1、Directions: Read the following passages. Each passage is followed by some questions. For each of them there are four choices marked A, B, C and D. Choose the best answer. As heads of state and government gather in New York for the annual session of the UN General Assembly, Kofi Annan, the UN Secreta
2、ry-general, gives us his thoughts on international intervention in humanitarian crises, and the changes needed for the next century.The tragedy of East Timor, coming so soon after that of Kosovo, has focused attention once again on the need for timely intervention by the international community when
3、 death and suffering are being inflicted on large numbers of people, and when the state nominally in charge is unable or unwilling to stop it. In Kosovo a group of states intervened without seeking authority from the United Nations Security Council. In Timor the council has now authorized interventi
4、on, but only after obtaining an invitation from Indonesia. We all hope that this will rapidly stabilize the situation, but many hundreds-probably thousands-of innocent people have already perished. As in Rwanda five years ago, the international community stands accused of doing too little, too late.
5、 Neither of these precedents is satisfactory as a model for the new millennium. Just as we have learnt that the world cannot stand aside when gross and systematic violations of human rights are taking place, we have also learnt that, if it is to enjoy the sustained support of the worlds peoples, int
6、ervention must be based on legitimate and universal principles. We need to adapt our international system better to a world with new actors, new responsibilities, and new possibilities for peace and progress. State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined-not least by the forces of g
7、lobalization and international co-operation. States are now widely understood to be instruments at the service of their peoples, and not vice versa. At the same time individual sovereignty-by which I mean the fundamental freedom of each individual, enshrined in the charter of the UN and subsequent i
8、nternational treaties-has been enhanced by a renewed and spreading consciousness of individual rights. When we read the charter today, we are more than ever conscious that its aim is to protect individual human beings, not to protect those who abuse them. These changes in the world do not make hard
9、political choices any easier. But they do oblige us to think anew about such questions as how the UN responds to humanitarian crises; and why states are willing to act in some areas of conflict, but not in others where the daily toll of death and suffering is as bad or worse. From Sierra Leone to Su
10、dan, from Angola to Afghanistan, there are people who need more than words of sympathy. They need a real and sustained commitment to help end their cycles of violence, and give them a new chance to achieve peace and prosperity. The genocide in Rwanda showed us how terrible the consequences of inacti
11、on can be in the face of mass murder. But this years conflict in Kosovo raised equally important questions about the consequences of action without international consensus and clear legal authority. It has cast in stark relief the dilemma of so-called “humanitarian intervention“. On the one hand, is
12、 it legitimate for a regional organization to use force without a UN mandate? On the other, is it permissible to let gross and systematic violations of human rights, with grave humanitarian consequences, continue unchecked? The inability of the international community to reconcile these two compelli
13、ng interests in the case of Kosovo can be viewed only as a tragedy. To avoid repeating such tragedies in the next century, I believe it is essential that the international community reach consensus-not only on the principle that massive and systematic violations of human rights must be checked, wher
14、ever they take place, but also on ways of deciding what action is necessary, and when, and by whom. The Kosovo conflict and its outcome have prompted a debate of worldwide importance. And to each side in this debate difficult questions can be posed. To those for whom the greatest threat to the futur
15、e of international order is the use of force in the absence of a Security Council mandate, one might say: leave Kosovo aside for a moment, and think about Rwanda. Imagine for one moment that, in those dark days and hours leading up to the genocide, there had been a coalition of states ready and will
16、ing to act in defense of the Tutsi population, but the council had refused or delayed giving the green light. Should such a coalition then have stood idly by while the horror unfolded? To those for whom the Kosovo action heralded a new era when states and groups of states can take military action ou
