Desafío de Español: las respuestas

¿Listos para las respuestas del desafío de ayer?

  1. Tanzania es un destino turístico interesante.
  2. Turquía limita con Bulgaria .
  3. Viena es la capital de Austria .
  4. Marruecos y Argelia son países magrebíes .
  5. Se habla húngaro en Hungría , pero también en algunas partes de Rumanía/ Rumania (las dos son posibles) .
  6. Desde 1993 Eritrea ya no forma parte de Etiopía .
  7. GuineaBisáu tiene un millón de habitantes.
  8. Lituania está al sur de Letonia .

La acentuación

Regla general

Palabras que terminan en vocal, n o s acento tónico (énfasis) en la penúltima sílaba: Sevilla, Cuba, Las Vegas

Palabras que terminan en consonante (≠ n,s ) → acento tónico (énfasis) en la última sílaba: Ecuador, Valladolid

Excepciones a estas 2 reglas → acento escrito: Perú, San José, Medellín, Cádiz, México

Diptongos

La combinación de una vocal débil con una vocal fuerte forma un diptóngo (= 1 sílaba).

Vocales fuertes (strong vowels): a, e, o
Vocales débiles (weak vowels): u, i

Combinación vocal débil + vocal fuerte → El acento tónico está en la vocal fuerte (si la sílaba está acentuada).

Cuenca = ‘ue’ se pronuncia [we] = Palabra de 2 sílabas: Cuen-ca
Biescas = ‘ie’ se pronuncia [je] = Palabra de 2 sílabas: Bies-cas
Kuwait = ‘ai’ se pronuncia [aj] = Palabra de 2 sílabas: Ku-wait

Combinación de dos vocales débiles → El acento tónico está en la última vocal del diptongo (si la sílaba está acentuada).

Suiza = ‘ui’ se pronuncia [wi] = Palabra de 2 sílabas: Sui-za

Excepciones a estas reglas → acento escrito

Río = ‘io’ se pronuncia [io] = Palabra de 2 sílabas: Ri-o

¡Ojo!
La combinación de 2 vocales fuertes no forma un diptongo. Cada vocal = una sílaba.

Bilbao = Palabra de 3 sílabas: Bil-ba-o. = Acento tónico en la a porque la palabra termina en vocal.
Israel = Palabra de 3 sílabas: Is-ra-el. = Acento tónico en la e porque la palabra termina en consonante.

Anúncios

Desafío de Español: acentuación

¡Hola! En la prueba de Español, hace falta conocer muy bien las reglas generales de acentuación ¿Sabes cómo usarlas? ¡Inténtalo!

Elige la mejor opción.

  1. Tanzania / Tanzánia / Tanzanía es un destino turístico interesante.
  2. Turquia / Túrquia / Turquía limita con Bulgaria / Bulgária / Bulgaría .
  3. Viena / Víena / Viéna es la capital de Austria / Áustria / Austría .
  4. Marruecos / Márruecos / Marruécos y Argelia / Argélia / Argelía son paises / páises / países magrebies / magrébies / magrebíes .
  5. Se habla húngaro en Hungria / Húngria / Hungría , pero también en algunas partes de Rumania / Rumánia / Rumanía .
  6. Desde 1993 Eritrea / Erítrea / Eritréa ya no forma parte de Etiopia / Etiópia / Etiopía .
  7. Guinea-Bisau / Guinea-Bísau / Guinea-Bisáu tiene un millón de habitantes.
  8. Lituania / Lituánia / Lituanía está al sur de Letonia / Letónia / Letonía .

Sugestão de leitura: desemprego natural

Ainda faltam dois dias para o resultado final da 1ª fase do CACD 2017, mas não há tempo a perder para quem tem condições de passar para as próximas fases. Com a prova de Língua Inglesa passando para a 2ª fase, o estudo dessa matéria ganhou ainda mais relevância. Além de conhecer bem a gramática, é importante que o candidato tenha um vocabulário amplo nos mais diversos temas que costumam ser cobrados na prova discursiva – lembrando que a prova costuma mobilizar conhecimento de outras matérias do próprio concurso. E para enriquecer o seu vocabulário, não tem jeito: é leitura.

A sugestão de leitura de hoje vai ajudar nesse processo. O artigo “The natural rate of unemployment“, da revista The Economist, trata sobre um assunto conhecido da prova de Economia: o conceito de desemprego natural e os debates sobre a existência de trade-off entre desemprego e inflação. Uma leitura atenta desse artigo vai ajudar o candidato não só a revisar esse conteúdo para a 3ª fase, mas também a aprofundar o conhecimento sobre vocabulários específicos relacionados a economia, que podem ser muito úteis para a prova de Inglês. É dois em um! Então não deixe de conferir.

Guerra contra Rosas e Oribe

MAPAGuerra_contra_Oribe_e_RosasO intervencionismo brasileiro na região do Prata remonta ao período colonial, com a atuação de tropas luso-brasileiras na Banda Oriental com vistas a afirmar uma posição na foz do Rio da Prata. Após as independências das colônias espanholas na região, acrescentou-se novo objetivo para a política luso-brasileira no Prata: evitar a consolidação e o fortalecimento de um Estado centralizado no espaço do antigo Vice-Reino do Prata, o que configuraria uma ameaça aos interesses nacionais. Um dos conflitos emblemáticos desse embate pelo protagonismo na região foi a Guerra contra Oribe e Rosas (1851-1852).

Também conhecida como Guerra do Prata, o conflito insere-se no contexto de maior assertividade externa do Segundo Reinado após os anos de “imobilismo” da Regência. Durante o período regencial brasileiro, a instabilidade interna dificultou a projeção internacional do país, ao mesmo tempo que, no principal vizinho platino, ascendia a figura de Juan Manuel Rosas. Governador de Buenos Aires e federalista, Rosas conseguiu, por meio do Pacto Federal de 1831, consagrar a Confederação Argentina e estabelecer Buenos Aires como responsável pela promoção da política externa da Confederação. Apesar da contínua resistência de unitaristas e federalistas dissidentes nos anos seguintes, há uma clara percepção, em meados da década de 1840, do fortalecimento de Rosas na região platina, tanto pela supressão de levantes internos no norte da Confederação em 1841 quanto pelo afastamento da ameaça de intervenção francesa por meio do Tratado Arana-Mackau, de 1840.

O Uruguai, entretanto, passava por momento mais delicado. Em 1839 havia eclodido a chamada Grande Guerra Civil Uruguaia, opondo Colorados e Blancos, principais partidos do país e que disputavam o protagonismo político desde a independência, em 1828. A guerra civil uruguaia mobilizou os diversos atores internacionais: liderados por Oribe, os Blancos contavam com o apoio de Rosas e dos federalistas argentinos, enquanto os Colorados tinham o apoio dos federalistas argentinos dissidentes (Entre Ríos, Corrientes e Santa Fé), além do apoio financeiro da Grã-Bretanha e da França, interessados em garantir a livre navegação no Prata, que poderia ser prejudicada em caso de vitória dos Blancos pela aliança com Rosas.

