Inglês — CACD 2019

Text 6 1  Since 1914 the structure of the world has changed. Compared to the present struggle between West and East, the rivalries of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries sink 4 into insignificance. Today we are faced, not with a clash of interests, but with a fight between the desire on the one hand to defend individual liberties and the resolve on the other 7 hand to impose a mass religion. In the process the old standards, conventions and methods of international negotiation have been discredited. Had it not been for the 10 invention of the atomic bomb, we should already have been subjected to a third world war.  Members of the Communist bloc today are 13 convinced that sooner or later they will acquire world dominion and will succeed in imposing their faith and their authority over the whole earth. They strain towards this 16 objective with religious intensity and are prepared to devote to its achievement their lives, their comfort and their prospects of happiness. Anything that furthers their purpose 19 is “right”; anything that obstructs it is “wrong”; conventional morality, even the creation of confidence, has no part in this scheme of things. Truth itself has lost its 22 significance. Compared to the shining truth of their gospel, all minor forms of veracity are merely bourgeois inhibitions. The old diplomacy was based upon the creation of 25 confidence, the acquisition of credit. The modern diplomat must realize that he can no longer rely on the old system of trust; he must accept the fact that his antagonists will not 28 hesitate to falsify facts and that they feel no shame if their duplicity be exposed. The old currency has been withdrawn from circulation; we are dealing in a new coinage. 31  This transformation of values has been aided by a new or “democratic” conception of international relations. In the old days the conduct of foreign affairs was entrusted to a 34 small international élite who shared the same sort of background and who desired to preserve the same sort of world. Today the masses are expected to take an interest in 37 foreign affairs, to know the details of current controversies, to come to their own conclusions, and to render these conclusions effective through press and parliament. At the 40 same time, however, current issues have been rendered complex and interconnected; it is not possible to state issues, such as the Common Market, in short and simple terms. 43 Thus, whereas the man in the street is expected to have an opinion on international problems, the very complexity of these problems has rendered it difficult to provide him with 46 the information on which to base his judgment.

Text 7  Towards a fairer distribution 1  Translation and interpretation in matters of diplomacy is tricky. Language enthusiasts particularly enjoy the story of the Treaty of Wuchale, signed between Ethiopia and Italy 4 in 1889. The text didn’t read the same in Amharic and Italian. The former guaranteed Ethiopia’s king Menelik II a good measure of autonomy in conducting foreign affairs. 7 The latter established an Italian protectorate with no flexibility. The culprit: one verb, forming a permissive clause in Amharic and a mandatory one in Italian. Six years 10 later, the differing interpretations led to war. Ethiopia won.  If only the Ethiopians and Italians had modern translators at their side. Treaty translation is big business 13 today. The European Union, for example, spends an estimated €300m annually on translating between its 23 official languages. (While this is a big chunk of money, it’s 16 less than 1% of the EU’s annual budget.) Three of those— English, French, and German—are working languages in most meetings. In reality, English is most commonly used. 19 But because each document must be faithfully recreated in each of the EU’s 23 languages, creating authentic versions can be expensive and time-consuming. Thankfully, most 22 problems are dealt with in procès-verbal, a way to introduce technical corrections to treaties without revisiting negotiations. It might still delay matters. Last year, for 25 example, Ireland’s ratification of an EU treaty was delayed by grammatical errors in the Irish version. There are obvious trade-offs to language equality, but the EU has calculated 28 that the delays and costs are worth it.  The United Nations should revisit its own calculations. It has just six official and two working languages. The task 31 of translation here in Geneva, home to most UN organs, is thus decidedly simpler. The UN’s official languages are geographically diverse—combined, native speakers of 34 Arabic, English, French, Mandarin, Russian and Spanish number over 2.2 billion. But the two working languages are bound to tradition. The persistence of French is attributed to 37 its history as the “language of diplomacy”. In the hallways of the New York headquarters, English is (naturally) favored, and French is preferred in Geneva. Treaties 40 registered with the United Nations Treaty Series are always translated into French and English. Documents are always provided in French and English. This city’s Geneva 43 Conventions, written in equally authentic French and English versions, laid part of the groundwork for the 45 international system.

