2023考研英語閱讀來自外國的干擾
Foreigninterventions;When to hold and when to fold
來自外國的干擾; 來自外國的干擾究竟該如何進(jìn)退
Can Intervention Work? By Rory Stewart andGerald Knaus.
《干預(yù)有用嗎?》Rory Steward, Gerald Knaus合著。
Can we intervene in foreign countries and dogood? Can we stop wars and genocides and get ridof evil dictators? Can we then build modern,democratic states that thrive in our wake? Theanswer depends on who you ask. An anti-Qaddafi Libyan will have nice things to say aboutNATO s role there right now. But you will get very different views from an Afghan, an Iraqi, aBosnian or a Kosovar.
我們有權(quán)干預(yù)外國嗎?我們的干預(yù)真的有利嗎?我們能夠阻止戰(zhàn)爭和屠殺嗎?我們能夠消滅掉那些邪惡的獨(dú)裁者嗎?我們能夠激發(fā)他們的斗志，促使他們建造一個現(xiàn)代的民主國家嗎?這些答案因人而異。談起北約在推翻其政權(quán)中起到的重要作用，一個反對利比亞卡扎菲政權(quán)的人立即就滔滔不絕。但是如果你問一個阿富汗人，伊拉克人，波斯尼亞或是科索沃人，得到的答案就會大不相同。
Rory Stewart and Gerald Knaus are well placed to pose and answer these questions. BeforeMr Stewart became a Conservative MP, he was a deputy governor of two Iraqi provinces. Healso walked across Afghanistan and wrote a bestseller about the experience. Mr Knaus, apolitical economist, runs the European Stability Initiative, a Berlin-based think-tank foundedin Sarajevo in 1999, which has been particularly influential in the Balkans.
Rory Stewart 和 Gerald Knaus根據(jù)自身的經(jīng)歷，給出了合宜的答案。在Stewart成為一個保守黨議員之前，他曾擔(dān)任過伊拉克兩個省的省長。他還曾橫穿阿富汗，將自己的經(jīng)歷寫成了書，并成為了暢銷書。Knaus則是一名政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家，他管理一家位于柏林的智庫，叫作歐洲穩(wěn)定計(jì)劃。其于1999年創(chuàng)建于薩拉熱窩，在巴爾干半島各國特別有影響力。
The book is structured as two essays with a lengthy joint introduction. Mr Stewart haswritten a colourful account of his time in Afghanistan and his failed attempts to stop what hesees as a self- defeating build-up of ambitions, troops and plans. He skewers gobbledygooknotions of bringing Afghans accountable governance and Western-style rule of law. It is notthat he is against such things, but that he doubts the ability of foreigners to impose it all. Hecites a pragmatic admonition from English Mountain Rescue: Be prepared to turn back ifconditions turn against you.
本書由2片論文及一篇很長的合序構(gòu)成。Stewart描繪了他在阿富汗時多姿多彩的生活，也寫了他對阿富汗一系列的雄心壯志，軍隊(duì)的建立以及計(jì)劃的制定的看法，認(rèn)為這都是自拆臺腳，他想要阻止卻未能成功。他竭力譏諷那些官腔，說什么建立一個可信賴的阿富汗政府，引進(jìn)西方式法治。他并不是反對這些做法，而是質(zhì)疑外國人的執(zhí)行力。他在此引用了英國高山救援隊(duì)的一條樸實(shí)的警告;如情況不利，請準(zhǔn)備回程。
Writing about Bosnia, Mr Knaus deploys heavy artillery in arguments that he has madebefore. Intervention there has been a stunning success, he says, given the state of Bosnia atthe end of its devastating war in 1995. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have returned,not a single intervening soldier was killed , and today s problems are of theconventional political sort, not the kind that herald another war. Not only does Bosnia enjoyfree and fair elections, but also it has relatively little crime. Mr Knaus argues that the onlymissteps came from assumptions held by those like Lord Ashdown, when he was de factogovernor of Bosnia, that well-meaning envoys could behave like imperial viceroys, sackingelected yet obstructive leaders at will.