O Império brasileiro também tinha como interesse fundamental a manutenção da livre navegação nos rios da bacia platina, pois eram essenciais para o transporte para as províncias do interior, principalmente Mato Grosso. Ainda assim, no início, o Brasil não se envolveu diretamente no conflito ao lado dos Colorados devido ao apoio deles aos revoltosos da Revolução Farroupilha. A questão no Rio Grande do Sul chegou a promover uma aproximação até então impensável: uma tentativa de acordo entre Brasil e Confederação Argentina. Em 1843, Rosas, que, além de estar envolvido na guerra civil uruguaia, sofria com contestações internas, oferece um acordo ao Império brasileiro para lutar contra o inimigo comum, os Colorados. Quando D. Pedro II decide assinar o acordo, Rosas já havia conseguido suprimir as revoltas internas e rejeita a aliança. A ameaça de Rosas e a sua intenção em recriar o Vice-Reino do Prata ficam cada vez mais perceptíveis, o que leva o Brasil a alterar sua inserção regional.

Em 1844, ofensivas diplomáticas brasileiras passam a atuar de forma a tentar conter Rosas no Prata. A Missão Limpo de Abreu foi enviada a Assunção para negociar o reconhecimento do Paraguai que, desde sua declaração de independência, em 1811, havia empreendido uma política isolacionista. Além do reconhecimento, o Brasil também passou a intermediar o reconhecimento do Paraguai na Europa, de forma a diminuir a vulnerabilidade do país à eventuais investidas de Rosas. No mesmo ano, a Missão Marquês de Abrantes foi enviada à Europa com vistas a conseguir o apoio de Grã-Bretanha e França contra Rosas. O Império brasileiro desejava que as potências europeias atuassem diretamente contra a Confederação de forma a evitar a possibilidade de hegemonia portenha sobre a foz do Prata. Apesar dos países europeus rejeitarem oficialmente a proposta brasileira, passaram a atuar no Prata, enviando, em 1845, uma esquadra franco-britânica para a região que furou o bloqueio imposto por Rosas no rio Paraná. A instabilidade que seguiu, contudo, inviabilizou o comércio na região e fez com que França e Grã-Bretanha cessassem as hostilidades. Por meio do Tratado Arana-Southern (1849) e do Tratado Arana-Lepredour (1850), Grã-Bretanha e França reconheceram a hegemonia de Rosas no Prata.

Com a saída das potências europeias do conflito, o Brasil não podia mais deixar de participar na guerra civil uruguaia, pois precisava defender seus interesses. O fim da Revolta Farroupilha, em 1845, também havia possibilitado a mobilização brasileira para o conflito uruguaio, além de cessar a fissura com os Colorados. O Brasil, entretanto, queria evitar os erros cometidos na Guerra Cisplatina e buscou articular-se com aliados locais, de forma a ter respaldo caso precisasse atacar. Para garantir a aliança, o Brasil empreendeu a chamada diplomacia do patacão: federalistas dissidentes argentinos, principalmente Entre Ríos e Corrientes, recebiam financiamento brasileiro, por meio de empréstimos do Banco Mauá, para lutar contra Rosas. Ao garantir a aliança com os federalistas dissidentes, liderados por Urquiza, e com os Colorados, o Brasil passou atuar no conflito com o argumento de defender seus aliados, além de seus interesses.

CaserosEm 1851, o Brasil atacou o Uruguai para derrotar as forças blancas e o chamado governo de Cerrito, instituído por Oribe durante o Cerco a Montevidéu (1843-1851). Com a vitória sobre os blancos, as forças brasileiras e de Urquiza voltaram-se para Buenos Aires com a intenção de remover Rosas do poder. Na Batalha de Caseros, em fevereiro de 1852, Rosas foi derrotado e partiu para o exílio no Reino Unido. Com a derrota do federalismo rosista, 13 províncias argentinas (com exceção de Buenos Aires) assinaram o Acordo de San Nicolás, que reafirmou o Pacto Federal (afinal Urquiza também era federalista) e a Confederação Argentina nele criado, além de ter convocado uma Constituinte (que se reuniu no ano seguinte, em Santa Fé). Esse acordo, assim como o pacto federal, funcionou como precedente para a Constituição de 1853, que reafirmou os princípios instituídos nesses e em outros documentos anteriores.

Com a derrota de Oribe e Rosas e a importância da diplomacia do patacão, o Brasil consolidou-se como potência hegemônica na região. O Tratado de Aliança, Comércio, Limites, Navegação, Extradição e Subsídios, de 1851, assinado entre colorados uruguaios e o Brasil garantia o interesse brasileiro em diversos aspectos, como livre navegação no rio Uruguai e afluentes, aliança perpétua contra ameaças externas e fim de direitos sobre a passagem de gado brasileiro para território uruguaio. Os termos desse tratado, contudo, foram problematizados assim que os blancos retomaram o poder no Uruguai. A situação interna da Confederação Argentina não permitia que o país configurasse ameaça aos interesses brasileiros na região. Além da ausência da província de Buenos Aires da confederação, os embates entre federalistas e unitaristas seguiam constantes, o que trazia forte instabilidade para o país. Somente após a vitória dos unitaristas, liderados por Mitre, na Batalha de Pavón, em 1861, há a consolidação da unidade argentina (1862) – às vésperas da eclosão da Guerra do Paraguai.

Défi de Français: lés réponses

Pour ceux qui on fait le dernier défi, voici les réponses. À la prochaine !

1. (Aller – présent + elle)
Que va-t-elle me demander ?

2. (Effrayer – présent + il)
Cela vous effraie-t-iloueffraye-t-il ?

3. (Y Aller – impératif – 2ème personne du singulier)
Vas-y, j’arrive.

4. (Venir – futur simple – + il)
Votre père viendra-t-il me retrouver ?

5. (Avoir – présent + on)
Le rendez-vous est fixé, m’a-t-on assuré !

6. (Y penser – impératif – 2ème personne du singulier)
C’est un menteur, penses-y lorsque tu l’interrogeras.

7. (S’en aller – impératif – 2ème personne du singulier)
Va-t’en, sinon tu risques des ennuis.

8. (En manger – impératif – 2ème personne du singulier)
Ce plat est délicieux, manges-en encore un peu.

9. (Nier – présent – + il)
Nie-t-il ses premières déclarations ?

10. (Y habiter – impératif – 2ème personne du singulier)
Voici les clés de l’appartement, habites-y aussi longtemps que tu le désires.

11. (Convaincre – présent + elle)
Cette histoire vous convainc-t-elle ?

12. (Planter – futur + il)
Plantera-t-il encore un arbre à la naissance de son prochain enfant ?

