第一部分：英译汉

Part 1

Translation from English into Chinese 3 hours

Read the following three passages.

Translate them into Chinese.

Write your answers on the answer sheets.

You may use additional paper for your draft but you must copy your answers onto the answer sheets.

Passage 1

You Really Are What You Eat

Early in human history, food launched the revolution which introduced social inequality. At first it was a matter of unequal entitlements: some of the earliest known human burials reveal disparities in nourishment. Great heroes of antiquity were heroic eaters, as renowned for their prowess at table as in battle.

The next revolution went to the heart of what, to me, global history is all about: long-range exchanges of culture, which happened as the reach of commerce lengthened. Taste is not easily communicable between cultures, yet today we eat high cuisines which call themselves “fusion” and “international”.

How did it happen? Forces capable of penetrating cultural barriers and internationalising food include war, hunger and imperialism. Cultural magnetism is powerful, too. But no influence equals that of trade, which hovers like a waiter at the table of world food, carrying surprising dishes to unsuspecting diners. Trade in necessarily well travelled products - salt and spices - long conditioned global politics and determined economic trends. A great leap in the range of world trade in the past 500 years precipitated the next great revolution: an ecological turnaround which made it possible to transplant crops and transfer livestock to new climates.

In the past two centuries, world population growth and urbanisation have driven a last revolution, creating a food deficit which only industrialisation could bridge: intensive production, mechanised processing and supply. Even eating was industrialised as mealtimes shifted and food became “faster”. The results included cheap food in the developing world which went rapidly from sufficiency to obesity. But in parallel, unindustrialised economies experienced the deadliest famines ever known.

In partial response, as population figures leapt upwards, late 20th century agronomy forced the pace of production with high-yield grains, chemical fertilisers, pesticides and irrigation. It fed millions who might otherwise have starved. But new solutions usually create new problems: in this case, ecological damage. It is not yet clear whether we have the means to escape from the world's food problems, or merely the means of multiplying crisis. The next revolution will probably be a revulsion in favour of traditional agriculture, facilitated by a fall in world population.

Passage 2

In Defence of Globalization

To keep my economist union card, I am required every morning when I arise to place my hand on the leather-bound family heirloom copy of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and swear a mighty oath of allegiance to globalization. I hereby do asseverate my solemn belief that globalization, taken as a whole, is a positive economic force and well worth defending. I also believe that the economic and social effects of globalization are exaggerated by both its detractors and

 supporters.

In media coverage of anti-globalization protests, “globalization” often becomes a catch-all term for capitalism and injustice. (Indeed, for some protestors, referring to capitalism and injustice would be redundant.) But economic globalization in fact describes a specific phenomenon: the growth in flows of trade and financial capital across national borders. The trend has consequences in many areas, including sovereignty, prosperity, jobs, wages, and social legislation. Globalization is too important to be consigned to buzzword status.

The degree to which national economies are integrated is not at all obvious. It depends on your choice of perspective. During the last few decades, international flows of goods and financial capital have certainly increased dramatically. One snap measure of globalization is the share of economic production destined for sale in other countries.

The global tide of economic growth over the last century has not raised all economic ships. But globalization is an avenue through which high-income nations can reach out to low-income ones. Expecting the poorest people in the world to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, without access to foreign investment, training, technical skills, or markets, verges on indifference or cruelty. Foreign aid has its place, but as a matter of practical politics, it will never arrive in sufficient quantities, nor be spent with sufficient wisdom, to raise overall standards of living dramatically in low-income countries. Only a combination of institutional reforms within low-income countries, coupled with much closer connections to the extraordinary resources and buying power of international markets, offers a realistic chance of substantially improving the plight of the poorest people in the world.

Passage 3

Debt for Nonproliferation:

The Next Step in Threat Reduction

Debt restructuring and reduction, whereby the terms of a loan are changed or part of a loan is forgiven, are common tools used by creditors for a variety of purposes. Wealthier creditor nations, such as the United States, often restructure and reduce debt owed by developing nations in order to bring about positive economic change in a debtor country. Similarly, the private financial sector restructures private debt owed by nations when it makes financial sense to do so. International nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and others have also worked with government and private creditors to use debt reduction to accomplish more philanthropic goals that can benefit both public and private creditors in less tangible ways.

Indeed, “debt swaps” - a term used loosely here to denote a creditor forgiving monetary debt in exchange for specific actions by a debtor - have been an effective tool for improving global conditions in a number of ways. The international environmental community, in particular, has been very effective in encouraging and leveraging debt conversion to help meet global environmental objectives since 1984, when the World Wildlife Fund conceived of “debt-for-nature” swaps. In these exchanges, a portion of a country's restructured debt - either commercial debt or official debt owed another country - is forgiven in return for the debtor dedicating an agreed-upon amount of local currency to an environmental project. Over the last two decades, nearly $1 billion in debt-for-swaps have been implemented.

Another important area that would benefit from this relatively new and innovative funding mechanism is nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons proliferation prevention. Since 1992, the United States has directly underwritten about $10 billion in threat reduction activities in Russia and the former Soviet Union, but the situation demands even greater investment. Russia's financial problems and security needs, which demand the formation of a sustainable Russian infrastructure to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction after direct U. S. assistance stops, both argue for increased involvement by other industrialized nations and the private sector. “Debt-for-nonproliferation” swaps are potentially powerful tools that could leverage current conditions to reduce further the security threat from Russia's weapons infrastructure.