17、tside the established mechanisms for enforcing international law, one might equally ask: Is there not a danger of such interventions undermining the imperfect, yet resilient, security system created after the Second World War, and of setting dangerous precedents for future interventions without a cl
18、ear criterion to decide who might invoke these precedents and in what circumstances? Nothing in the UN charter precludes a recognition that there are rights beyond borders. What the charter does say is that “armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest.“ But what is that common interes
19、t? Who shall define it? Who shall defend it? Under whose authority? And with what means of intervention? In seeking answers to these monumental questions, I see four aspects of intervention which need to be considered with special care. First, “intervention“ should not be understood as referring onl
20、y to the use of force. A tragic irony of many of the crises that go unnoticed or unchallenged in the world today is that they could be dealt with by far less perilous acts of intervention than the one we saw this year in Yugoslavia. And yet the commitment of the world to peacekeeping, to humanitaria
21、n assistance, to rehabilitation and reconstruction varies greatly from region to region, and crisis to crisis. If the new commitment to humanitarian action is to retain the support of the worlds peoples, it must be-and must be seen to be-universal, irrespective of region or nation. Humanity, after a
22、ll, is indivisible. Second, it is clear that traditional notions of sovereignty alone are not the only obstacle to effective action in humanitarian crises. No less significant are the ways in which states define their national interests. The world has changed in profound ways since the end of the co
23、ld war, but I fear our conceptions of national interest have failed to follow suit. A new, broader definition of national interest is needed in the new century, which would induce states to find greater unity in the pursuit of common goals and values. In the context of many of the challenges facing
24、humanity today, the collective interest is the national interest. Third, in cases where forceful intervention does become necessary, the Security Council-the body charged with authorizing the use of force under international law-must be able to rise to the challenge. The choice must not be between c
25、ouncil unity and inaction in the face of genocide-as in the case of Rwanda-and council division, but regional action, as in the case of Kosovo. In both cases, the UN should have been able to find common ground in upholding the principles of the charter, and acting in defense of our common humanity.
26、As important as the councils enforcement power is its deterrent power, and unless it is able to assert itself collectively where the cause is just and the means available, its credibility in the eyes of the world may well suffer. If states bent on criminal behavior know that frontiers are not an abs
27、olute defense-that the council will take action to halt the gravest crimes against humanity-then they will not embark on such a course assuming they can get away with it. The charter requires the council to be the defender of the “common interest“. Unless it is seen to be so-in an era of human right
28、s, interdependence and globalization-there is a danger that others will seek to take its place. Fourth, when fighting stops, the international commitment to peace must be just as strong as was the commitment to war. In this situation, too, consistency is essential. Just as our commitment to humanita
29、rian action must be universal if it is to be legitimate, so our commitment to peace cannot end as soon as there is a ceasefire. The aftermath of war requires no less skill, no less sacrifice, no fewer resources than the war itself, if lasting peace is to be secured. This developing international nor
30、m in favor of intervention to protect civilians from wholesale slaughter will no doubt continue to pose profound challenges to the international community. In some quarters it will arouse distrust, skepticism, even hostility. But I believe on balance we should welcome it. Why? Because, despite all t
31、he difficulties of putting it into practice, it does show that humankind today is less willing than in the past to tolerate suffering in its midst, and more willing to do something about it. 1. The United Nations decided to send peacekeeping troops to East Timor on the condition of the permission of
32、 _.a.the Security Council b.East Timor c.Indonesia d.the neighboring countries 2. According to the author, intervention should be based on the principles of _.a.legitimacy and universalityb.sustained support of the worlds peoplesc.the unanimity of the five members of the Security Councild.the permis
33、sion of the intervened country3. In line 10, the word precedents refers to _.a.the tragedy of Kosovob.the tragedy of East Timorc.what had taken place in Rwandad.all the above4. The meaning of the word enshrine in line 19 is most closely similar to that of _.a.worship b.print c.cherish as sacred d.re
