I. ReadingComprehension

This section containstwo passages. Read each passage and then answer the questions given at the endof it. Your answers must be in English.

Passage One

Critics andsupporters of the United Nations have sometimes seemed worlds apart. But sincelast year, almost all of them, whether multilateralist or unilateralist.American or European, have come to agree that the organisation is in crisis. Thisweek, a blue-ribbon panel commissioned by the body’s secretary-general, KofiAnnan, released its report on what to do about it.

The UN’s sorrystate became most obvious with the Iraq war. Those favouring the War werefurious that after a decade of Security Council resolutions, including thelast-chance Resolution 1441 threatening “serious consequences” if Iraq did notprove its disarmament, the UN could not agree to act. Anti-war types were justas frustrated that the world body failed to stop the War. But Iraq was not theUN’s only problem. It has done little to stop humanitarian disasters, such asthe ongoing horror in Sudan. And it has done nothing to stop Iran’s and NorthKorea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Recognising thedanger of irrelevance, Mr. Annan last year told a 16-member panel, composedmainly of former government ministers and heads of government, to suggestchanges. These fall broadly into two categories: the institutional and thecultural. The former has got most of the headlines—particularly a call forchanging the structure of the Security Council. But changes in the UN’s workingpractices are crucial, too.

Everyone agreesthat the Security Council is an unrepresentative relic: of its 15 seats. Fiveare occupied by permanent, veto—wielding members(America, Russia, China, Britainand France)and ten go to countries that rotate every two years and have noveto. But that the council’s composition is a throwback to the world orderimmediately after the Second World War has been agreed on for decades, withoutany success in changing it. Japan and Germany: the second. and third biggestcontributors to the UN budget, believe they are entitled to permanent seats. Sodoes India, the world’s second—most—populous country, and Brazil, Latin America’sbiggest. Unlike in previous efforts, these four have finally banded together topress their case .And they are joined in spirit by the Africans, who want twoseats for their continent.

But eachaspirant has opponents. China mistrusts Japan. Italy opposes a permanent seatfor Germany, which would make Italy the only biggish European power withoutone. (It instead proposes a single seat for the European Union, a non-startersince this would require Britain and France to give up theirs. and regionalinstitutions cannot be UN members under the current UN Charter.)Spanish-speakingMexico and Argentina do not think Portuguese-speaking Brazil should representLatin America, and Pakistan strongly opposes its rival India’s bid. As forpotential African seats, Egypt claims one as the representative of the Muslimand Arab world. That would leave Nigeria, the continent’s most populouscountry, and South Africa, which is richer and a more stable democracy,fighting for the other.

The panel hasproposed two alternatives. The first would give six countries(none is named butprobably Germany, Japan, India, Brazil and two African countries) permanentseats without a veto, and create three extra non-permanent seats, bringing thetotal number of council members to 24. The second, which would expand thecouncil by the same number of seats, creates a new middle tier of members whowould serve for four years and could be immediately re-elected. Above thecurrent lower tier of two-year members, who cannot be re-elected? The rivals tothe would-be permanent members favour this option.

While SecurityCouncil reform may be the most visible of the proposals, the panel has alsoshared its views on the guidelines on when members may use force legally. Underthe UN Charter, they can do so in two circumstances only: Article 51 allowsforce in a clear case of self-defence, and Chapter VII permits its use when theSecurity Council agrees. While the panelists have not proposed major changes tothese two parts of the Charter, they have offered refinements.

Though theCharter was written to govern war between countries, the panel argues that evenwithout revision, (Chapter VII lets the Security Council authorise force formore controversial. modem reasons 1ike fighting terrorists and intervention instates committing humanitarian horrors. It even considers “preventive” warsagainst serious but non-imminent threats potentially justifiable.

But the panelalso says any decision to use force must pass five tests: the threat must begrave; the primary purpose must be to avert the threat: force must be a lastresort: means must be proportional; and there must be a reasonable chance thatforce wi11 succeed without calamitous consequences. All common-sense stuff, butthe panel proposes making these tests explicit (if subjective and unofficial), thusraising the quality of debate about any decision to go to war.

On top of this,the report urges the UN to make better use of its assets in the fight againstterrorism. One of the obstacles to an effective counter-terrorism strategy hasbeen UN members’ inability to agree on a definition of terrorism. The paneltries to help by defining it as “any action that is intended to cause death orserious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants”; Arab countries maycontinue to press for exemptions in the case of “foreign occupation”. Thereport also deals with what it sees as a possible “cascade of nuclearproliferation” in the near future. It recommends creating more incentives forcountries to stop enriching uranium.

