按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
We are seeing a series of paradoxes at the turn of the millennium。
1
On the one hand； globalisation means that national frontiers are being increasingly meaningless； but on the other； we are being swept by a wave of parochialism； with countries clinging to the notion of sovereignty。 Many members of the UN have only bee nation states in the last few decades； so I can understand why they are so keen to hang on to their independence。 But there are so many factors in the world that make this position increasingly meaningless。Governments no longer have plete control over their economic and monetary policies； and many multinationals now have greater profits than individual countries’GDP。
2
The end of the cold war has brought its own dangers and we need to find a new balance of power in the world。It has also spawned many conflicts。 Governments must be prepared to surrender some authority to global and regional institutions or we risk world disorder。 It is tragic that； just when we need a strong international organisation； the United Nations is starved of funds and often sidelined by its own member states。 What happened in East Timor was unforgivable because it was foreseeable。 Angola has been another sad instance of international vacillation。 We need an international body with teeth—morally and in action。 Perhaps the UN should be given its own force。
3
I do think world war is less likely for the present； although I worry about the proliferation of nuclear weapons at one end and lethal small arms at the other。 It is terrifying the way that power is increasingly disseminated to small； pletely ruthless groups like terrorists； drug traffickers and local warlords。 The great imponderable is that some nut could create a nuclear explosion。 Or that some essentially local conflict could escalate out of control。 You cannot isolate instability：it gets exported。
4
Another worry stems from the huge economic imbalances in a world where the richest 20 per cent have 86 per cent of global GDP； and the 20 poorest countries only one per cent。
5
Humanitarian aid is no more than a palliative。 Western countries must increase their development aid programmes； not out of charity but for reasons of self…interest。 The international implications of； for example； the collapse of Africa are unthinkable。 There must be a new concept of security based not just on military and defence matters but on economic and social concerns too。 As long as more than a million people continue to live in direct poverty we can never hope to achieve national or international stability。 The global pendulum has swung too far towards a total dependence on market forces； but finding some point of balance in the middle is extremely difficult。
I am by nature optimistic； but in my gloomier moments I sometimes think the only solution will be an invasion from outer space—then at last everyone would unite！
答案及解析
1。 C。 由文章第一段中的On the one hand …globalisation和but on the other…parochialism 后面的内容可知本段是在谈论全球化和地方主义之间的冲突矛盾，由此判断答案为C。
2。 F。第二段，承接上文，指出在冷战结束的情况下，联合国等国际组织应该发挥更大的作用，但是下文话锋一转，用东帝汉和安哥拉两个例子来表现联合国在国际行动中的软弱无力，再结合上面所提到的“我们需要一个强大的国际组织”，顺其自然的就得出了“希望联合国强劲有力”的结论，选项F正好符合了这一意境。
3。 A。作者在这一段极力渲染了武器扩散的恐怖情形，字里行间我们可以了解到，作者想表达的意思其实就是：诸如战争、毒品、贫穷等不稳定的因素是会扩散和蔓延的，并不是与世隔绝的，在全球化的浪潮下，谁也无法“独善其身”。由此可判断答案为A。
4。 E。由文中的the huge economic imbalances 及文中出现的数字对比，我们很容易选出正确答案。
5。 D。三、四、五段在逻辑上是前后呼应的，作者采用“花开两朵、各表一枝”的写作手法，一方面指出武器，毒品是无法隔绝的，另一方面呼吁贫穷也是会蔓延的。战争和贫困就好比罪恶的双生子，不离不弃、如影随行，相应的，第五段和第三段的结尾也应该相互呼应。
中心思想
本文通过阐述近年来联合国在国际事务中差强人意的表现，指出现今世界不安定的因素，即武器以及贫穷的扩散，而要从根本上解决世界上形形色色的问题，一个强有力的国际组织是必要的，如果仅仅依靠市场的力量或单个政府的地方保护主义甚至是人道主义的援助是远远不够的。世界性的问题需要站在世界的角度来解决。
译文
新千年的到来使很多矛盾更加凸显。
