sqd-sistema-de-questoes-discursivas-fundo-escuro-250
Busca por enunciado
Matéria
Banca
Área
Órgão
Ano
Nível de escolaridade
Linhas
Q89223 | Inglês (Língua Inglesa)
Banca: IADESVer cursos
Ano: 2019
Órgao: IRBr - Instituto Rio Branco

A-+=
novo
Salvar em caderno (0)
Faça login para salvar Fechar
Meus Cadernos

Read the following text carefully.
 
        After the close of the 2003 World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial meeting in Cancun, Mexico, United States Trade Representative Robert Zoellick unleashed a stinging attack on Brazil and its Latin American partners in the G-20 trade negotiating coalition. Lamenting the failure to reach agreement on the US/EU proposal to conclude the Doha round, Zoellick (2003) criticized Brazil’s “tactics of confrontation”, refusal to compromise and insistence on a “massive list of required changes” to the chairperson’s discussion text. The tension between the Brazilian-led G-20 negotiating coalition and the US offers a highly illustrative point to initiating a discussion on contemporary Latin American diplomacy.
 
        CHANGING TRADITIONAL VIEWS: LATIN AMERICA IS NOT A HOMOGENOUS ENTITY
 
        Perhaps the cleverest element of Zoellick’s blast against Brazil was the emphasis on how the G-20 not only violated pan-Southern solidarity by rejecting a text from the Thai WTO Director General Supachai Panitchpakdi, but also invalidated the supposedly rooted idea of intra-Latin American unity. As Zoellick highlighted, the text blocked by the G-20 was drafted by the WTO’s General Council chairperson Carlos Pérez del Castillo, Uruguay’s ambassador to the organization. In his ire, Zoellick appeared to be assuming Latin America can be viewed as a homogeneous unit with consistent shared interests and attitudes. The region is instead comprised of countries possessing a wide range of geographic, demographic, economic and historical characteristics impacting their independent foreign policy positions. “Latin America” as a “unity” is itself an externally devised notion promoted by the French in the 1830s in an effort to create an implicit sense of alliance between the region and Romancelanguage European countries engaged in a struggle with their Anglo-Saxon and Slavic neighbors. The French idea of “Latin America” as a contiguous unit did stick in the Washington policy consciousness during the 1800s when gunboat diplomacy sustained US efforts to establish the Western Hemisphere as its exclusive zone of influence.
 
        While there has been important variation in how Washington has attempted to manage the different countries, the general tone and approach has started from a remarkably similar place whether the US counterpart was Brazil, Bolivia, Costa Rica or Mexico. Even the regional organizations spanning the hemisphere, such as the Organization of American States, have been seen as opportunistic tools for Washington, not forums within which to engage in serious problem-solving or issue management. Per the tradition initiated with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, Latin America has remained a question of bilateral management and control for Washington (HAKIM, 2006).
 
        The combination of somewhat comparable histories of Iberian colonization, geographic continuity on a common continental land mass, similarities in language – Brazilian diplomats speak fluent Spanish –, as well as an absence of serious inter-state armed conflict helps to build a sense that the region is harmonious and relatively homogenous. Overlooked in this surface-level sketch is the persistence of rooted tensions and conflicts in the region. Brazil and Mexico have soft contending ambitions for regional leadership, with Argentina often staking its own claim as well. The Bolivian armed forces are led by an admiral as a sustained note of protest against what it claims as Chile’s illegal seizure of its coastal provinces during the 1879–83 War of the Pacific. Peru, too, has border complaints against Chile from that nineteenth century war and only recently settled an additional border conflict with Ecuador in 1998, a dispute which dated from 1942 and saw a series of conflicts and casualties throughout the twentieth century.
 
        If we expand the list of territorial disputes in the region to include trade disagreements, political contretemps, historical misunderstandings and other forms of regional rivalry, we end up with a fairly extensive catalogue of dissent and discord in Latin America. What matters for understanding Latin American diplomacy is that these very real disagreements have a tendency to become of second-order importance to regional diplomats when faced with the need to unify in the face of pressure from a US or Europe that either dismissively tries to aggregate the region into a single, easy to manage unit, or pursues a strategy of divide and conquer to maintain implicit and explicit dominance. This pressure has had a major influence on how Latin American countries approach diplomacy and how they self-consciously exploit the externally created identity of Latin America.
 