1. Explain the followingsentences or phrases in English, bringing out the implied meaning, if there isany. (40 points, 4 points each)

(1) This week, a blue-ribbon panel commissioned by the body’ssecretary—general, kofi Annan,released its report on what to do about it.

(2) Recognisingthe danger of irrelevance.

(3) Everyoneagrees that the Security Council is an unrepresentative relic.

(4) But that the council’s composition is a throwback to the worldorder immediately after the Second World War has been agreed on for decades,without any Success in changing it.

(5) Unlike inprevious efforts, these four have finally banded together to press their case.

(6) But each aspiranthas opponents

(7) anon-starter since this Would require Britain and France to give up theirs

(8) While the panellists have not proposed major changes to thesetwo parts of the Charter, they have offered refinements.

(9) It evenconsiders “preventive” wars against serious but non-imminent threatspotentially justifiable.

(10) the primary purpose must be to avert the threat; force must be a last resort; means must be proportional; and there must be a reasonable chance thatforce will succeed without calamitous consequences

【答案】

(1) This week, a group of experts who are authorized by UN’ssecretary-general put forward their proposals on how to deal with the crisisthat UN is facing

(2) Kofi Annanwas aware of UN’s powerlessness in certain circumstances.

(3) Everyone holds the idea that Security Council should undergosome changes, as it cannot represent all UN members’ ideas.

(4) The composition of Security Council has long been establishedand hasn’t been changed since then.

(5) Japan, Germany, India and Brazil, they united together to askfor permanent seats in the Security Council. This case has never happenedbefore.

(6) The effort of the four countries would not be achieved easily asmany other countries disagree with their proposal.

(7) It’s impossible for European Union to have a permanent seat inSecurity Council because Britain and France wouldn’t give up theirs.

(8) The proposals from experts didn’t fundamentally challenge the UNCharter but offered improvement on how the reform of Security Council should becarried out.

(9) Chapter seven enables countries to launch wars against anypotential threats, which they consider serious to them.

(10) The priority of using force is to prevent threat from getting badto worse; if negotiation is still available, no force should be used; themeasures taken shouldn’t be extreme and will cause no catastrophic problems.

2. Give a brief answer to eachof the following questions in your own words. (15 points, 5 points each)

(1) How does theIraq war reflect the state of the UN?

(2) What are theproposals for structural changes of the UN?

(3) What are themajor contents of the panel report?

【答案】

(1) Within the UN, members are divided into two groups, thosefavoring the war and those opposing the war. Those war supporters wereunsatisfied with UN’s stance. They blamed UN for unwilling to take actions topunish Iraq. While those anti-war countries felt sorry about UN’s powerlessnessto stop the war.

(2) The panel has proposed two alternatives for structural changesof the UN. The first one is to give 6 countries permanent seats without a vetoand create 3 non-permanent seats. The second one is to create some 4-yearmembers who can be re-elected on the basis of current structure.

(3) The major content of the panel report includes: how to changethe structure of the Security Council; when shall members use force legally;suggesting UN to make better use of its assets in the fight against terrorism;defining terrorism; how to deal with nuclear proliferation.

Passage Two

The trade andinvestment relationship between the European Union and the United States is themost important in the world. Despite the emergence of competitors, Europe andAmerica are the dynamo of the global economy.

This economicrelationship is a foundation of our political partnership, which we all knowhas been through a difficult patch. The identity of interest between Europe andAmerica is less obvious than during the cold war. But while the trans-Atlanticrelationship is becoming more complex, that does not make it less important. AsEuropean commissioner for trade. I do not agree that European and Americanvalues are fundamentally diverging or that our interests no longer coincide.

We still share abelief in democracy and individual freedoms, and in creating opportunity andeconomic openness. We face the same security challenges. We look ahead toshared global problems: poverty, migration, resource crises, climate change.

We needcommitment and vision to redefine our relationship. I want to see a strongerand more balanced partnership—one in which Europe is more united, more willingto take its role in global leadership and one where the United States is moreinclined to share leadership with Europe. We need to find ways to complementeach other, not compete in the political arena.

We will notachieve either side of this equation without the other. Europe needs to buildstronger foreign policies and to be ready to act on the world stage. Butequally, the body language we see from America has a huge impact on howEuropeans view the partnership. Our common interest requires a strong Europe,not a weak and divided one. I hope that the United States will reinforce itshistorical support for European integration.

I am fortunatenow to take over an area of policy in which Europe is highly effective: trade.Our top trade priority on both sides of the Atlantic must be to put our weightbehind the multilateral Doha development agenda. Concluding this negotiation ina way that lives up to its ambition will bring enormous benefits.