13. (Défendre – présent + il)
Comment le rossignol défend-il son territoire ?

14. (Faire – futur + on)
Comment fera-t-on pour obliger le chat à réintégrer son panier ?

15. (Mordre – présent + il)
Votre chien, mord-il ?

Défi de Français: L’euphonique

Salut à toutes et à tous! L’euphonie est l’harmonie des sons dans une phrase. Pour éviter la succession de deux voyelles appartenant à deux syllabes différentes, la langue française a recours aux lettres euphoniques T ou S.

Choisissez la bonne réponse. Bonne chance !

1. (Aller – présent + elle)
Que ______ me demander ?

2. (Effrayer – présent + il)
Cela vous ________ ?

3. (Y Aller – impératif – 2ème personne du singulier)
________, j’arrive.

4. (Venir – futur simple – + il)
Votre père _______me retrouver ?

5. (Avoir – présent + on)
Le rendez-vous est fixé, m’ ______assuré !

6. (Y penser – impératif – 2ème personne du singulier)
C’est un menteur, ________lorsque tu l’interrogeras.

7. (S’en aller – impératif – 2ème personne du singulier)
_________, sinon tu risques des ennuis.

8. (En manger – impératif – 2ème personne du singulier)
Ce plat est délicieux, _________ encore un peu.

9. (Nier – présent – + il)
__________ ses premières déclarations ?

10. (Y habiter – impératif – 2ème personne du singulier)
Voici les clés de l’appartement, ________ aussi longtemps que tu le désires.

11. (Convaincre – présent + elle)
Cette histoire vous ___________?

12. (Planter – futur + il)
­­__________ encore un arbre à la naissance de son prochain enfant ?

13. (Défendre – présent + il)
Comment le rossignol ________son territoire ?

14. (Faire – futur + on)
Comment _________pour obliger le chat à réintégrer son panier ?

15. (Mordre – présent + il)
Votre chien, _________________?

31ª edição da Revista Sapientia

E aí, cacdistas, como vocês estão após a 1ª fase? Agora que a prova objetiva e o prazo de recursos já passaram, é hora de retomar o ritmo de estudos. Independente da sua nota (se é suficiente para a próxima fase ou não), é importante recalcular a rota! Se você quer saber mais sobre como dar o próximo passo, a Priscila Zillo promoveu um encontro ao vivo ontem na plataforma Quero Ser Diplomata para falar sobre como continuar a sua jornada. A gravação da aula especial está disponível na plataforma e o cadastro é rápido, fácil, seguro e gratuito. E um recado especial para aqueles que ficaram acima da projeção de nota de corte (btw, parabéns!): os cursos Maratona 2ª Fase (Português e Inglês) e Maratona 3ª Fase já estão com matrículas abertas. São poucas semanas até as próximas provas, então não há tempo a perder!

Mas o post de hoje não é para falar somente sobre os próximos passos. Também é para divulgar a já conhecida (e querida) Revista Sapientia! Quem fez a prova da 1ª Fase deve ter recebido ou, pelo menos, visto a revista em mãos já que foram distribuídos exemplares nos locais de prova de todo o Brasil. Mas, se você não recebeu uma, não fique triste: a 31ª edição está disponível para download! Basta clicar na imagem abaixo para garantir a sua – e veja como vale a pena!

  • corpo-do-texto-revista-sapientia-edicao-31-lilia.pngEntrevista de capa com Lilia Moritz Schwarcz, referência para o estudo de História do Brasil no CACD;
  • Artigo do professor Ivo Yonamine sobre a a representação da cidade de São Paulo nas obras de Mário de Andrade e Oswald de Andrade;
  • Opinião crítica do professor José Luiz Pimenta Jr sobre o Brasil e os acordos preferenciais de comércio;
  • Análise do professor Guilherme Casarões sobre a guerra civil síria;
  • Entrevista com o jornalista e mestre em Políticas de Integração da América Latina, Marco Piva, sobre os rumos da integração latino-americana;
  • Depoimento da diplomata Marianna Brück Goulart sobre sua trajetória até a aprovação no CACD 2016.

Baixe gratuitamente a revista e leve no seu bolso uma fonte rica de conteúdo sobre o CACD e os bastidores da carreira diplomática.

Gabarito preliminar e plataforma Quero Ser Diplomata

Não adianta: todo dia de liberação de gabarito é dia de tensão para os cacdistas. Temos certeza que candidatos de todo Brasil apertaram insistentemente o botão F5 do computador, esperando que o gabarito preliminar fosse disponibilizado. E depois de muita espera (e vários alguns chocolates para segurar a ansiedade), finalmente foi divulgado o gabarito preliminar da 1ª fase do CACD 2017!

giphy1
– Se você ainda não conferiu, pode acessar diretamente na página do Cespe.

Agora começa a emoção: conferir respostas, somar pontos, ver o que cabe recurso, tentar descobrir a nota de corte, …

giphy

É muita coisa junto! Mas calma que o Sapientia vai te ajudar 😉

Pensando nisso tudo, a equipe do curso Sapientia desenvolveu a plataforma Quero Ser Diplomata para auxiliar na preparação dos candidatos ao CACD. A plataforma conta com várias funções para facilitar a vida do cacdista:

  • Cálculo preciso da nota do candidato (quem nunca errou na hora do +/- 0.25, né mesmo?)
  • Previsão da nota de corte (ai meu ❤️)
  • Professores especialistas na preparação corrigindo as provas e comentando o gabarito preliminar (porque fazer recurso é de lei)
  • Conteúdos gratuitos em vídeo e em texto (free content = life)
  • Orientação para todos os níveis de preparação e muito mais!

 

Além de todas as funcionalidades citadas, dentro do Quero Ser Diplomata você poderá acompanhar a Semana de Correções Comentadas. Serão 8 dias seguidos com os professores do Curso Sapientia corrigindo manualmente todas as disciplinas cobradas na 1ª Fase.

É a sua oportunidade de entender exatamente o motivo dos erros e acertos durante todo o TPS!

Para conhecer a plataforma e fazer o cadastro, basta clicar na imagem abaixo. É fácil, rápido, gratuito e seguro! Suas informações estarão protegidas no nosso sistema e não serão compartilhadas em hipótese nenhuma (cadastro 100% sigiloso). Acesse agora e deixe que o “Quero ser diplomata” ajude a tornar o seu querer em realidade muito mais rápido.

sinal alertaLembrete! Não custa nada relembrar o cronograma daqui em diante né? Se você ainda não viu, o blog Sapi fez um post com todas as informações essenciais para o concurso de 2017, inclusive as datas. Nesse momento, é importante lembrar que o candidato pode interpor recursos entre os dias 16 e 17 de agosto e o resultado final da 1ª Fase estará disponível na data provável de 31 de agosto.

sistema-quero-ser-diplomata-cacd-itamaraty.png

 

Todd’s Challenge: Answer Key

Hello, hello! We’re back with the answer key for our pre-TPS Mock Exam.
(If you missed the challenge, you can see the test here)

Text I:

Sequencing presents a second problem. Mr Barnier insists on settling the bill and other divorce terms before substantial talks on the much bigger matter of a post-Brexit settlement, including a trade deal, can begin. But British officials want to negotiate in parallel, and perhaps to link the departure sum to the degree of access Britain will enjoy to the EU’s single market after it leaves. The law lends Britain half a hand: Article 50 says that a departing country’s withdrawal agreement shall take account of “the framework for its future relationship” with the EU. But hardliners like France insist on keeping the two issues apart. And with only two years to conclude an Article 50 deal, Britain cannot waste time talking about talks.

