Instruções para a Prova de INGLÊS:

• Confira se seu nome e RG estão corretos.

• Não se esqueça de assinar a capa deste caderno, no local indicado, com caneta azul ou preta.
• Você terá 4 horas para realizar as provas.
• Antes de iniciar a prova, verifique se o caderno contém 3 questões e se a impressão está legível.
• A prova de Inglês é composta por 3 questões. Atenção: A Questão 1 deve ser respondida em português; as Questões 2 e 3 devem ser respondidas
em inglês. As três questões desta prova valem, no total, 10 pontos, assim distribuídos:
• Questão 1 – 3 pontos.
• Questão 2 – 3 pontos.
• Questão 3 – 4 pontos.
• As respostas deverão ser redigidas nos espaços destinados a elas, com letra legível e, obrigatoriamente, com caneta de tinta azul ou preta.
• Não se identifique em nenhuma das folhas do corpo deste caderno, pois isso implicará risco de anulação.
• O candidato só poderá deixar definitivamente o local das provas a partir de 1 hora e meia após seu início.
• Não haverá substituição deste caderno.
• O candidato é responsável pela devolução deste caderno ao fiscal de sala.
• Adverte-se que o candidato que se recusar a entregar este caderno, dentro do período estabelecido para realização das provas, terá automaticamente
sua prova anulada.
• Estará automaticamente eliminado do processo seletivo o candidato que obtiver nota bruta inferior a 2,0 na prova de Inglês.

NOME:
IDENTIDADE: INSCRIÇÃO: >
LOCAL:
DATA: 17/11/2019 SALA: ORDEM:

Assinatura do Candidato:
GRADUAÇÃO EM RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS - SP | 17/11/2019

INGLÊS
IS THIS THE END OF THE AMERICAN CENTURY?
By Adam Tooze
On 13 October 1806, a young German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, had an encounter with world history. En route to their annihilation of the
Prussian forces 24 hours later, Napoleon and his army were marching through the East German university town of Jena. Hegel couldn’t disguise his terror that in the
ensuing chaos his recently completed manuscript of The Phenomenology of Spirit might get lost in the mail. But neither could he resist the drama of the moment. As he
wrote to his friend Friedrich Niethammer, “I saw the emperor – this world-soul – riding out of the city on reconnaissance. It is indeed a wonderful sensation to see such
an individual, who, concentrated here at a single point, astride a horse, reaches out over the world and masters it.”
Two hundred years later, in rather more sedate circumstances, the Berkeley [University of California at Berkeley] historian Daniel J. Sargeant, addressing the
American Historical Association, also evoked the world spirit. But this time it came in the person of Donald Trump and he was riding not on horseback, but on a golf cart.
Trump can be compared to Napoleon, according to Sargeant, because they are both destroyers of the international order. In the wake of the French Revolution, Napoleon
wrecked what was left of the legitimate order of Europe. Trump, in turn, has apparently ended the American world order, or, as Sargeant prefers to call it, Pax Americana.
Sargeant’s is an extraordinary suggestion, even though overenthusiastic historic comparisons have now become commonplace. Early in 2017 I was among those
who thought they were seeing the end of the American century. But, even then, in the early days of the Trump administration, it seemed crucial to draw a distinction
between American power and American political authority. Two years on, that distinction seems more important than ever.
The idea that Trump is a wrecker of the American-led world order rests on three claims. First, he is manifestly unfit for high office. That such a man can be elected
president of the United States reveals a deep degeneration of American political culture and permanently damages the country’s credibility. Second, his capricious and
crude pursuit of “America first” has weakened America’s alliances and instigated a departure from globalization based on free trade. Finally, he has triggered this crisis
at a moment when China poses an unprecedented challenge to Western-led globalization. Each of these claims is hard to deny, but do they in fact add up to a historically
significant shift in the foundations of American’s global power?
No question, Trump has done massive damage to the dignity of the American presidency. Even allowing for the personal and political failings of some of the
previous incumbents, he marks a new low. What ought to be of no less concern is that he has received so little open criticism from the supposedly respectable ranks of
the Republican leadership. Similarly, American big business leaders, though skeptical of Trump, have profited from his administration’s tax cuts and eagerly assisted in
dismantling the apparatus of environmental and financial regulation. He has been applauded by the section of the U.S. media that caters to [acomoda, gratifica, serve]
the right. And a solid minority of the electorate continues to give him its wholehearted support. What is worrying, therefore, isn’t simply Trump himself, but the forces in
America that enable [empoderam] him.

Adapted from the London Review of Books 4 April 2019.

Introduction

In the above passage – taken from the article “Is This the End of the American Century?” – author Adam Tooze looks at Donald Trump and Napoleon Bonaparte,
and also discusses significant aspects of Trump’s character and presidency.