Collectively, wetook a major step in reaching the framework agreement in Geneva last Julyfollowing the lead taken by the EU on agriculture export subsidies. We now lookto the United States and others to follow that lead, and we need to acceleratework in other areas—on industrial tariffs and services-to achieve a balancedresult.

The Doha roundof talks differs from any other in its focus on development. Europe and theUnited States must ensure that poorer countries are fully engaged and derivebenefits. But the issues we need to tackle to stimulate growth and innovationin trans. Atlantic trade are not those on the Doha agenda. Our markets arerelatively open and highly developed. We need to concentrate on removingregulatory and structural barriers that inhibit activity.

This is aboutcutting international red tape: Our regulatory systems and cultures aredifferent. But that is where real gains can be made.

As EU tradecommissioner I want to develop an ambitious but practical trans-Atlanticagenda. I am not inclined to set rhetorical targets or launch loftyinitiatives. I want a set of achievable goals.

Work on trans.Atlantic deregulation will also contribute to the central goal of the newEuropean Commission: promoting growth and jobs in Europe.

I am not naive.I am not turning a blind eye to the inevitable disputes in trans-Atlantictrade. They are relatively small as a proportion of total trade, but they makethe headlines.

They reflect thehuge volume of our trade and investment flows. That is good. They also reflectour readiness to settle disputes in the World Trade Organization. That is alsogood. The WTO is the best example of effective multilateralism that the worldhas so far invented. I hope we will work together to uphold it. Ifmultilateralism is to be worthwhile, it has to be effective-and that goes forevery part of the relationship between Europe and America.

1. Explain the followingsentences or phrases in English, bringing out the implied meaning, if there isany. (24 points, 4 points each)

(1) The identityof interest between Europe and America is less obvious than during the coldwar.

(2) European andAmerican values are fundamentally diverging, or that our interests no longercoincide.

(3) We will notachieve either side of this equation without the other.

(4) to put ourweight behind the multilateral Doha development agenda

(5) Concludingthis negotiation in a way that lives up to its ambition will bring enormousbenefits.

(6) This isabout cutting international red tape.

【答案】

(1) During the cold war, the interest of Europe and America was to boycottsocialism, and it’s very obvious and explicit. But in the new era, theirinterest is not that simple, as both of them have different pursuits, whichmight conflict with each other.

(2) As a matter of fact, Europe and America share similar values andtheir interests to certain degree are also identical.

(3) The relation between Europe and America is indispensable.Cooperated with each other, they could fundamentally realize their commoninterest.

(4) To take partin the multilateral Doha round of talks.

(5) If anagreement is reachable in the negotiation, all participants could get enormousbenefits from it.

(6) To removeregulatory and structural barriers is to simplify the bureaucratic process ofinternational trade

2. Give a brief answer to each of the followingquestions in your own words. (15 points, 5 points each)

(1) What doesthe author call on the United States to do to strengthen the bond in thetrans-Atlantic partnership?

(2) What doesthe author think are the issues the EU and US should work on in trans. Atlantictrade?

(3) According tothe author, what is the role of WTO in solving trans-Atlantic trade disputes?

【答案】

(1) The author calls on the US to redefine the relationship between Europeand America. He also wants US to cooperate and share leadership with Europe.Then he urges America to reach agreements with Europe in the Doha round oftalks concerning international trade. And these agreements include removingregulatory and structural barriers.

(2) The author thinks US should share leadership with EU and followthe lead taken by EU on agriculture export subsidies. Besides, he thinks Europeand America should work on industrial tariffs and services as well as removingregulatory and structural barriers. In addition, bureaucratic process ininternational trade should also be simplifies.

(3) WTO serves as an example of solving trade disputes under theframe of multilateralism for both Europe and America.

II. Please read the following passage andtranslate the underlined parts into Chinese. (24 points, 4 points each)

But can aliberal—today—be for censorship? Yes, but he ought tofavor a liberal form of censorship.

I don’t thinkthis is a contradiction in terms.(1) We have noproblem contrasting repressive laws governing alcohol, drugs and tobacco withlaws regulating (that is,discouraging the sale of )alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. We have notmade smoking a criminal offense. We have, however, and with good liberalconscience, prohibited cigarette advertising on television. The idea ofrestricting individual freedom in a liberal way, is not at all unfamiliar tous.

I therefore seeno reason why we should not be able to distinguish repressive censorship fromliberal censorship of the written and spoken word. In Britain, until a fewyears ago, you could perform almost any play you wished—but certain plays,judged to be obscene, had to be performed in private theatrical clubs. In theUnited States,(2) all of us who grew up using publiclibraries are familiar with the circumstances under which certain books couldbe circulated only to adults, while still other books had to be read in thelibrary. In both cases, a small minority that waswilling to make a serious effort to see an obscene play or book could do so.(3) But the impact of obscenity was circumscribed, and the quality ofpublic life was only marginally affected.