Some British officials note that the other EU governments can tweak Mr Barnier’s negotiating guidelines if they find his line too tough. Britain might seek to exploit this by offering sweeteners: defence co-operation with the Baltics, perhaps, or infrastructure grants to Poland. The trouble is that reducing Britain’s bill means cuts to the overall budget, which would irk countries that do well from it, or extra payments from the wealthier governments to make up the shortfall. That creates an unusual alignment of interests among the 27. “If there’s one thing net payers and net recipients agree on, it’s to make the bill for Britain as high as possible,” says an EU official.

Most governments do not rule out a compromise. German officials, for example, will consider opening trade talks before the divorce is settled, so long as Britain accepts the principle that it has obligations that extend beyond its departure. As for the figure itself, like all EU budgetary negotiations it will be resolved via late-night Brussels summitry. “It’s like buying a carpet in Morocco,” says Jean-Claude Piris, a former head of the EU Council’s legal service. “The figures are always negotiable.”

But there are reasons to fear a breakdown. Theresa May, the prime minister, has done little to prepare voters for this debate. Neither her speeches nor the government’s white paper on Brexit have said anything about an exit payment. A whopping financial demand will therefore inflame Britain’s tabloids, limiting her room for manoeuvre. More worryingly, both sides believe they hold the whip hand. British officials think the hole Brexit blows in the EU’s budget will force the Europeans into compromise for fear of getting nothing if the talks derail. EU officials, for their part, are convinced that the prospect of no withdrawal agreement, and therefore no trade deal, will terrify Britain into submission. “They’ll be begging on their knees at the WTO,” says one.

The EU is skilled at brokering compromise on budgets. Perhaps that will prove true for the Article 50 talks, too. But two things set the upcoming negotiation aside. First, there is no precedent. Second, goodwill towards Britain has largely evaporated; it will be negotiating with the EU as a third country, not a partner. Informal meetings between British and European officials have already witnessed blazing rows. About the only thing the sides agree on is that they may be heading for deadlock.

Source: “From Brussels with love: The multi-billion-euro exit charge that could sink Brexit talks”, The Economist Print Edition, Feb 10, 2017

1) Determine if the following statements can be inferred from the above text.

  1. The expression “The law lends Britain half a hand” (p.1) implies that Article 50 shall grant Britain partial trade access to the EU’s single market upon its departure.FALSE
  2. By the expression “seek to exploit this by offering sweeteners” (p.2), one can assume that negotiation parameters with other EU nations may well occur through the offering of luring bribes and concessions. – FALSE
  3. The expression “It’s like buying a carpet in Morocco” suggests that bargaining will figure prominently within the forthcoming Britain-EU compromise. – TRUE
  4. It can be inferred that the long-term partnership between the EU and Britain is quickly fading due to a lack of a prior precedent on which to base the final decision on Article 50. – FALSE

2) Determine if the following statements are true or false.

  1. The expression a whopping financial demand can be substituted by a massive pecuniary burden without changing the overall semantic structure of the sentence. – TRUE
  2. The expression hold the whip hand bears a metaphorical relationship with the act of a slave’s torture. FALSE
  3. The expression blazing rows can be replaced by explosive quarrels without changing the overall semantic structure of the sentence. TRUE
  4. The expression heading for deadlock can be replaced by on route to a debacle without changing the overall semantic structure of the sentence. – FALSE

3) According to the above text, determine if the following statements are true or false.

  1. AS the EU is adept at negotiating budgetary settlements, it may well prove adroit in negotiating the provisions of Article 50 as well. – TRUE

The EU is skilled at brokering compromise on budgets. Perhaps that will prove true for the Article 50 talks, too.

2. Failure in Article 50 talks are looming due to May’s ill-prepared actions to achieve a smooth Brexit without having to pay a heavy exit payment. – FALSE

But there are reasons to fear a breakdown. Theresa May, the prime minister, has done little to prepare voters for this debate. Neither her speeches nor the government’s white paper on Brexit have said anything about an exit payment.

3. Germany appears willing to negotiate trade with Britain provided that Britain fulfills its pre-departure responsibilities. – TRUE

Most governments do not rule out a compromise. German officials, for example, will consider opening trade talks before the divorce is settled, so long as Britain accepts the principle that it has obligations that extend beyond its departure.

4. Should the Article 50 talks fall by the wayside, Brexit’s financial burden upon the EU budget will sway the EU into accepting Britain’s international trade demands. – FALSE (this is what British officials think)

A whopping financial demand will therefore inflame Britain’s tabloids, limiting her room for manoeuvre. More worryingly, both sides believe they hold the whip hand. British officials think the hole Brexit blows in the EU’s budget will force the Europeans into compromise for fear of getting nothing if the talks derail. EU officials, for their part, are convinced that the prospect of no withdrawal agreement, and therefore no trade deal, will terrify Britain into submission. “They’ll be begging on their knees at the WTO,” says one.

——————————————————————————————————

Text II:

IT WAS a tableau to sum up an age. Leaders of the world’s 20 main industrial powers, plus a dusting of international institutions and secondary powers, posed for a photo at the Hamburg Congress Centre. In the middle, among the testosteroid ranks of Putins and Trumps, Erdogans and Xis, was Angela Merkel; calm and composed, her fingers bridged in their distinctive rhombus. Look back over the past years of global turmoil—terror, wars, financial crises, political upheavals—and that rhombus is one of the few constants. A sturdy pinnacle in an uncertain age; a bridge in more senses than one.

The photo taken, the G20 leaders spilled into the conference room. Mrs Merkel bustled through the throng, talking first with Vladimir Putin, then with Emmanuel Macron and Donald Trump, then with Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk. She called the company to order and opened the discussion, stressing that Hamburg (where she was born) is a maritime city, a symbol of the “networked world” at stake in the coming talks. She explained the symbolic value of the summit’s icon, the reef knot: “The more strain on its ends, the tighter it becomes.”