        NOT QUITE UNITY, NOT QUITE COALITION
 
        Thanks to an accommodative and legalistic predilection for talking through disagreements, Latin America has become notable for the absence of inter-state conflicts. Although there are unsolved disputes in the region, resolution is consistently sought through negotiation and arbitration, not armed invasion. Even when conflict has erupted, the tensions appear reluctant and are quickly brought to the negotiating table by other regional countries.
 
        Perhaps the best theorizing of the lack of inter-state armed hostility within Latin America can be found in the concertación approach to diplomatic management advanced by Argentine scholar Federico Merke (2015). The term concertación has no simple translation into English, being a reflection of an Ibero-American tradition of managing difference and dissent in politics such that it can become a strength rather than source of discord. At the heart lies an informally institutionalized process of summitry and discussion in lieu of power politics. Escalation in Latin American terms means the convocation of presidential diplomacy to discuss the matter of dissent, not the deployment of military forces to border regions. More significantly, it is often not just the presidents of the directly affected countries that meet, but rather the region’s leadership or a delegated sub-grouping of ministers or national presidents.
 
        Although there are a series of semi-regular presidential summits through groupings such as UNASUR, MERCOSUR, CELAC and so on, the concertación process is not rooted in a formalized framework, but rather exists as a convention embedded in the region’s shared legalistic approach to international affairs. Chief amongst the legal norms driving concertación are the interlinked principles of sovereignty and nonaggression. Although precise interpretations are debated, there is cross-national agreement in Latin America that respect of international law is essential for mutual security and that great emphasis should be placed upon setting and observing the rules. The depth of concertación strategies of avoiding military conflict have been highlighted over the last fifteen years as substantial increases in military expenditure by many regional countries have resulted in increases in mutual confidence, not a rise of distrust-fueled arms races (VILLA; WEIFFEN, 2014).
 
Burges, Sean; Chagas Bastos, Fabrício. Latin American Diplomacy. In: Constantinou, Costas; Kerr, Pauline; Sharp, Paul (Orgs.). (2016)
The Sage Handbook of Diplomacy. London: Sage Publications Ltd., with adaptations.
 

 
Write a summary of the text in your own words using up to 50 lines.
 
 
Text length: up to 50 lines
[value: 15,00 points]

loader-icon
1) Apenas um exemplo. O conteúdo real é bem diferente. O tipo de auditoria mais apropriado para o caso é a auditoria de regularidade ou de conformidade. No que tange ao objeto auditado, pode-se extrair dois tipos principais de auditoria: a auditoria de regularidade (ou conformidade) e a auditoria operacional (ou de desempenho). Segundo a Organização Internacional de Entidades Fiscalizadoras Superiores – INTOSAI, a Auditoria de regularidade (regularity audit) compreende Auditoria financeira, Auditoria de controles internos e Auditoria da legalidade de atos administrativos. Já a auditoria operacional, por sua vez, tem um foco mais voltado para a gestão. Segundo o Manual de Auditoria Operacional do TC, a auditoria operacional é o processo de coleta e análise sistemáticas de informações sobre características, processos e resultados de um programa, atividade ou organização, com base em critérios fundamentados, com o objetivo de aferir o desempenho da gestão governamental. Tópico 2: Três procedimentos de auditoria que deverão ser adotados. Justifique-os. Há uma série de procedimentos de que podem ser adotados no processo de fiscalização e auditoria, que podem ser citadas na resposta. 1) Avaliação do Sistema de Controle Interno: avaliação dos controles que auxiliam a entidade a cumprir as leis, as normas e os regulamentos; 2) Circularização (Confirmação Externa): confirmação, junto a terceiros, de fatos alegados pela entidade; 3) Exame e comparação de livros e registos: o confronto, o contejamento e a comparação de registros e documentos, para a comprovação da validade e autenticidade do universo, população ou amostra examinada; 4) Exame e comprovação documental: consistem em apurar, demonstrar, corroborar e concorrer para provar, acima de qualquer dúvida cabível, a validade e autenticidade de uma situação, documento ou atributo ou responsabilidade do universo auditado, através de provas obtidas em documentos integrantes dos processos administrativo, orçamentário, financeiro, contábil, operacional, patrimonial, ou gerencial do ente público no curso normal da sua atividade e dos quais o profissional de auditoria governamental se vale para evidenciar suas constatações, conclusões e recomendações.