(4) It is adistressing fact that any system of censorship is bound, upon occasion, totreat unjust a particular work of art —to find pornography where there is only gentle eroticism, to findobscenity where none really exists, or to find both where the work’s existenceought to be tolerated because it serves a larger moral purpose. That is the price one has to be prepared to pay for censorship—even liberal censorship.

(5) But if you lookat the history of American or English literature, there is precious littledamage you can point to as a consequence of the censorship that prevailedthroughout most of that history. I doubt that manyworks of real literary merit ever were suppressed. Nor did I notice thathitherto suppressed masterpiece flooded the market when censorship was eased.

(6) I should say,to the contrary, that literature has lost quite a bit now that so much ispermitted. It seems to me that the cultural marketin the United States today is awash in dirty books, dirty movies, dirty theater.Our cultural condition has not improved as a result of the new freedom.

I’ll put itbluntly: If you care for the quality of life in our American democracy, thenyou have to be for censorship.

【答案】

(1)我们明白限制烟酒药买卖的法律与烟酒药买卖管理法规（不鼓励此类商品的销售）之间的区别。

(2)我们这些从小使用公共图书馆的人很清楚哪些书只能成人借阅，哪些书只能在馆内阅读。

(3)但色情音像制品的影响受到了约束，公共生活并未受到太大影响。

(4)一个令人难过的事实是，任何审查制度都会时不时地不公正对待某些特殊的艺术作品，有些作品带有少许情色内容便被当作淫秽作品审查，或是在根本不含淫秽内容的作品里鸡蛋挑骨头，或是对那些出于道德教育而创作的作品双管齐下进行审查。

(5)回头看看英美文学的历史，你会发现当时盛行的审查制度对文学作品几乎没有造成任何损害。

(6)相反，我认为，文学在获得了许多东西之时也失去了很多。

III. Translate thefollowing passage into English. (32 points)

明代哲学家王阳明早年被贬到贵州龙场做地方官时，捕获了当地一个强盗头目。该头目在受审时说：“我犯的是死罪，要杀要剐，任你怎么处置，只请你不要和我谈道德良知。像我这种人是从来不谈这个的，甚至连想都没有想过。”王阳明说：“好的，今天我不和你谈道德良知。不过，天气这么热，你看在审案前我们还是把外衣脱了吧。”强盗头目说：“好！”脱去外衣后，王阳明又说：“还是热，再把内衣也脱了吧。”强盗头目当然不会在乎赤膊，于是就脱去内衣。庭上庭下两人身上只剩下一件裤头。而此时王阳明更进一步，说道：“干脆我们把裤头也脱了吧，全身赤裸更自在……”一听说连裤头也要脱，强盗头目赶紧说：“这可使不得！万万使不得！”面对此情此景，王阳明当即来了一番水到渠成的因势利导：“为什么’使不得’，这是因为在你心中最后还剩有那么一点羞耻感。可见就是像你这样十恶不赦的家伙，我照样可以和你谈’道德良知’……”强盗头目口服心服，随即将自己的种种罪行一一如实供出。

【参考译文】

Wang Yangming, a philosopher in the Ming Dynasty, was once demotedto be a post house official in Longchang, Guizhou Province. During his term, hecaptured a bandit chief, who challenged Wang Yangming in court, “I’ve committedthe capital crime. Just do whatever you would to me, but please don’t preachmorality or conscience to me. People like me never care a damn about it. We don’teven give it the least thought.” Wang Yangming said, “Alright, I won’t preachthis subject today. See, it’s so hot. Why don’t we take off our overclothes beforethe trial begins?”“Ok,” said the man, and they both took off their jackets andpants. “Still hot. Why not take off the underwear?” Wang suggested. The banditcertainly felt no shame in being half-naked. Then they stripped off theirunderclothes. Now both men, the prosecutor and the defendant, had nothing buttheir briefs on. Wang went even further, “We might as well take off our briefs.That would be more comfortable...” Upon hearing this, the bandit chief hastenedto say, “No, no, no! I won’t do that. Never!” Judging that this was the righttime to steer the conversation home, Wang said, “Why did you say you wouldnever ever do it? Isn’t it the last sense of shame in your mind? Then I canreason with you about conscience, no matter what heinous crimes you havecommitted...” The bandit was truly convinced and confessed to Wang all hiscrimes. HvH4e3BBsOAqPtVbV7SHxyNfQ4k560BTvA5vUnwBSZstvT+2knk0KasCD2uzp8MZ