were怎么读Speech by Former U.S. President Carter at Welcoming Banquet
29 June 1987 2011年一本分数线
Permit me first to thank our Chine hosts for your extraordinary arrangements and hospitality. My wife and I, as well as our entire party, are deeply grateful. In the short period of six days, we have gone a longer distance than the Long March.
We have acquired a keen n of the diversity, dynamism, and progress of China under your policies of your reform and opening to the outside world.
More than eight years have pasd since Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping and I joined hands to establish full diplomatic relations between the two great nations. Our hope and vision was to forge a Sino-American relationship which would contribute to world peace and the welfare of our two peoples. I personally looked upon the forging of firm Sino-American ties as a historically significant experiment.
mother的含义日语写作基础We faced the question in 1978, as to some extend we still do today: Can two nations as diff
erent as ours --- yours one of the oldest civilization on earth, mine one of the youngest; yours a socialist state and mine committed to capitalism; yours a developing country and mine a developed one --- can two nations surmount and indeed draw upon the differences to build an unprecedented and distinctive relationship in world affair?
默契英文If we are successful, in one great step our two nations will have been able to ea one of the greatest sources of tension in international affairs: that between the developed and developing worlds. We still have a long way to go, and it is still too early to conclude that our experiment will culminate in success, but certainly the results of the first ten years are promising. Sino---American ties have become extensive, affecting all aspects of our national lives: commerce, culture, education, scientific exchange, and our parate national curity policies.
英语六级图表作文
U.S-Europe Divide
President Bush is making a noble effort to pull together the fraying alliance but the fact is Europeans and Americans no longer share a common view of the world. On the all-importmounts and storage
ant question of power --- the utility of power, the morality of power --- they have parted ways. Europeans believe that they are moving beyond power into a lf-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. Europe itlf has entered a post-historical paradi, the realization of Immanuel Kant’s “Perpetual Peace”.
buskerThe United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian World where the international rules are unreliable and where curity and the promotion of a liberal order still depend on the posssion and u of military might. This is why on major strategic and international questions
today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus: They agreed on little and understand one another less and less.
Why the divergent perspectives? They are not deeply rooted in national characters. Two centuries ago American statesmen appealed to international law and disdained “power politics”, while European statesmen spoke of raison d’est. Europeans marched off to World War Ⅰ believing in power and martial glory, while Americans talked of arbitration tre
aties. Now the roles have reverd.
dalaPart of the reason is the enormous shift in the balance of power. The gap between the United States and Europe opened wide as a result of World War Ⅱ and has grown wider in the past decade. America’s unparalleled military strength has predictable given it a great propensity to u force and a more confident in the moral legitimacy of power. Europe’s relative weakness has produced an aversion to force as a tool of international relations. European’s today, like Americans 200 years ago, ek a world where strength does not matter so much, where unilateral action by nations is forbidden, where all nations regardless of their strength are protected by commonly agreed ruled of behavior. meking
For many Europeans, progress toward such a world is more important that eliminating the threat pod by Saddam Husin. For Americans, the Hobbesian world is not so frightening. Unilateralism is naturally more attractive to tho with the capacity to act unilaterally. And international law constrains strong nations more than it does the weak. Becau of the disparity of power, Americans and Europeans even view threats differently.
A person armed only with a knife may decide that a bear prowling the forest is a tolerable danger --- trying to kill the bear is riskier than laying low and hoping the bear never attacks. But a person with rifle will be likely to make a different calculation: Why should he risk being mauled to death if he does not need to? American could imagine successfully invading Iraq and toppling Saddam and therefore 70 percent of Americans favored that action. Europeans, not surprisingly, found it unimaginable and frightening.