Surveying the scene it was tempting to conclude that a unilateralist America, a withdrawing Britain, a still-recovering France, a revisionist Russia and a not-yet-dominant China make Mrs Merkel not just the chair of this particular summit, but something more: the new leader of the free world. Recent pieces in the Washington Post, the Los Angeles TimesNewsweek, the IndependentUSA Today and Politico have all floated or even endorsed the designation. When Barack Obama paid a final presidential visit to Berlin in November, it was said that he was unofficially anointing Mrs Merkel his successor as guardian of the global order.

My piece in this week’s issue of The Economist challenges the label, for which Berlin has neither the appetite nor the means. For one thing, even booming Germany lacks America’s economic weight. That its welcome “Marshall Plan for Africa” is so modest compared with both the scale of the task and the original Marshall Plan makes that much clear. Moreover, the country is still hamstrung by its history. As Jan Techau of the American Academy in Berlin puts it to me: the Nazi past still causes Germans to “lack faith in their own good intentions”. Partly for this reason, the country remains relatively allergic to military force; it spends just 1.2% of it GDP on defence (as Mr Trump likes to complain) and so cannot undergird its diplomatic positions with hard power.

The G20 summit dramatises these realities. The final statement is likely to be vague. It may carry asterisks exempting America from environmental passages. There is even a chance that Mr Trump will not sign it at all. Whether other rich countries will commit meaningfully to Mrs Merkel’s plan for Africa is still uncertain. Unlike the chancellor, most still see turbulence on that continent primarily as a security rather than a development issue.

Most significant will be the bilateral meetings. Will Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping find common ground on their border disputes and China’s contentious “One Belt One Road” trade plan? Will Turkey and Saudi Arabia make any progress on Syria? Will Theresa May reach new understandings with her EU counterparts on Brexit? Will Mr Trump’s first meeting with Mr Putin prompt a deal on Ukraine? Progress on such questions—unlikely to feature among the concluding annoucements here in Hamburg tomorrow—matters so much because we are in what the political scientist Ian Bremmer calls a “G-Zero” world; one in which no country or bloc can shape or direct global events. The era of the cacophony is upon us.

Source: “The postmodern power: Angela Merkel, the G-Zero chancellor”, by J.C., The Economist.com, Jul 7th, 2017.

4) Which of the following statements can be inferred from the above text?

  1. The opening expression of “IT WAS a tableau to sum up an age,” (p.1) is a clear criticism of the raunchy depiction provided by international tabloids to the most recent G-20 summit. – FALSE

IT WAS a tableau to sum up an age. Leaders of the world’s 20 main industrial powers, plus a dusting of international institutions and secondary powers, posed for a photo at the Hamburg Congress Centre.

2. The reference to the “G-Zero” world (p.6) is used to exemplify the jangling discord within the present-day reality and the lack of any prominent world leader to shape the global world order. – TRUE

Progress on such questions—unlikely to feature among the concluding annoucements here in Hamburg tomorrow—matters so much because we are in what the political scientist Ian Bremmer calls a “G-Zero” world; one in which no country or bloc can shape or direct global events. The era of the cacophony is upon us.

3. The reference to a “reef knot” (p.2) is a blatant slight on the author’s part to show Angela Merkel’s incapacity to assume the role of the leader of a “networked world”. – FALSE

She called the company to order and opened the discussion, stressing that Hamburg (where she was born) is a maritime city, a symbol of the “networked world” at stake in the coming talks. She explained the symbolic value of the summit’s icon, the reef knot: “The more strain on its ends, the tighter it becomes.”

4. The reference made to Merkels’s “rhombus” (p.1) portrays a poised and unruffled leader amongst a motley crew of male haughtiness and superiority. – TRUE

In the middle, among the testosteroid ranks of Putins and Trumps, Erdogans and Xis, was Angela Merkel; calm and composed, her fingers bridged in their distinctive rhombus. Look back over the past years of global turmoil—terror, wars, financial crises, political upheavals—and that rhombus is one of the few constants. A sturdy pinnacle in an uncertain age; a bridge in more senses than one.

5) Determine of the following statements are true or false.

  1. The expression sturdy pinnacle (p.1) bears the same contextual meaning as a rugged apex. – TRUE
  2. The expression spilled into (p.2) bears a meaning that is semantically opposite to trickled into. – TRUE
  3. The expression bustled through the throng (p.2) can be replaced by trudged through the swaths without changing the semantic or grammatical meaning of the sentence. – FALSE
  4. The expression hamstrung (p.4) can be replaced by stymied without changing the semantic or grammatical structure of the sentence. – TRUE

6) According to the author’s point of view, determine if the following statements about Merkel’s AND Germany’s capacity as “the new leader of the free world” are true or false.

  1. The horrific past of Nazi Germany still lingers in the minds of the German people, causing them to distrust their leader’s decision-making and objectives.TRUE (annulled)
  2. Germany lacks both the economic power and military armament to combat the major international issues of the new free world. – TRUE
  3. Germany must succumb to America’s weight and might regardless of Merkel’s flawless capabilities as an international leader. – FALSE (not mentioned in the text)
  4. Germany’s version of the Marshall Plan is blatantly unprepared to deal with daunting complexities of the African continent. – TRUE (annulled)

My piece in this week’s issue of The Economist challenges the label, for which Berlin has neither the appetite nor the means. For one thing, even booming Germany lacks America’s economic weight. (6b) That its welcome “Marshall Plan for Africa” is so modest compared with both the scale of the task and the original Marshall Plan makes that much clear. (6d) Moreover, the country is still hamstrung by its history. As Jan Techau of the American Academy in Berlin puts it to me: the Nazi past still causes Germans to “lack faith in their own good intentions”. (6a) Partly for this reason, the country remains relatively allergic to military force; it spends just 1.2% of it GDP on defence (as Mr Trump likes to complain) and so cannot undergird its diplomatic positions with hard power. (6b)

—————————————————————————————————-

Text III:

To be sure, the Anglosphere rests on fragile foundations. First, there is a problem of leadership. Washington would be the most obvious leader, but the other members of the Anglosphere would risk being swallowed up by a nation representing 70 percent of the population and economy of the new political community. Not surprisingly, some prominent Brexiteers such as the writer James Bennet and Andrew Roberts, a visiting professor at King’s College, favor CANZUK, which brings together Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, as the first post-Brexit option. However, given its small proportion of the Anglosphere population, this association of states would be globally irrelevant.

Second, it will be hard to agree on a common strategy when it comes to China. Washington will play tough with Beijing, while London, which joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, will presumably be softer. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand will follow suit. Although the rationale of the Anglosphere is to preserve national sovereignty, China is too big a challenge for the members to act in an uncoordinated manner.

Third, the United Kingdom will oppose Washington’s potentially accommodating stance toward Russia. And finally, Trump himself represents a mixed blessing for such a project. Without the United States, the Anglosphere loses meaning, but should Trump antagonize allies in Europe and Asia with overly aggressive policies, he would become a burden.

