservative diplomat using new media on a new information playing field in the same way as
an intelligence officer.
Fine to make mistakes
The motto at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs used to be “Call DVL!”, the former Information
and Communication Department. Wherever you were and whatever happened, if you were approached by the
media, you just had to say “Call DVL!”. But that’s all ancient history. The information environment is much
more open now, and the people at the embassies have much more freedom to take the initiative. They need
background material to give their own account. In this age of social media, we accept that people might
make mistakes, and then simply admit it. That’s new. It used to be f atal f or your career if you made
a mistake. That created a professional culture in which the approach to providing information was
extremely conservative. This is all changing, things are gradually becoming more open. The question is
no longer “What can we release?”, but “What do we really need to keep secret?”. An essential difference.
New winners
Excellence in terms of responding to the digital environment is partly the preserve of the
“usual suspects”, like the US and the UK. But Estonia, India, Kosovo and tech champions like South Korea
are also responding well. All aspects of diplomatic work can benefit: searching for information, collaborating
with others, explaining what you do, negotiating, how open you can be with the outside world. This question
of information is increasingly important. Digitisation is also about the modernisation of diplomacy, becoming
more experimental, seeing the network more as the starting point. Questions about digitalisation will then
automatically find their way onto the agenda. There are in fact only a few countries that take a holistic view.
Digital transformation is a trend in the business world, but it is much less so in the public sector. The reality
is that many countries simply do not have the capacity. You can perform a conceptual analysis of the impact
of big data, but that is only the start of the challenge. It is also a matter of focus. Like in Estonia and Kosovo,
where they are thinking creatively about how communications technology and digital technology can
help them achieve what they want with few resources.
Jan Melissen.
Diplomacy in the digital age:
More than Twiplomacy.
May/2016. Internet: (adapted).
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário