⬛1️⃣ 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.
Aqui está a redação — Tema: BRICS & New world order — Padrão CACD/IRBr — 🏛️ B3GE™, no padrão premium B3GE™:
The BRICS grouping — comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—has drawn significant attention for its potential to reshape global governance and economic arrangements. Proponents argue that the bloc, representing a substantial portion of the world’s population and GDP, could play a decisive role in reforming international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and in implementing global agreements like the Paris Climate Convention. By pooling economic resources, political influence, and technological capacities, the BRICS could offer an alternative voice in a system historically dominated by Western powers.
Economically, BRICS nations already wield considerable weight. China and India are major engines of global growth, Russia commands energy resources critical to world markets, Brazil supplies agricultural commodities essential to global food security, and South Africa serves as a gateway to the African continent. Collectively, these countries could leverage trade, investment, and development initiatives to influence the rules of international finance and climate policy. The New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, BRICS’ flagship institutions, exemplify their ambition to provide alternatives to traditional Western-led financial mechanisms.
However, skeptics emphasize that BRICS is far from a cohesive entity. Each member pursues its own diplomatic and economic agenda. Strategic rivalries, divergent political systems, and differing priorities in international negotiations can hinder collective action. For instance, China’s growing global assertiveness sometimes conflicts with India’s regional interests, while Brazil and South Africa often prioritize domestic development over global leadership. Such disparities suggest that the bloc may struggle to exert unified influence or act as a coherent counterbalance in world affairs.
Recent geopolitical developments, nevertheless, create openings for BRICS to enhance its international role. The United States’ unpredictable policies under the Trump administration and the European Union’s internal challenges post-Brexit have temporarily weakened traditional centers of influence. This context may allow BRICS to negotiate greater representation in international forums, set alternative agendas on trade, finance, and climate, and strengthen multilateral cooperation among emerging economies.
In conclusion, while internal differences and separate national interests limit the BRICS’ ability to function as a fully cohesive power bloc, the combination of economic clout, demographic weight, and evolving global dynamics provides an opportunity for meaningful influence. By strategically coordinating policies and leveraging gaps left by traditional powers, BRICS has the potential to contribute to the creation of a more multipolar and balanced world order. Its impact will, however, depend on the willingness of its members to prioritize shared interests over individual agendas.
⬛2️⃣ Translate the following excerpt into Portuguese.
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).
🏛️ B3GE™ — Aqui está a tradução para o português no padrão CACD/IRBr, mantendo fidelidade ao estilo, clareza e riqueza lexical exigida para provas de tradução do CACD:
Houve humanos muito antes de haver história. Mas, por incontáveis gerações, eles não se destacaram entre a infinidade de outros organismos com os quais compartilhavam seus habitats. Em uma caminhada pela África Oriental, há cerca de 2 milhões de anos, seria bem possível encontrar um elenco familiar de personagens humanos: mães ansiosas aconchegando seus bebês e grupos de crianças despreocupadas brincando na lama; jovens temperamentais que se ressentiam das imposições da sociedade e anciãos exaustos que apenas desejavam ficar em paz; machos estufando o peito para impressionar a bela da região e sábias matriarcas que já tinham visto de tudo. Os humanos arcaicos amavam, brincavam, formavam amizades próximas e competiam por status e poder — mas chimpanzés, babuínos e elefantes faziam o mesmo. Não havia nada de especial nos humanos. Ninguém, e menos ainda os próprios humanos, tinha qualquer ideia de que seus descendentes um dia caminhariam na lua, decifrariam o código genético e escreveriam livros de história. O aspecto mais importante a saber sobre os humanos pré-históricos é que eles eram animais insignificantes, sem mais impacto sobre seu ambiente do que gorilas, vaga-lumes ou águas-vivas.
⬛3️⃣ Translate into English the following excerpt
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).
🏛️ B3GE™ — Aqui está a tradução do texto para inglês, no padrão CACD/IRBr, com atenção à fidelidade ao estilo, coesão e registro formal adequado para provas de versão da Diplomacia:
Who are we, the Brazilians, made up of so many and such diverse human contingents? Has the fusion of all these elements within us already been completed, is it still ongoing, or will it never be fully achieved? Are we doomed to remain forever a multicolored people, both racially and culturally? Is there any distinguishing characteristic of Brazilians as a nation, made up as it is by people who have come from everywhere? All these age-old questions have already found clear answers in concrete action.
It is within this field of forces that Brazil has made itself, so contrary to the Lusitanian project and so astonishing even to Brazilians themselves. Today, we have become what the Portuguese brought together here: both the bioracial bricks and the sociocultural mortar with which Brazil has been building itself.
Thus, although embarked upon an external project, we managed to assert ourselves by opposing that official design and resisting the intentions of the colonizer and his successors. By their will, the indigenous peoples, the Africans, and all of us, their mixed descendants, gathered by the colonial enterprise, would have remained in the role assigned to us: servants of the overseas empire, destined to produce exportable goods, never to become people with a destiny of our own.
⬛4️⃣ Write a summary in your own words of the following excerpt.
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).
🏛️ B3GE™ — Aqui está o RESUMO, no padrão CACD/IRBr, com atenção à fidelidade ao estilo, coesão e registro formal adequado para provas de versão da Diplomacia:
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.
In most Western countries, these changes have arrived when budgets cuts have been imposed on sources to finance soft power.
Comentários
Postar um comentário