34、member 5. The author thinks that the security system created after the Second World War is _.a.ineffective b.imperfect c.useless d.perfect 6. It is implied that the author is _ about some countries intervention into the tragedy of Kosovo.a.happy b.worried c.very angry d.indifferent 7. The reason tha
35、t the genocide in Rwanda took place is that _.a.there had not been a coalition of states ready and willing to give any helpb.the UN had not discussed the situation in Rwanda at allc.Rwanda refused UN troops to intervened.the Security Council delayed to give permission to intervene8. To retain the su
36、pport of the worlds peoples, the new commitment to humanitarian action must _.a.vary in different regionsb.be universal without considering region and nationc.be indivisibled.be stronger than before9. In circumstances with humanitarian challenges, the national interest is _.a.the collective interest
37、b.the individuals interestc.the international interestd.the interest of all human beings10. The only body that can authorize the use of force is _.a.the United Nations b.the UN Security Council c.UN Secretary-General d.NATO 11. It is implied that in dealing with the case of genocide in Rwanda, the S
38、ecurity Council had been making a choice between _.a.council unity and inactionb.council unity and council divisionc.council unity and regional actiond.inaction and council division12. In line 88 in the sentence “there is danger that others will seek to take its place,“ its refers to _.a.the charter
39、s b.the Security Councils c.worlds d.the human rights 13. If our commitment to humanitarian action is to be legitimate, it must be _.a.universal b.regional c.consistent d.essential 14. The challenge(s) to the international community to protect civilians from wholesale slaughter is/are _.a.distrust b
40、.skepticism c.hostility d.All the above 15. The purpose of the author in writing this is to _.a.convey an optimistic moodb.express his worries about crisesc.propose a viewd.impart new knowledgeDirections: Read the following passages. Each passage is followed by some questions. For each of them there
41、 are four choices marked A, B, C and D. Choose the best answer. I promised Michael Jordan I wouldnt mention this until the season was over. Now I think its time. Its time because I feel that the inevitable Jordan backlash may be forming. In this country we love nothing better than to build people up
42、 to incredible heights, then happily knock them down. Jordan has reached a level of admiration and public respect unprecedented in recent years. So soon enough you can expect the attempts at destruction to begin. There are hints already: grumblings about how much money he makes, criticisms of his de
43、cision not to play in his second Olympics, remarks about appearances in show business. The first journalist to really rip into Jordan is sure to make a national name for himself. So now, with the championship season over, I want to tell this story. Early last season, I wrote a column about a random
44、act of kindness I had seen Jordan do to a disabled child outside the Stadium after a game. The day after the column ran, I got a call from a man in the western suburbs. He said: “I read what you wrote about Jordan, and I thought I should tell you what I saw.“ Here it comes, I thought. It always does
45、. Write something nice about a person, and people call you up to say that the person is not so nice. What the caller said, though, was this: He and his wife had been to a Bulls game, and their car had broken down. Theyd had to wait about 45 minutes after the end of the game to get a cab ride to the
46、suburbs. “We were four blocks from the Stadium in a bad area, and at one corner under a streetlight was Jordans car,“ the man said. “He was standing outside the car, talking with some boys from the neighborhood. It was late at night, and they were just talking. I thought it was nice of him, but I wo
47、nder why he stopped.“A few weeks later Jordan and I were talking about something else before a game, and I brought up what the man had said. Was the man right? Had Jordan really been talking to those two boys in that grim neighborhood? “Not two boys,“ Jordan said. “But four.“ And he named them. He s
48、aid four names.“How do you remember their names?“ I said. “Because I see them every night,“ he said. “The same four boys?“ I said. “Yes,“ Jordan said. He said that the year before, hed seen them waiting outside the Stadium in terrible weather, wanting a glimpse of the Bulls as they arrived for a gam
49、e. “I said. Dont wait out there, come inside,“ Jordan said. “So I brought them in with me to the game.“ They live four blocks away from the Stadium, an area that can be dismal and dangerous, and that offers many of its young residents little hope, if any hope at all. “Now they wait for me on that corner every night,“ he said. Every night? Why? He
