Postagens
Welcome back to another post!
➧ PROVA DE LÍNGUA INGLESA: CESPE/CEBRASPE-2017-DIPLOMATA-CACD-WRITING EXAMINATION.
➧ BANCA/ORGANIZADOR: https://www.cebraspe.org.br/
➧ ESTRUTURA-WRITING EXAMINATION-2017:
➭ COMPOSITION – Length: 400 to 450 words – 50 points.
- Assunto (geral) – O impacto da presidência de Trump, o enfraquecimento da União Europeia pós-Brexit e as novas perspectivas para os BRICS.
- Tema (específico) – Discutir se os BRICS podem contribuir para a criação de uma nova ordem mundial.
➭ TRANSLATION (English/Portuguese) – 20 points.
- Text (1 parágrafo) - Sapiens || Literatura.
➭ VERSION (Portuguese/English) – 15 points.
- Text (3 parágrafos) - O povo brasileiro — A formação e o sentido do Brasil. || Literatura.
➭ SUMMARY – 15 points.
-Text (11 parágrafos) - Why does soft power matter?
➭ PROVA:
Many commentators are of the opinion that this grouping of five large and populous emerging nations has the potential to influence the international system, as regards for instance the reform of the International Monetary Fund and the implementation of the Paris Convention. Others, however, point out that Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa have their own separate diplomatic agendas, and that their differences will always make it impossible for the group to become a real force in world affairs. Nevertheless, the impact of the Trump presidency and the weakening of the post-Brexit European Union may open new perspectives for the BRICS.
In the light of the different opinions presented above, discuss if the BRICS can contribute to create a new world order.
[Length: 400 to 450 words]
[value: 50,00 marks]
Translate the following excerpt into Portuguese.
[value: 20,00 marks]
There were humans long before there was history. But for countless generations they did not stand out from the myriad other organisms with which they shared their habitats. On a hike in East Africa 2 million years ago, you might well have encountered a familiar cast of human characters: anxious mothers cuddling their babies and clutches of carefree children playing in the mud; temperamental youths chafing against the dictates of society and weary elders who just wanted to be left in peace; chest-thumping machos trying to impress the local beauty and wise old matriarchs who had already seen it all. Archaic humans loved, played, formed close friendships and competed for status and power — but so did chimpanzees, baboons and elephants. There was nothing special about humans. Nobody, least of all humans themselves, had any inkling that their descendants would one day walk on the moon, fathom the genetic code and write history books. The most important thing to know about prehistoric humans is that they were insignificant animals with no more impact on their environment than gorillas, fireflies or jellyfish.
Yuval Noah Harari. Sapiens. Harper, 2015 (adapted).
TRADUÇÃO LIVRE SUGERIDA:
Havia seres humanos bem antes de haver história. Entretanto, por incontáveis gerações, eles não se distinguiam do enorme número de outros organismos com os quais partilhavam seus habitats. Em uma caminhada pela África Oriental dois milhões de anos atrás, você provavelmente encontraria um elenco bem conhecido de personagens humanos: mães ansiosas abraçando e acariciando seus bebês, e bandos de crianças despreocupadas brincando na lama; jovens temperamentais irritando-se com os preceitos da sociedade, e anciãos cansados que apenas queriam ser deixados em paz; machos que batiam no peito tentando impressionar a beldade local, e velhas e sábias matriarcas que já tinham visto de tudo no mundo. Àquela altura, seres humanos arcaicos amavam, brincavam, criavam amizades íntimas e competiam por status e poder — mas assim também o faziam os chimpanzés, os babuínos e os elefantes. Nada havia de especial com relação aos seres humanos. Ninguém, muito menos os próprios seres humanos, tinha a mais vaga ideia de que seus descendentes um dia caminhariam na lua, compreenderiam o código genético e escreveriam livros de história. A coisa mais importante a se saber sobre os seres humanos pré-históricos é que eram animais insignificantes, que não causavam maior impacto sobre seu meio ambiente que gorilas, pirilampos e águas-vivas.
Translate into English the following excerpt.