Read Tooze’s text and then answer the questions below. You are advised to read the questions carefully and give answers that are of direct relevance. Remember:
Your answer to Question 1 must be written in Portuguese, but your answers to Questions 2 and 3 must be written in English. With these last two questions, you
may use American English or British English, but you must be consistent throughout.
GRADUAÇÃO EM RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS - SP | 17/11/2019

INGLÊS
Question 1 (to be answered in Portuguese)
(This question tests your understanding of the text, as well as your ability to identify and paraphrase the relevant pieces of information. Your answer should fill up
approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)

At the beginning of the passage, the author mentions that Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel caught sight of Napoleon the day before his army annihilated the
Prussian forces at the battle of Jena, in 1806. What was Hegel’s reaction to seeing Napoleon? Why do you think the author mentions Daniel J. Sargeant’s comparison
of Napoleon and Donald Trump? In your own words, what three factors support the idea that Trump, in a certain way, is similar to Napoleon? What does the author
think of this idea? Does he agree with it or not?

At the end of the passage, the author writes, “What is worrying, therefore, isn’t simply Trump himself, but the forces in America that enable him.” In your own
words, what are these forces, as outlined by the author?

Last, considering that Donald Trump is one of the world’s most recognized and controversial figures, explain why you yourself believe he is, or is not, the destructive
force that Daniel J. Sargeant say he is.

In supporting your observations and points of view, you may take into account legal, ethical, practical, historical, and even political considerations, but please try
to be as objective as possible.

VISTO CORRETOR
GRADUAÇÃO EM RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS - SP | 17/11/2019

INGLÊS
Question 2 (to be answered in English)
(This question tests your ability to express yourself in a manner that is clear, precise, and relevant. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the
space provided.)

In his article, Adam Tooze (like many people) identifies China as the great rival of the United States. He goes on to present certain facts to support that idea:

• “China alone was responsible for a doubling of global steel and aluminum capacity in the first decade of the 21st century. Its huge investment in R&D
[research and development] transformed it from a “third world” importer of Western technology into a leading global force in 5G [the next generation
of internet technology].”

• “In 1989…China’s economy accounted for only 4 percent of global GDP: now that figure is close to 20 percent.”

• “[China’s] economy is the thumping heart of a gigantic East Asian industrial complex.”

Yet, Tooze also indicates that China’s future may not be entirely rosy, especially because of the so-called middle-income trap:

• “Very few large countries have managed to grow beyond China’s current level of income. Those that have done so have kitted themselves out [se
equiparam] with a full set of liberal institutions and the rule of law [o estado democrático de direito]. On this reading, China is in a precarious position. Xi’s
authoritarian turn [Chinese president Xi Xinping recently gained the power to extend his mandate indefinitely] is a decisive step in the wrong direction.
Further frequently cited signs of Chinese weakness include ethnic tensions and the aging of the population as a long-term effect of the one-child policy.
There is a belief, held well beyond the [Trump] administration, that the tide may be turning against Beijing and that now is the moment to harden the
front.”

It is crucial as well to highlight the words of a Chinese commentator, as quoted by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson in their 2012 book, Why Nations Fail:
“To uphold the leadership of the [Chinese Communist] Party in political reform, three principles must be followed: that the Party controls the armed forces; the
Party controls cadres [quadros]; and the Party controls the news.”

Last, the great Colombian writer Gabriel Garcia Marquez remarked that the one thing all Latin American dictators have in common is loneliness – because they
cannot trust anybody. In other words, such dictators, according to Marquez, inevitably become isolated and surrounded by sycophants. Cut off from the reality of
their countries, they concern themselves primarily with consolidating and maintaining their power.

Therefore, considering the above information, do you think that Marquez’s observation is valid as regards Xi Xinping? In your opinion, is he the only ambitious
person in China, i.e., the only one who believes that, because of his strength and skill, he should run the country? After all, Adam Tooze does mention that “Xi’s
authoritarian turn is a decisive step in the wrong direction.” Is it possible then that, to block any real or perceived threat to his power, he will appoint government
and military officials more on the basis of their personal loyalty to him than on the basis of their ability to perform well in the job itself?

What do you think might result if the heads of China’s state-run companies and government ministries and agencies are all appointed for political reasons rather
than for reasons of efficiency and ability?

Moreover, what could happen to China (or to any country) if tough, intelligent, and ambitious men and women find that they have no legitimate way to attain
political power?

Could all of these elements – together with the above-mentioned ethnic tensions and aging of the population (which is leading to a labor shortage) – presage
a long, even irreversible, decline for China?