If the Anglosphere comes together as a political project, it could signal the emergence of a new model of globalization, centered on cultural homogeneity, with regional clusters converging around common cultural factors, and without a rigid underlying institutional structure like the European Union. Even now, according to the Economisttwo countries that share a common language trade 42 percent more with each other than those that don’t. Meanwhile, two countries that once shared imperial ties trade a massive 188 percent more. Gone would be the idea of a flat world. Goods, knowledge, and people would move smoothly within culturally similar areas. Outside of them, a variety of barriers, from walls to suffocating regulations, would inhibit the flow. With fewer trade exchanges and less specialization in production, productivity would further slow down and innovation would stagnate. But governments would enjoy more freedom to protect the weak within their borders from external forces.

Given the complex interaction of historical, political, and economic factors, it is hard to predict how countries will pool together. The World Values ​​Survey, which explores the values ​​and beliefs of nations, identifies eight culturally defined macro-regions. One of them is the Anglosphere. Europe is split along Catholic-Protestant lines. Russia, for its part, could exploit historical and cultural affinities with the former Soviet bloc to create a Eurasian free-trade zone. In Asia, the Confucian tradition brings together China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, though it is hard to believe that the conditions for such a macro-region will exist any time soon. Other potential groupings include South America and Africa.

Depending on circumstances, the coming together of culturally homogeneous zones might be spontaneous (Europe and Anglosphere) or coercive (Russia and Asia), and the interactions between regions could be characterized by either conflict or peace. Nostalgic nationalism will likely reinforce tensions and frictions between regions that are culturally distant, especially when standards of living differ greatly. But it can bring culturally similar countries closer together. Indeed, nostalgic nationalism is already reshaping the global order, but it will not necessarily lead to outright isolationism or conflict. There is room for new forms of cooperation to flourish.

Source: “A Future of the English-Speaking Peoples: Lie Back and Think of the Anglosphere”, by Edoardo Campanella and Marte Dassù,
Foreign Affairs, February 21, 2017,

7) Regarding the concept of the Anglosphere as a political project, determine if the following statements are true or false.

  1. The principle of the Anglosphere suggests the formulation of a culturally heterogeneous grouping of regional powers centered around cultural commonalities but without strict institutional guidelines. – FALSE
  2. According to the author of this text, countries with common languages, as well as those that formerly shared imperial bonds, are highly likely to trade with one another. – FALSE
  3. The Anglosphere would provide a framework within which countries could safeguard their vulnerable population from outside powers. – TRUE
  4. Within the realms of the Anglosphere, immigration and trade could take place fairly effortlessly, whereas outside of the Anglosphere, regulations and barriers would hamper their movement. – TRUE

If the Anglosphere comes together as a political project, it could signal the emergence of a new model of globalization, centered on cultural homogeneity, with regional clusters converging around common cultural factors, and without a rigid underlying institutional structure like the European Union. (7a) Even now, according to the Economist, two countries that share a common language trade 42 percent more with each other than those that don’t. Meanwhile, two countries that once shared imperial ties trade a massive 188 percent more. (7b) Gone would be the idea of a flat world. Goods, knowledge, and people would move smoothly within culturally similar areas. Outside of them, a variety of barriers, from walls to suffocating regulations, would inhibit the flow. (7d) With fewer trade exchanges and less specialization in production, productivity would further slow down and innovation would stagnate. But governments would enjoy more freedom to protect the weak within their borders from external forces. (7c)

8) Determine of the following statements are true or false.

  1. The unification of the countries into the group CANZUK would offer a viable economic option within the larger framework of the Angloshpere. – FALSE

Not surprisingly, some prominent Brexiteers such as the writer James Bennet and Andrew Roberts, a visiting professor at King’s College, favor CANZUK, which brings together Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, as the first post-Brexit option. However, given its small proportion of the Anglosphere population, this association of states would be globally irrelevant.

2. Washington represents the most feasible leader of the new Anglosphere due to its massive economic weight and military might. – FALSE

First, there is a problem of leadership. Washington would be the most obvious leader, but the other members of the Anglosphere would risk being swallowed up by a nation representing 70 percent of the population and economy of the new political community.

3. It can be inferred that Australia, Canada, and New Zealand will side with The United States on issues dealing with international relations with China. – FALSE

Second, it will be hard to agree on a common strategy when it comes to China. Washington will play tough with Beijing, while London, which joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, will presumably be softer. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand will follow suit. Although the rationale of the Anglosphere is to preserve national sovereignty, China is too big a challenge for the members to act in an uncoordinated manner.

4. According to the text, President Trump should implement foreign policies that will serve to provoke both Europe and Asia to take direct economic and military actions. – FALSE

Without the United States, the Anglosphere loses meaning, but should Trump antagonize allies in Europe and Asia with overly aggressive policies, he would become a burden.

9) Determine if the following statements are true or false.

  1. A Catholic-Protestant unification would be beneficial for the formulation of the Angloshpere on the European continent. – FALSE (no clear link in ideas)

The World Values ​​Survey, which explores the values ​​and beliefs of nations, identifies eight culturally defined macro-regions. One of them is the Anglosphere. Europe is split along Catholic-Protestant lines.

2. Taking into account the historical and cultural similarities amongst the former Soviet bloc nations, a Eurasian free-trade zone could be taken advantage of by Russian interests. – TRUE

Russia, for its part, could exploit historical and cultural affinities with the former Soviet bloc to create a Eurasian free-trade zone.

3. The current sense of “nostalgic nationalism” suggests that the new world order will be guided by leaders who advocate blatant political divides. – FALSE

Indeed, nostalgic nationalism is already reshaping the global order, but it will not necessarily lead to outright isolationism or conflict.

4. According to the text, the principle of “culturally homogeneous zones” can occur either in an impromptu fashion or through bullying, with either clashing or pacific interactions. – TRUE

Depending on circumstances, the coming together of culturally homogeneous zones might be spontaneous (Europe and Anglosphere) or coercive (Russia and Asia), and the interactions between regions could be characterized by either conflict or peace.

Todd’s Challenge: Mock Exam

Hello, hello! Como vocês estão às vésperas da 1ª Fase do CACD 2017? Lembrem de todo o esforço que vocês já fizeram até agora e confiem na preparação de vocês. Tranquilidade é muito importante para o dia da prova!

Para aproveitar ao máximo os dias que restam de estudos, o professor Todd Marshall fez um desafio especial pré-TPS: um simulado completo de Inglês! Praticar é fundamental, então aproveite! As respostas estarão disponíveis amanhã. Best of luck!

——————————————————————————————————

Text I:

Sequencing presents a second problem. Mr Barnier insists on settling the bill and other divorce terms before substantial talks on the much bigger matter of a post-Brexit settlement, including a trade deal, can begin. But British officials want to negotiate in parallel, and perhaps to link the departure sum to the degree of access Britain will enjoy to the EU’s single market after it leaves. The law lends Britain half a hand: Article 50 says that a departing country’s withdrawal agreement shall take account of “the framework for its future relationship” with the EU. But hardliners like France insist on keeping the two issues apart. And with only two years to conclude an Article 50 deal, Britain cannot waste time talking about talks.