[value: 15,00 marks]
Quem somos nós, os brasileiros, feitos de tantos e tão variados contingentes humanos? A fusão deles todos em nós já se completou, está em curso, ou jamais se concluirá? Estaremos condenados a ser para sempre um povo multicolorido no plano racial e no cultural? Haverá alguma característica distintiva dos brasileiros como povo, feito que está por gente vinda de toda parte? Todas estas arguições seculares têm já resposta clara encontrada na ação concreta.
Nesse campo de forças é que o Brasil se fez a si mesmo, tão oposto ao projeto lusitano e tão surpreendente para os próprios brasileiros. Hoje nos tornamos o que os lusos aqui nos juntaram, tanto os tijolos biorraciais como as argamassas socioculturais com que o Brasil vem-se fazendo.
Assim é que, embora embarcados num projeto alheio, nos viabilizamos ao nos afirmar contra aquele projeto oficial e ao nos opor aos desígnios do colonizador e de seus sucessores. Pela vontade deles, os índios, os negros e todos nós, mestiços deles, arrebanhados pela empresa colonial, prosseguiríamos na função que nos foi prescrita de serviçais de ultramar, destinados a produzir mercadoria exportável, sem jamais chegar a ser gente com destino próprio.
Darcy Ribeiro.
O povo brasileiro — A formação e o sentido doBrasil.
São Paulo:Companhia das Letras, 1995, p. 246-7
(com adaptações).
TRADUÇÃO LIVRE SUGERIDA:Who are we, Brazilians, originated from many and varied human groups? Has the fusion/mixing of them all in us already finished, is it still taking place, or will it never cease? Are we forever destined/meant to be both a racially and culturally multi-coloured people? (or: Is it our ultimate fate to be both a racially and culturally multi-coloured people?) Will there be a distinctive feature of Brazilians as a separate people since we came from/originated from people coming from all parts of the world? (or: Since we came from peoples from all over the world, will there be a singular feature that distinguishes us as an individual/separate people?) All these centuries-old questions have already a clear answer based on reality/direct action.
It was in this set of circumstances/state of affairs/framework that Brazil shaped itself, in direct/effective opposition/in open defiance to the Portuguese project and to Brazilians’ great astonishment. Nowadays we constitute/have become what the Portuguese here joined together/brought together — not only the bioracial bricks but also the sociocultural mortar out of which/with which Brazil has been creating/shaping itself.
Therefore, even if we embarked on a project that was not of our own (making), we asserted ourselves/we became a real people/found our identity/we materialized as a people in defiance of/as a resistance to/in opposition to that official project, as we opposed the plans of both colonizers and their heirs/successors. If it were for their desires / wishes / If it depended on them, Indians, blacks and all of us, their mestizo/half-breed children who had been rounded up by the colonial enterprise, would go on playing the role that had been assigned to us as overseas labourers meant to produce goods/commodities, never managing to become a people, masters of its own destiny.
Write a summary in your own words of the following excerpt.
[value: 15,00 marks]
The growing weight and importance given to the concept of soft power is a natural response to a rapidly changing global context. While it is hardly a new insight, it remains true that global geo- politics are in the midst of a fundamental transformation, throwing up a host of new challenges for leaders, policy makers, and diplomats. In terms of the importance of soft power, this shifting landscape is being driven by two megatrends. The first is the rise of networks as the driving force in global affairs. The second, and closely related trend, is the digital revolution, which means world events — large and small — increasingly play out online.
There are three main factors that are driving global affairs away from bilateral diplomacy and hierarchies and toward a much more complex world of networks. The first factor is the rapid diffusion of power between states. This century has seen the start of the global centre of economic and political power transfer from West to East. Whether it is the BRICS or whatever trendy acronym might come next, the “rise of the rest” has helped create a genuinely multi-polar world.
We have also seen the erosion of traditional power hierarchies. The nation state is no longer the only relevant actor in global affairs. At the same time power is moving from West to East, it is also shifting away from states altogether, as non-state actors — NGOs, multi-lateral organisations, corporations, civil society groups or even individuals — play increasingly significant roles and wield greater influence in world affairs.