In addressing these concerns, you should support your points of view with clear, well-balanced, and specific reasons. And while you may take into account legal,
ethical, practical, historical, and political considerations – and even submit relevant examples from Brazil – please try to be as objective as possible.
GRADUAÇÃO EM RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS - SP | 17/11/2019

INGLÊS
QUESTÃO 2 (continuação)

VISTO CORRETOR

NÃO
ESCREVA
NESSA ÁREA
GRADUAÇÃO EM RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS - SP | 17/11/2019

INGLÊS
Question 3 (to be answered in English)
(This question tests your ability to construct a balanced, considered, and fluent argument in the form of a short composition. The passages below underscore
some of the difficulties inherent in international relations. Read the passages and answer the subsequent question. Your answer should fill up approximately 15
to 20 lines in the space provided.)

On September 17, 1796 (ten years before Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel saw Napoleon at Jena), George Washington, nearing the end of his second term as the
first president of the United States and preparing to retire from public life, gave a speech to the nation, in which, among other things, he presented his views on
international relations and alliances. Here are some passages (abridged) from that speech:
• “Nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be
excluded; and that in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation that indulges towards another a habitual
hatred, or a habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from
its duty and its interest.”
• “Antipathy in one nation against another, disposes each [nation] more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of offense, and to be
arrogant and intractable, when accidental or insignificant occasions of dispute occur.”
• “So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitating the illusion of an
imaginary common interest in cases where no real interest exists, and infusing into one [nation] the enmities of the other [nation], betrays the former [a
primeira mencionada] into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter [a segunda mencionada], without adequate inducement or justification.
It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by
unnecessarily parting with [abrir mão de] what should have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties
from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility
to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country…”
Why do you think Washington’s advice is or is not valid for Brazil at this moment of the 21st century? Moreover, considering that, in Brazil, some on the left see the
United States as the enemy, while some on the right see China as the enemy, how do you think Brazil should deal with those two countries? Explain why you think
either that Brazil would gain significant commercial, military, or diplomatic advantages by favoring one country over the other, or that the more sensible course
would be to establish friendly, careful neutrality with both countries.
Remember, in arguing for what you believe would be a practical Brazilian foreign policy with respect to the U.S. and China, you may draw on information
presented in Questions 1 and 2, and may also consider the following:
• Boasting unsurpassed economic and military power, the U.S. is a democracy that in general respects the rule of law. Nevertheless, many experts warn
that the U.S. economy, though apparently strong, may be heading for a crash. Furthermore, because 2020 is an election year, President Donald Trump
– whom Adam Tooze describes as the personification of the “sleaziness [corrupção, vulgaridade, podridão], cynicism, and sheer stupidity that dominates
much of American political life” – could be out of office by January 2021.
• China’s stupendous growth (an average of 10% a year for the last 40 years) is the case of the most successful economic development in history, a
development that has taken more than 850 million people out of poverty. Even so, the country’s economy is slowing (to less than 6% in 2019), and many
millions of Chinese still have not enjoyed the benefits of the country’s recent prosperity.
• As a Communist dictatorship governed by an elite that is distant from the population, China is not as stable as its government would like the world to
believe. The Communist Party stays in power with the promise of growth (which it may be unable to keep delivering) and with the use of force and
oppression. China also utilizes against its own people an elaborate system of censorship and an increasingly sophisticated spying network.
• In 2019, U.S. president Donald Trump started a fierce trade war against China, raising tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese exports
to the U.S. and announcing sanctions on the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei, which is facing accusations of espionage. Beijing, in turn,
responded with tariffs on U.S. exports to China and has prepared itself for a long economic conflict in which it may lose US$205 billion (around 10% of
its annual exports). The U.S. is expected to lose roughly US$94 billion, while Brazil is expected to gain a meager US$11 billion. Analysts warn that if this
trade war continues, it will increase the risk of a global recession.
GRADUAÇÃO EM RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS - SP | 17/11/2019

INGLÊS
QUESTÃO 3 (continuação)
• Brazil is a developing nation that not only benefits greatly by exporting (12.6% of GDP in 2019, mainly animal/vegetable protein and mineral
commodities), but also needs foreign investments and technology for infrastructure projects. The U.S. and China often provide such export markets
(China especially) and can also provide such investment money and technology.
• The following sentence from Adam Tooze’s article illustrates why it may be hard for Brazil to favor the U.S. over China, or vice-versa: “America’s farmers
converted their fields wholesale [em grande escala] to grow soy beans for export to China, only to find themselves cut out of their biggest market by
Brazilian competitors.”
Thus, in answering Question 3, you may take into account economic, political, historical, military, and even ethical considerations, but please strive to be as clear-
sighted and logical as possible, supporting your point of view with specific arguments and examples.

VISTO CORRETOR