CONTEÚDO EXCLUSIVO

Confira nossos planos especiais de assinatura e desbloqueie agora!

Este campo é para fins de validação e não deve ser alterado.
Quer ver esse conteúdo aqui? Vote abaixo.
Este campo fica oculto ao visualizar o formulário
Este campo fica oculto ao visualizar o formulário
Este campo fica oculto ao visualizar o formulário
Este campo fica oculto ao visualizar o formulário
Este campo fica oculto ao visualizar o formulário

Ops! Esta questão ainda não tem resolução em texto.

Este campo é para fins de validação e não deve ser alterado.
Quer ver esse conteúdo aqui? Vote abaixo.
Este campo fica oculto ao visualizar o formulário
Este campo fica oculto ao visualizar o formulário
Este campo fica oculto ao visualizar o formulário
Este campo fica oculto ao visualizar o formulário
Este campo fica oculto ao visualizar o formulário

Nenhum aluno compartilhou redação com nota superior a 90%.
Confira nossos planos especiais de assinatura e desbloqueie agora!

Ops! Esta questão ainda não tem resolução em vídeo.

Este campo é para fins de validação e não deve ser alterado.
Quer ver esse conteúdo aqui? Vote abaixo.
Este campo fica oculto ao visualizar o formulário
Este campo fica oculto ao visualizar o formulário
Este campo fica oculto ao visualizar o formulário
Este campo fica oculto ao visualizar o formulário
Este campo fica oculto ao visualizar o formulário

Conteúdo exclusivo para alunos da Academia de Discursivas ou assinantes do Sistema de Questões Discursivas.
  • Este formulário é para reportar erros nesta questão discursivas. Caso tenha dúvidas ou precise de ajuda, clique aqui para ver nossos canais de contato.
  • Este campo fica oculto ao visualizar o formulário
  • Opcional

Questões Relacionadas

MatériaInglês (Língua Inglesa)
BancaIADES

The political study of international institutions reveals a vibrant and diverse body of scholarship. In recent decades, research has turned from the study of formal international organizations to the study of regimes and institutions, informal as well as formal. For the most part, this turn has been salutary, as it has reflected a broad interest not only in formal organizations but in the deeper role that rules and norms play in a system of formally co-equal states. Initially, this turn was instigated by the observation that much of what is interesting about world politics — especially during the Cold War period — seemed to take place among intensely interdependent actors, but beyond the pur…

Read the following texts carefully.

Text 1

         How can he explain to him? The world is not run from where he thinks. Not from his border fortresses, not even from Whitehall. The world is run from Antwerp, from Florence, from places he has never imagined; from Lisbon, from where the ships with sails of silk drift west and are burned up in the sun. Not from castle walls, but from counting houses, not by the call of the bugle but by the click of the abacus, not by the grate and click of the mechanism of the gun but by the scrape of the pen on the page of the promissory note that pays for the gun and the gunsmith and the powder and shot.

Mantel, Hilary. (2010) Wolf Hall: a novel. Picador, …

TRANSLATION – PORTUGUESE-ENGLISH
 
Read the following text carefully.
 
       A literatura brasileira construiu uma concepção do Brasil, projetando a visão que temos de nós, a maneira como nos compreendemos e nos representamos. É uma concepção plural, e nisso reside sua força e vigor – que é literário, cultural e político. A pluralidade é resultado do empenho por meio do qual projetos minoritários de Brasil foram expressos e preservados. A questão é: qual o sentido desses projetos ainda hoje? Projetos alternativos coexistem, na maioria das vezes, em condição de inferioridade, com o projeto de Brasil elaborado e levado a cabo pelas elites. Consid…

Espaço de Discussão

Converse com outros usuários do SQD

Acompanhar
Notificar
0 Comentários
Antigos
Recentes Votados
Inline Feedbacks
Ver todos comentários