北京外国语大学2005年硕士研究生入学考试

基础英语试卷

Please write all the answers on the answer sheets.

Time Limit：3 hours

I.Reading Comprehension

This section contains two passages.Read each passage and then answer the questions given at the end of it.Your answers must be in English.

Passage One

Critics and supporters of the United Nations have sometimes seemed worlds apart.But since last year, almost all of them, whether multilateralist or unilateralist, American or European, have come to agree that the organization is in crisis.This week, a blue.ribbon panel commissioned by the body’s secretary-general.Kofi Annan, released its report on what to do about it.

The UN’s sorry state became most obvious with the Iraq war.Those favoring the war were furious that after a decade of Security Council resolutions, including the last-chance Resolution 1441 threatening “serious consequences” if Iraq did not prove its disarmament, the UN could not agree to act.Anti-war types were just as frustrated that the world body failed to stop the war.But Iraq was not the UN’s only problem.It has done little to stop humanitarian disasters, such as the ongoing horror in Sudan.And it has done nothing to stop Iran’s and North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Recognizing the danger of irrelevance. Mr. Annan last year told a 16-member panel, composed mainly of former government ministers and heads of government, to suggest changes.These fall broadly into two categories：the institutional and the cultural.The former has got most of the headlines—particularly a call for changing the structure of the Security Council.But changes in the UN’s working practices are crucial too.

Everyone agrees that the Security Council is an unrepresentative relic: of its 15 seats, five are occupied by permanent, veto-wielding members (America, Russia, China, Britain and France) and ten go to countries that rotate every two years and have no veto.But that the council’s composition is a throwback to the world order immediately after the Second World War has been agreed on for decades, without any success in changing it. Japan and Germany, the second-and third-biggest contributors to the UN budget, believe they are entitled to permanent seats.So does India, the world’s second-most-populous country, and Brazil, Latin America’s biggest.Unlike in previous efforts, these four have finally banded together to press their case.And they are joined in spirit by the Africans, who want two seats for their continent.

But each aspirant has opponents.China mistrusts Japan.Italy opposes a permanent seat for Germany, which would make Italy the only biggish European power without one.(It instead proposes a single seat for the European Union, a non-starter since this would require Britain and France to give up theirs, and regional institutions cannot be UN members under the current UN Charter.)Spanish-speaking Mexico and Argentina do not think Portuguese-speaking Brazil should

represent Latin America, and Pakistan strongly opposes its rival India’s bid.As for potential African seats.Egypt claims one as the representative of the Muslim and Arab world.That would Leave Nigeria, the continent’s most populous country, and South Africa, which is richer and a more stable democracy, fighting for the other.

The panel has proposed two alternatives.The first would give six countries(none is named but probably Germany, Japan, India, Brazil and two African countries) permanent seats without a veto, and create three extra non-permanent seats.bringing the total number of council members to 24.The second, which would expand the council by the same number of seats, creates a new middle tier of members who would serve for four years and could be immediately re-elected, above the current lower tier of two-year members, who cannot be re-elected.The rivals to the would-be permanent members favour this option.

While Security Council reform may be the most visible of the proposals, the panel has also shared its views on the guidelines on when members may use force legally.Under the UN Charter, they can do so in two circumstances only：Article 51 allows force in a clear case of self-defence, and Chapter VII permits its use when the Security Council agrees.While the panellists have not proposed major changes to these two parts of the Charter, they have offered refinements.

Though the Charter was written to govern war between countries, the panel argues that even without revision, Chapter VII lets the Security Council authorise force for more controversial, modern reasons like fighting terrorists and intervention in states committing humanitarian horrors.It even considers "preventive" wars against serious but non—imminent threats potentially justifiable.

But the panel also says any decision to use force must pass five tests：the threat must be grave；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 that force will succeed without calamitous consequences.All common-sense stuff, but the panel proposes making these tests explicit (if subjective and unofficial), thus raising 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 against terrorism.One of the obstacles to an effective counter-terrorism strategy has been UN members’ inability to agree on a definition of terrorism.The panel tries to help by defining it as “any action that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants”；Arab countries may continue to press for exemptions in the case of“foreign occupation”.The report also deals with what it sees as a possible “cascade of nuclear proliferation”in the near future.It recommends creating more incentives for countries to stop enriching uranium.

1.Explain the following sentences or phrases in English, bringing out the implied meaning, if there is any.(40 points, 4 points each)

1) This week , a blue-ribbon panel commissioned by the body’s secretary-general, Kofi Annan.released its report on what to do about it.

2) Recognizing the danger of irrelevance, ...

3) Everyone agrees that the Security Council is an unrepresentative relic:…

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

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

6) But each aspirant has opponents.

7) ...a non-starter since this would require Britain and France to give up theirs, …

8) While the panelists have not proposed major changes to these two parts of the Charter, they have offered refinements.