一方面，全球化使得国界变得越来越无足轻重；另一方面，目光短浅的地区主义者打着国家主权的旗号正席卷全球。联合国的多数成员国仅仅独立了区区几十年，因此他们对主权独立的坚持无可厚非。但是，有很多因素使得这种立场显得那么苍白无力。政府已无法完全左右经济和金融政策，很多跨国公司的营销额比某些国家的国民生产总值还高。
冷战的结束衍生出很多随之而来的危险，我们需重建世界的权力均衡。冲突在所难免。所以，各国政府应将部分权力让渡给地区性或国际性机构；否则，我们就得面临混乱的世界秩序。令人颇感沮丧的是，当我们最需要一个强有力的国际性机构时，联合国要么经费不足，要么被其成员国边缘化。发生在东帝汶的事件之所以难以让人释怀，是因为我们本可避免这一事件的发生。安哥拉是国际机构软弱无力的又一可悲例证。我们需要一个在道德上和行动上都强有力国际机构，也许联合国应被赋予它本该拥有的权威。
我虽然很担心越来越多的核武器和那些小型致命性武器；但是，我的确认为，现在发生世界大战的可能性微乎其微。令人深感忧虑的是，权力正逐渐分散到那些人数不多但却嗜血成性的极端组织手中，如恐怖分子、毒品走私贩、当地军阀。同时，难以估量的是，有些极端狂热分子一心想要制造出核爆炸；一些地区性冲突也极有可能升级失去控制。在当今世界，无法将不稳定因素局限在当地，这种不稳定会扩散至全世界。
另一令人忧心的是世界范围巨大的经济不平衡——世界上最富的占20％的国家拥有86％的全球GDP；二十个最贫穷的国家的国民生产总值总和仅占世界的1％。
人道主义援助难以根治问题。西方国家出于自身利益，而不是慈善也应大幅增加对穷国的发展援助。举例来讲，倘若非洲崩溃，全世界均会受到牵连；因此，理应尽力阻止此事发生。此外，一种新的安全观理应建立在经济和社会的联系之上，而不应以军队和国防为基础。因为，只要有超过一百万人生活在赤贫中，我们就不可能实现国家或国际社会的稳定。世界正摆向极端依赖市场力量的方向，找出一个中间的平衡点显得异常艰难。我生性乐观，但当我悲观失望时，就会认为来自外太空的入侵或许是唯一的解决之道；那时所有人都会团结起来。
四
［A］ Rate discrimination will turn railroads into the arbiter。
［B］Shippers will have the railway by the throat。
［C］It is not practical for the shippers to appeal。
［D］Refute the viewpoint held by the supporters of the mergence。
［E］What the railroads hold towards rate discrimination。
［F］The mergence makes the railroads lose money in business。
In recent years； railroads have been bining with each other； merging into supersystems； causing heightened concerns about monopoly。 As recently as 1995；the top four railroads accounted for under 70 percent of the total tonmiles moved by rails。 Next year； after a series of mergers is pleted； just four railroads will control well over 90 percent of all the freight moved by major rail carriers。
1
Supporters of the new supersystems argue that these mergers will allow for substantial cost reductions and better coordinated service。 Any threat of monopoly； they argue； is removed by fierce petition from trucks。 But many shippers plain that for heavy bulk modities traveling long distances； such as coal； chemicals； and grain； trucking is too costly and the railroads therefore have them by the throat。
2
The vast consolidation within the rail industry means that most shippers are served by only one rail pany。 Railroads typically charge such “captive” shippers 20 to 30 percent more than they do when another railroad is peting for the business。 Shippers who feel they are being overcharged have the right to appeal to the federal governments Surface Transportation Board for rate relief； but the process is expensive； time consuming； and will work only in truly extreme cases。
3
Railroads justify rate discrimination against captive shippers on the grounds that in the long run it reduces everyones cost。 If railroads charged all customers the same average rate； they argue； shippers who have the option of switching to trucks or other forms of transportation would do so； leaving remaining customers to shoulder the cost of keeping up the line。
4
Its a theory to which many economists subscribe； but in practice it often leaves railroads in the position of determining which panies will flourish and which will fail。“Do we really want railroads to be the arbiters of who wins and who loses in the marketplace？”asks Martin Bercovici； a Washington lawyer who frequently represents shippers。
5
The railroad industry as a whole； despite its brightening fortunes； still does not earn enough to cover the cost of the capital it must invest to keep up with its surging traffic。 Yet railroads continue to borrow billions to acquire one another； with Wall Street cheering them on。 Consider the 10。2 billion bid by Norfolk Southern and CSX to acquire Conrail this year。 Conrails net railway operating ine in 1996 was just 427 million； less than half of the carrying costs of the transaction。
Whos going to pay for