Diplomatic Practice – QUESTÕES DE CONCURSO PÚBLICOS – LÍNGUA INGLESA – http://www.inglesparaconcursos.blog.br/.

 Welcome back to another post!

➧ INSTRUÇÃO: Text to answer question 01.

What do politically minded visitors to a zoo feel when they stand in front of the panda bear’s cage? The previously cute panda may suddenly strike them as strange — there is an intuitive knowledge that this panda, constantly eating bamboo in front of a cheerful and amazed audience, is deeply charged with political agency.

Estrangement from the familiar is the start of every theory. Unfortunately, it was only recently that political scientists have embarked on exploring diplomacy systematically as a conceptual phenomenon, generating one unquestionable axiom: that of representation. As with any axiom, it is unprovable, but it is the taken-for-granted starting point for all further research: most scholars agree on the basic postulate that diplomacy is about people representing polities (most often a state) vis-à-vis another polity.

One should mention that the notion of political representation is a theoretical axiom applicable to all countries, but let us explore the example given by the panda bear and, consequently, by China a little further.

It is often correctly perceived that the speech of an accredited Chinese ambassador is attributable to the Chinese government. It is “China” who spoke, not (just) the individual person. This is the basis of representation. But what is often forgotten is how non-human material can represent polities — they are also diplomats, but mute.

It may sound ridiculous, if not provocative, to posit that the panda bear in the zoo is China. But this is merely an extension of the basic premise of diplomatic theory. Why should only human individuals be able to represent a state? In periods of conflict, flags (material objects) are burnt, walls are erected, monuments torn down; in times of better political mood, heads of states exchange precious gifts with each other, while embassy buildings in foreign countries enjoy a “sacred” legal status. Flags, walls, monuments, gifts, and the embassies re-present, i.e. “bring into presence,” a country, and actions toward these objects address the states they represent.

And there are good grounds for sensing a foreign policy tool in the giant pandas that now reside in zoos all over the world. They prominently embody China’s modern public diplomacy; they are non-human material deliberately deployed by the Chinese government to the soil of other states; and they have, at times, served as the primary means of expressing inter-state sentiment — during times of both conflict and cooperation —, in instances of the so-called “panda diplomacy”.

Andreas Pacher. The Diplomat. Nov./2017.

Internet: <https://thediplomat.com> (adapted)

01 – (CESPE/CEBRASPE-2018-DIPLOMATA-CACD-1ªFASE)

Decide whether the following statements are right (C) or wrong (E) according to text II.

1 The author starts his text by mentioning people who stand apart from most because of their understanding of the political implications which may arise from the presence of panda bears in countries other than China.

2 The passage “The previously cute panda may suddenly strike them as strange” (R.2 and 3) indicates that people may become aware that panda bears kept outside China can be signs of international political forces.

3 One can correctly infer from the text that the author is against the exploitation of animals for political or diplomatic ends.

4 The view on representation expressed by the author is broader and more flexible than the one which considers that “diplomacy is about people representing polities” (R.14).

__Gabarito:  XCEC__