The third agent of transformation is the mass urbanisation of the world's population. Only in the last few years has human history reached a point where the majority of people around the world live in cities. This trend will continue with the proportion of urban dwellers rising ever higher. Global urbanisation has implications for how information is shared, the diffusion of technology, cross-pollination of ideas, innovation, and the development of political movements. Moreover, cities themselves are becoming more assertive global actors in their own right. This trend challenges the primacy of the nation-state as the sole government actor in international relations. The rise of the city presents opportunities, but also illustrates the drift of power away from the nation state.
With more actors crowding the world stage and vying for influence, networks offer a means to coordinate interests, pool resources, and ultimately shape global outcomes. Border-spanning networks may comprise a diverse set of actors, drawing together governments and a range of non-government actors. They may form to tackle complex collective-action problems like climate change, or take up single issues like ending sexual violence in conflict zones. The life-span of such networks will vary by issue, but the speed with which they form and the ease with which they can now coordinate has made them a major factor in driving global change.
The second interlinked megatrend driving global change is that the world increasingly lives online. There are now over three billion internet users across the world, nearly half of the global population. Millions of transactions take place online every day, with news and entertainment increasingly delivered via web-based channels. More of day-to-day life has gone digital. There are now over two billion active social media accounts.
The growth in computing power, the speed with which information is disseminated around the globe, and the spread of the smartphone has transformed the way information is shared. The subsequent democratisation of access to information has created a more informed — and increasingly activist — global public. The combined effects of rapid technological advances on global events have been demonstrated in the Arab Spring, the rise of Wikileaks, the #Occupy movement, citizen-journalism, and even the #BringBackOurGirls campaign. The rapid movement of information across borders, and the proliferation of platforms to share that information, has made individuals more powerful than they have been at any point in history.
One important aspect of the digital world has been difficult for many heads of government, foreign ministries, and over-zealous state broadcasters to accept: propaganda as we know it is dead. Governments and their various interlocutors no longer have the luxury of offering domestic audiences one message whilst feeding another to the international community. Moreover, any discrepancy between a country's international messaging and its corresponding conduct is leapt on by media, governments, pressure groups, and individuals. With information speeding across borders, the inconsistencies between a state's policy and messaging are more conspicuous. In today's networked world of instant information, global publics are smarter, more engaged, and likely to dismiss propaganda when they see it.
Rather than maximising the opportunities this provides for genuine dialogue, we have unfortunately seen some governments respond to the threat to propaganda by creating a state-backed "troll army". The practice of employing people to create fake social media accounts to both harass dissenting opinion and try to shape debate on digital platforms is receiving increasing attention in Western media. There has, however, yet to be a comprehensive assessment of the effect such practices have on their target audiences.
For most Western governments, these two megatrends — and the challenges they present — have come at a time when the resources available to adapt to them have been reduced. Foreign ministries have not managed to avoid deep spending cuts as governments struggle to get their public finances back under control.
There have been considerable fund reductions in the budgets of public institutions that play a role in generating and projecting their country's soft power. This is worrying as the above trends will make the tools and approaches of soft power more, not less, important to achieving foreign policy objectives. Reducing soft power capabilities at a time when they are increasingly critical to achieving both security and prosperity objectives may well prove to be a false economy.
Jonathan McClory. Why does soft power matter?
In: The Soft Power 30 Report, p. 11-2 (adapted).
RESUMO SUGERIDO:
Soft power is becoming more important due to two related trends: the growing relevance of networks for global affairs, and the so-called digital revolution.
Global networking is explained by three factors. Firstly, there is the diffusion of power between states, which leads to the distribution of economic and political power among a larger number of countries.
Secondly, traditionally accepted hierarchies of power have been challenged, as power is shifting from West to East and non-state actors have started playing more active roles in world affairs.
The third factor leading to a greater relevance of networks is the process of urbanisation around the world, a phenomenon which means more information, technology and political ideas being shared in new ways. As a result, cities are also becoming a more relevant force in international relations.
By its turn, the digital trend is explained by the fact that more people and institutions go online for an increasing number of reasons. This is also true for governments, non-governmental organisations and multilateral organisations. Besides, the democratisation of access to information has created a more informed and powerful public. This has made it more difficult for governments to behave internally in a way that differs from what is conveyed by the messages they send to the international
community.
community.
In most Western countries, these changes have arrived when budgets cuts have been imposed on sources to finance soft power.