Some British officials note that the other EU governments can tweak Mr Barnier’s negotiating guidelines if they find his line too tough. Britain might seek to exploit this by offering sweeteners: defence co-operation with the Baltics, perhaps, or infrastructure grants to Poland. The trouble is that reducing Britain’s bill means cuts to the overall budget, which would irk countries that do well from it, or extra payments from the wealthier governments to make up the shortfall. That creates an unusual alignment of interests among the 27. “If there’s one thing net payers and net recipients agree on, it’s to make the bill for Britain as high as possible,” says an EU official.

Most governments do not rule out a compromise. German officials, for example, will consider opening trade talks before the divorce is settled, so long as Britain accepts the principle that it has obligations that extend beyond its departure. As for the figure itself, like all EU budgetary negotiations it will be resolved via late-night Brussels summitry. “It’s like buying a carpet in Morocco,” says Jean-Claude Piris, a former head of the EU Council’s legal service. “The figures are always negotiable.”

But there are reasons to fear a breakdown. Theresa May, the prime minister, has done little to prepare voters for this debate. Neither her speeches nor the government’s white paper on Brexit have said anything about an exit payment. A whopping financial demand will therefore inflame Britain’s tabloids, limiting her room for manoeuvre. More worryingly, both sides believe they hold the whip hand. British officials think the hole Brexit blows in the EU’s budget will force the Europeans into compromise for fear of getting nothing if the talks derail. EU officials, for their part, are convinced that the prospect of no withdrawal agreement, and therefore no trade deal, will terrify Britain into submission. “They’ll be begging on their knees at the WTO,” says one.

The EU is skilled at brokering compromise on budgets. Perhaps that will prove true for the Article 50 talks, too. But two things set the upcoming negotiation aside. First, there is no precedent. Second, goodwill towards Britain has largely evaporated; it will be negotiating with the EU as a third country, not a partner. Informal meetings between British and European officials have already witnessed blazing rows. About the only thing the sides agree on is that they may be heading for deadlock.

Source: “From Brussels with love: The multi-billion-euro exit charge that could sink Brexit talks”, The Economist Print Edition, Feb 10, 2017

1) Determine if the following statements can be inferred from the above text.

  1. The expression “The law lends Britain half a hand” (p.1) implies that Article 50 shall grant Britain partial trade access to the EU’s single market upon its departure.
  2. By the expression “seek to exploit this by offering sweeteners” (p.2), one can assume that negotiation parameters with other EU nations may well occur through the offering of luring bribes and concessions.
  3. The expression “It’s like buying a carpet in Morocco” suggests that bargaining will figure prominently within the forthcoming Britain-EU compromise.
  4. It can be inferred that the long-term partnership between the EU and Britain is quickly fading due to a lack of a prior precedent on which to base the final decision on Article 50.

2) Determine if the following statements are true or false.

  1. The expression a whopping financial demand can be substituted by a massive pecuniary burden without changing the overall semantic structure of the sentence.
  2. The expression hold the whip hand bears a metaphorical relationship with the act of a slave’s torture
  3. The expression blazing rows can be replaced by explosive quarrels without changing the overall semantic structure of the sentence
  4. The expression heading for deadlock can be replaced by on route to a debacle without changing the overall semantic structure of the sentence.

3) According to the above text, determine if the following statements are true or false.

  1. AS the EU is adept at negotiating budgetary settlements, it may well prove adroit in negotiating the provisions of Article 50 as well.
  2. Failure in Article 50 talks are looming due to May’s ill-prepared actions to achieve a smooth Brexit without having to pay a heavy exit payment.
  3. Germany appears willing to negotiate trade with Britain provided that Britain fulfills its pre-departure responsibilities.
  4. Should the Article 50 talks fall by the wayside, Brexit’s financial burden upon the EU budget will sway the EU into accepting Britain’s international trade demands.

——————————————————————————————————

Text II:

IT WAS a tableau to sum up an age. Leaders of the world’s 20 main industrial powers, plus a dusting of international institutions and secondary powers, posed for a photo at the Hamburg Congress Centre. In the middle, among the testosteroid ranks of Putins and Trumps, Erdogans and Xis, was Angela Merkel; calm and composed, her fingers bridged in their distinctive rhombus. Look back over the past years of global turmoil—terror, wars, financial crises, political upheavals—and that rhombus is one of the few constants. A sturdy pinnacle in an uncertain age; a bridge in more senses than one.

The photo taken, the G20 leaders spilled into the conference room. Mrs Merkel bustled through the throng, talking first with Vladimir Putin, then with Emmanuel Macron and Donald Trump, then with Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk. She called the company to order and opened the discussion, stressing that Hamburg (where she was born) is a maritime city, a symbol of the “networked world” at stake in the coming talks. She explained the symbolic value of the summit’s icon, the reef knot: “The more strain on its ends, the tighter it becomes.”

Surveying the scene it was tempting to conclude that a unilateralist America, a withdrawing Britain, a still-recovering France, a revisionist Russia and a not-yet-dominant China make Mrs Merkel not just the chair of this particular summit, but something more: the new leader of the free world. Recent pieces in the Washington Post, the Los Angeles TimesNewsweek, the IndependentUSA Today and Politico have all floated or even endorsed the designation. When Barack Obama paid a final presidential visit to Berlin in November, it was said that he was unofficially anointing Mrs Merkel his successor as guardian of the global order.

My piece in this week’s issue of The Economist challenges the label, for which Berlin has neither the appetite nor the means. For one thing, even booming Germany lacks America’s economic weight. That its welcome “Marshall Plan for Africa” is so modest compared with both the scale of the task and the original Marshall Plan makes that much clear. Moreover, the country is still hamstrung by its history. As Jan Techau of the American Academy in Berlin puts it to me: the Nazi past still causes Germans to “lack faith in their own good intentions”. Partly for this reason, the country remains relatively allergic to military force; it spends just 1.2% of it GDP on defence (as Mr Trump likes to complain) and so cannot undergird its diplomatic positions with hard power.

The G20 summit dramatises these realities. The final statement is likely to be vague. It may carry asterisks exempting America from environmental passages. There is even a chance that Mr Trump will not sign it at all. Whether other rich countries will commit meaningfully to Mrs Merkel’s plan for Africa is still uncertain. Unlike the chancellor, most still see turbulence on that continent primarily as a security rather than a development issue.

Most significant will be the bilateral meetings. Will Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping find common ground on their border disputes and China’s contentious “One Belt One Road” trade plan? Will Turkey and Saudi Arabia make any progress on Syria? Will Theresa May reach new understandings with her EU counterparts on Brexit? Will Mr Trump’s first meeting with Mr Putin prompt a deal on Ukraine? Progress on such questions—unlikely to feature among the concluding annoucements here in Hamburg tomorrow—matters so much because we are in what the political scientist Ian Bremmer calls a “G-Zero” world; one in which no country or bloc can shape or direct global events. The era of the cacophony is upon us.