9) It even considers “preventive” wars against serious but non-imminent threats potentially 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 that force will succeed without calamitous consequences.

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

1) How does the Iraq war reflect the state of the UN?

2) What are the proposals for structural changes of the UN?

3) What are the major contents of the panel report?

Passage Two

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

This economic relationship is a foundation of our political partnership, which we all know has been through a difficult patch.The identity of interest between Europe and America is less obvious than during the cold war.But while the trans—Atlantic relationship is becoming more complex, that does not make it less important.As European commissioner for trade.I do not agree that European and American values are fundamentally diverging, or that our interests on longer coincide.

We still share a belief in democracy and individual freedoms, and in creating opportunity and economic openness.We face the same security challenges.We look ahead to shared global problems：poverty, migration, resource crises, climate change.

We need commitment and vision to redefine our, relationship.I want to see a stronger and more balanced partnership—one in which Europe is more united, more willing to take its role in global leadership and one where the United States is more inclined to share leadership with Europe.We need to find ways to complement each other, not compete in the political arena.

We will not achieve either side of this equation without the other.Europe needs to build stronger foreign policies and to be ready to act on the world stage.But equally, the body language we see from America has a huge impact on how Europeans view the partnership.Our common interest requires a strong Europe, not a weak and divided one.I hope that the United States will reinforce its historical support for European integration.

I am fortunate now 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 weight behind the multilateral Doha development agenda. Concluding this negotiation in a way that lives up to its ambition will bring enormous benefits.

Collectively, we took a major step in reaching the framework agreement in Geneva last July, following the lead taken by the EU on agriculture export subsidies.We now look to the United States and others to follow that lead, and we need to accelerate work in other areas——on industrial tariffs and services—to achieve a balanced result.

The Doha round of talks differs from any other in its focus on development.Europe and the United States must ensure that poorer countries are fully engaged and derive benefits.But the issues we need to tackle to stimulate growth and innovation in trans-Atlantic trade are not those on the Doha agenda.Our markets are relatively open and highly developed.We need to concentrate on removing regulatory and structural barriers that inhibit activity.

This is about cutting international red tape.Our regulatory systems and cultures are different.but that is where real gains can be made.

As EU trade commissioner I want to develop an ambitious but practical trans-Atlantic agenda.I am not inclined to set rhetorical targets or launch lofty initiatives.I want a set of achievable goals.

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

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

They reflect the huge volume of our trade and investment flows.That is good.They also reflect our readiness to settle disputes in the World Trade Organization.That is also good.The WTO is the best example of effective multilateralism that the world has so far invented.I hope we will work together to uphold it.If multilateralism is to be worthwhile, it has to be effective—and that goes for every part of the relationship between Europe and America.

1.Explain the following sentences or phrases in English, bringing out the implied meaning, if there is any.(24 points, 4 points each)

1)he identity of interest between Europe and America is less obvious than during the cold war.

2)European and American values are fundamentally diverging, or that our interests, no longer coincide.

3) We will not achieve either side of this equation without the other.

4) …to put our weight behind the multilateral Doha development agenda.

5) Concluding this negotiation in a way that lives up to its ambition will bring enormous benefits.

6)This is about cutting international red tape.

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

1) What does the author call on the United States to do to strengthen the bond in the trans-Atlantic partnership?

2) What does the author think are the issues the EU and US should work on in trans-Atlantic trade?

3)cording to the author, what is the role of WTO in solving trans-Atlantic trade disputes?

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

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

I don’t think this is a contradiction in terms.【1】We have no problem contrasting repressive laws governing alcohol, drugs and tobacco with laws regulating(that is, discouraging the sale of)alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.We have not made smoking a criminal offense.We have, however, and with good liberal conscience, prohibited cigarette advertising on television.The idea of restricting individual freedom.in a liberal way, is not at all unfamiliar to us.

I therefore see no reason why we should not be able to distinguish repressive censorship from liberal censorship of the written and spoken word.In Britain, until a few years 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 the United States, 【2】all of us who grew up using public libraries are familiar with the circumstances under which certain books could be circulated only to adults, while still other books had to be read in the library.In both cases, a small minority that was willing 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 of public life was only marginally affected.

【4】It is a distressing fact that any system of censorship is bound, upon occasion, to treat unjust a particular work of art—to find pornography where there is only gentle eroticism, to find obscenity where none really exists, or to find both where the work’s existence ought 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 look at the history of American or English literature, there is precious little damage you can point to as a consequence of the censorship that prevailed throughout most of that history. I doubt that many works of real literary merit ever were suppressed.Nor did I notice that hitherto 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 is permitted.It seems to me that the cultural market in 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 it bluntly：If you care for the quality of life in our American democracy, then you have to be for censorship.

Ⅲ.Translate the following 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。