Text 8

Text 7  Towards a fairer distribution 1  Translation and interpretation in matters of diplomacy is tricky. Language enthusiasts particularly enjoy the story of the Treaty of Wuchale, signed between Ethiopia and Italy 4 in 1889. The text didn’t read the same in Amharic and Italian. The former guaranteed Ethiopia’s king Menelik II a good measure of autonomy in conducting foreign affairs. 7 The latter established an Italian protectorate with no flexibility. The culprit: one verb, forming a permissive clause in Amharic and a mandatory one in Italian. Six years 10 later, the differing interpretations led to war. Ethiopia won.  If only the Ethiopians and Italians had modern translators at their side. Treaty translation is big business 13 today. The European Union, for example, spends an estimated €300m annually on translating between its 23 official languages. (While this is a big chunk of money, it’s 16 less than 1% of the EU’s annual budget.) Three of those— English, French, and German—are working languages in most meetings. In reality, English is most commonly used. 19 But because each document must be faithfully recreated in each of the EU’s 23 languages, creating authentic versions can be expensive and time-consuming. Thankfully, most 22 problems are dealt with in procès-verbal, a way to introduce technical corrections to treaties without revisiting negotiations. It might still delay matters. Last year, for 25 example, Ireland’s ratification of an EU treaty was delayed by grammatical errors in the Irish version. There are obvious trade-offs to language equality, but the EU has calculated 28 that the delays and costs are worth it.  The United Nations should revisit its own calculations. It has just six official and two working languages. The task 31 of translation here in Geneva, home to most UN organs, is thus decidedly simpler. The UN’s official languages are geographically diverse—combined, native speakers of 34 Arabic, English, French, Mandarin, Russian and Spanish number over 2.2 billion. But the two working languages are bound to tradition. The persistence of French is attributed to 37 its history as the “language of diplomacy”. In the hallways of the New York headquarters, English is (naturally) favored, and French is preferred in Geneva. Treaties 40 registered with the United Nations Treaty Series are always translated into French and English. Documents are always provided in French and English. This city’s Geneva 43 Conventions, written in equally authentic French and English versions, laid part of the groundwork for the 45 international system.

Text 6 1  Since 1914 the structure of the world has changed. Compared to the present struggle between West and East, the rivalries of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries sink 4 into insignificance. Today we are faced, not with a clash of interests, but with a fight between the desire on the one hand to defend individual liberties and the resolve on the other 7 hand to impose a mass religion. In the process the old standards, conventions and methods of international negotiation have been discredited. Had it not been for the 10 invention of the atomic bomb, we should already have been subjected to a third world war.  Members of the Communist bloc today are 13 convinced that sooner or later they will acquire world dominion and will succeed in imposing their faith and their authority over the whole earth. They strain towards this 16 objective with religious intensity and are prepared to devote to its achievement their lives, their comfort and their prospects of happiness. Anything that furthers their purpose 19 is “right”; anything that obstructs it is “wrong”; conventional morality, even the creation of confidence, has no part in this scheme of things. Truth itself has lost its 22 significance. Compared to the shining truth of their gospel, all minor forms of veracity are merely bourgeois inhibitions. The old diplomacy was based upon the creation of 25 confidence, the acquisition of credit. The modern diplomat must realize that he can no longer rely on the old system of trust; he must accept the fact that his antagonists will not 28 hesitate to falsify facts and that they feel no shame if their duplicity be exposed. The old currency has been withdrawn from circulation; we are dealing in a new coinage. 31  This transformation of values has been aided by a new or “democratic” conception of international relations. In the old days the conduct of foreign affairs was entrusted to a 34 small international élite who shared the same sort of background and who desired to preserve the same sort of world. Today the masses are expected to take an interest in 37 foreign affairs, to know the details of current controversies, to come to their own conclusions, and to render these conclusions effective through press and parliament. At the 40 same time, however, current issues have been rendered complex and interconnected; it is not possible to state issues, such as the Common Market, in short and simple terms. 43 Thus, whereas the man in the street is expected to have an opinion on international problems, the very complexity of these problems has rendered it difficult to provide him with 46 the information on which to base his judgment.

Considering the ideas and the vocabulary in the text, mark the following items as right (C) or wrong (E).

Text 6 1  Since 1914 the structure of the world has changed. Compared to the present struggle between West and East, the rivalries of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries sink 4 into insignificance. Today we are faced, not with a clash of interests, but with a fight between the desire on the one hand to defend individual liberties and the resolve on the other 7 hand to impose a mass religion. In the process the old standards, conventions and methods of international negotiation have been discredited. Had it not been for the 10 invention of the atomic bomb, we should already have been subjected to a third world war.  Members of the Communist bloc today are 13 convinced that sooner or later they will acquire world dominion and will succeed in imposing their faith and their authority over the whole earth. They strain towards this 16 objective with religious intensity and are prepared to devote to its achievement their lives, their comfort and their prospects of happiness. Anything that furthers their purpose 19 is “right”; anything that obstructs it is “wrong”; conventional morality, even the creation of confidence, has no part in this scheme of things. Truth itself has lost its 22 significance. Compared to the shining truth of their gospel, all minor forms of veracity are merely bourgeois inhibitions. The old diplomacy was based upon the creation of 25 confidence, the acquisition of credit. The modern diplomat must realize that he can no longer rely on the old system of trust; he must accept the fact that his antagonists will not 28 hesitate to falsify facts and that they feel no shame if their duplicity be exposed. The old currency has been withdrawn from circulation; we are dealing in a new coinage. 31  This transformation of values has been aided by a new or “democratic” conception of international relations. In the old days the conduct of foreign affairs was entrusted to a 34 small international élite who shared the same sort of background and who desired to preserve the same sort of world. Today the masses are expected to take an interest in 37 foreign affairs, to know the details of current controversies, to come to their own conclusions, and to render these conclusions effective through press and parliament. At the 40 same time, however, current issues have been rendered complex and interconnected; it is not possible to state issues, such as the Common Market, in short and simple terms. 43 Thus, whereas the man in the street is expected to have an opinion on international problems, the very complexity of these problems has rendered it difficult to provide him with 46 the information on which to base his judgment.

Text 8