Source: “The postmodern power: Angela Merkel, the G-Zero chancellor”, by J.C.,
The Economist.com, Jul 7th, 2017.

4) Which of the following statements can be inferred from the above text?

  1. The opening expression of “It was a tableau to sum up an age,” (p.1) is a clear criticism of the raunchy depiction provided by international tabloids to the most recent G-20 summit.
  2. The reference to the “G-Zero” world (p.6) is used to exemplify the jangling discord within the present-day reality and the lack of any prominent world leader to shape the global world order.
  3. The reference to a “reef knot” (p.2) is a blatant slight on the author’s part to show Angela Merkel’s incapacity to assume the role of the leader of a “networked world”.
  4. The reference made to Merkels’s “rhombus” (p.1) portrays a poised and unruffled leader amongst a motley crew of male haughtiness and superiority.

5) Determine of the following statements are true or false.

  1. The expression sturdy pinnacle (p.1) bears the same contextual meaning as a rugged apex.
  2. The expression spilled into (p.2) bears a meaning that is semantically opposite to trickled into.
  3. The expression bustled through the throng (p.2) can be replaced by trudged through the swaths without changing the semantic or grammatical meaning of the sentence.
  4. The expression hamstrung (p.4) can be replaced by stymied without changing the semantic or grammatical structure of the sentence.

6) According to the author’s point of view, determine if the following statements about Merkel’s AND Germany’s capacity as “the new leader of the free world” are true or false.

  1. The horrific past of Nazi Germany still lingers in the minds of the German people, causing them to distrust their leader’s decision-making and objectives.
  2. Germany lacks both the economic power and military armament to combat the major international issues of the new free world.
  3. Germany must succumb to America’s weight and might regardless of Merkel’s flawless capabilities as an international leader.
  4. Germany’s version of the Marshall Plan is blatantly unprepared to deal with daunting complexities of the African continent.

—————————————————————————————————-

Text III:

To be sure, the Anglosphere rests on fragile foundations. First, there is a problem of leadership. Washington would be the most obvious leader, but the other members of the Anglosphere would risk being swallowed up by a nation representing 70 percent of the population and economy of the new political community. Not surprisingly, some prominent Brexiteers such as the writer James Bennet and Andrew Roberts, a visiting professor at King’s College, favor CANZUK, which brings together Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, as the first post-Brexit option. However, given its small proportion of the Anglosphere population, this association of states would be globally irrelevant.

Second, it will be hard to agree on a common strategy when it comes to China. Washington will play tough with Beijing, while London, which joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, will presumably be softer. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand will follow suit. Although the rationale of the Anglosphere is to preserve national sovereignty, China is too big a challenge for the members to act in an uncoordinated manner.

Third, the United Kingdom will oppose Washington’s potentially accommodating stance toward Russia. And finally, Trump himself represents a mixed blessing for such a project. Without the United States, the Anglosphere loses meaning, but should Trump antagonize allies in Europe and Asia with overly aggressive policies, he would become a burden.

If the Anglosphere comes together as a political project, it could signal the emergence of a new model of globalization, centered on cultural homogeneity, with regional clusters converging around common cultural factors, and without a rigid underlying institutional structure like the European Union. Even now, according to the Economisttwo countries that share a common language trade 42 percent more with each other than those that don’t. Meanwhile, two countries that once shared imperial ties trade a massive 188 percent more. Gone would be the idea of a flat world. Goods, knowledge, and people would move smoothly within culturally similar areas. Outside of them, a variety of barriers, from walls to suffocating regulations, would inhibit the flow. With fewer trade exchanges and less specialization in production, productivity would further slow down and innovation would stagnate. But governments would enjoy more freedom to protect the weak within their borders from external forces.

Given the complex interaction of historical, political, and economic factors, it is hard to predict how countries will pool together. The World Values ​​Survey, which explores the values ​​and beliefs of nations, identifies eight culturally defined macro-regions. One of them is the Anglosphere. Europe is split along Catholic-Protestant lines. Russia, for its part, could exploit historical and cultural affinities with the former Soviet bloc to create a Eurasian free-trade zone. In Asia, the Confucian tradition brings together China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, though it is hard to believe that the conditions for such a macro-region will exist any time soon. Other potential groupings include South America and Africa.

Depending on circumstances, the coming together of culturally homogeneous zones might be spontaneous (Europe and Anglosphere) or coercive (Russia and Asia), and the interactions between regions could be characterized by either conflict or peace. Nostalgic nationalism will likely reinforce tensions and frictions between regions that are culturally distant, especially when standards of living differ greatly. But it can bring culturally similar countries closer together. Indeed, nostalgic nationalism is already reshaping the global order, but it will not necessarily lead to outright isolationism or conflict. There is room for new forms of cooperation to flourish.

Source: “A Future of the English-Speaking Peoples: Lie Back and Think of the Anglosphere”, by Edoardo Campanella and Marte Dassù,
Foreign Affairs
, February 21, 2017.

7) Regarding the concept of the Anglosphere as a political project, determine if the following statements are true or false.

  1. The principle of the Anglosphere suggests the formulation of a culturally heterogeneous grouping of regional powers centered around cultural commonalities but without strict institutional guidelines.
  2. According to the author of this text, countries with common languages, as well as those that formerly shared imperial bonds, are highly likely to trade with one another.
  3. The Anglosphere would provide a framework within which countries could safeguard their vulnerable population from outside powers.
  4. Within the realms of the Anglosphere, immigration and trade could take place fairly effortlessly, whereas outside of the Anglosphere, regulations and barriers would hamper their movement.

8) Determine of the following statements are true or false.

  1. The unification of the countries into the group CANZUK would offer a viable economic option within the larger framework of the Angloshpere.
  2. Washington represents the most feasible leader of the new Anglosphere due to its massive economic weight and military might.
  3. It can be inferred that Australia, Canada, and New Zealand will side with The United States on issues dealing with international relations with China.
  4. According to the text, President Trump should implement foreign policies that will serve to provoke both Europe and Asia to take direct economic and military actions.

9) Determine if the following statements are true or false.

  1. A Catholic-Protestant unification would be beneficial for the formulation of the Angloshpere on the European continent.
  2. Taking into account the historical and cultural similarities amongst the former Soviet bloc nations, a Eurasian free-trade zone could be taken advantage of by Russian interests.
  3. The current sense of “nostalgic nationalism” suggests that the new world order will be guided by leaders who advocate blatant political divides.
  4. According to the text, the principle of “culturally homogeneous zones” can occur either in an impromptu fashion or through bullying, with either clashing or pacific interactions.