談到波斯尼亞時，Knaus大量引用了他之前發(fā)表的觀點(diǎn)，火力十足。鑒于那場1995年波斯尼亞發(fā)生的殘酷的戰(zhàn)爭的結(jié)局，干預(yù)確實(shí)取得了驚人的成功，他說。成百上千的難民都回歸故土，且沒有一個外來士兵死于戰(zhàn)后重建工作中。但是今天的問題是常規(guī)政治，并非預(yù)示著另一場戰(zhàn)爭的那種。不僅波斯尼亞有了公平自由的選舉，而且犯罪也相對減少。Knaus認(rèn)為，唯一的錯處在于阿什當(dāng)勛爵等人的錯誤假設(shè)。阿什當(dāng)勛爵為波西尼亞實(shí)際領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人時，滿懷善意的使者卻能像帝國總督那樣，任意將選舉出來卻礙手礙腳的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人撤職。
From rather successful interventions, defined as Bosnia and Kosovo, the authors convey animportant lesson: that is, the experience garnered in one place is generally not much useelsewhere. Bosnia was a success because the intervention came as part of the 1995 Daytonpeace agreement, which ended the war and which all the exhausted sides committedthemselves to. In Kosovo the vast majority of its peopleethnic Albanians, nearly all ofthem Muslimswere very grateful for what they saw as their America-led liberation fromthe Serbs. Mr Knaus also argues that the United Nations war-crimes tribunal was vital as aform of closure and for removing from the political scene characters such as Ratko Mladic, aBosnian Serb general now on trial for genocide in The Hague.
從波斯尼亞、科索沃等干預(yù)的成功案例中，作者得出了一個重要的結(jié)論，那就是，從一處獲得的經(jīng)驗(yàn)多數(shù)時候在其他地方并不管用。波斯尼亞干預(yù)的成功是因?qū)ζ涓深A(yù)是作為1995年代頓和平協(xié)議中的一部分提出的，協(xié)議旨在結(jié)束戰(zhàn)爭，而精疲力竭的雙方也都愿意遵守。而在科索沃，大多數(shù)國民為阿爾巴尼亞人，幾乎所有人都是穆斯林，他們十分感激美國領(lǐng)導(dǎo)他們從塞爾維亞人手中解放。Knaus還談到，聯(lián)合國軍事法庭對于消滅拉特科穆拉迪克這樣的人至關(guān)重要。Ratko Mladic是波斯尼亞的塞爾維亞將軍，如今因涉嫌種族滅絕而在海牙國家法庭受審。
So, does intervention work? As any Bosnian peasant may tell you, maybe yes, maybe no.It depends on the circumstances and requires modest ambitions. Muddle through with asense of purpose, says Mr Knaus. Do what you can, where you can and no more, agrees MrStewart. In policy terms that sounds a bit like yes to Libya, no to Syria and so on.
那么，干預(yù)究竟是否有用呢?隨便哪個波斯尼亞的農(nóng)民都會這樣告訴你，可能有用吧，也可能沒用。它取決于現(xiàn)實(shí)情況，并且人們的目標(biāo)也要合理。有目標(biāo)地混日子，Knaus如是說道。你想做就做，能做就做，沒別的了，Stewart以此表示贊成。從政策的角度來看，這似乎是在對利比亞稱好，對敘利亞搖頭之類的。
Foreigninterventions;When to hold and when to fold
來自外國的干擾; 來自外國的干擾究竟該如何進(jìn)退
Can Intervention Work? By Rory Stewart andGerald Knaus.
《干預(yù)有用嗎?》Rory Steward, Gerald Knaus合著。
Can we intervene in foreign countries and dogood? Can we stop wars and genocides and get ridof evil dictators? Can we then build modern,democratic states that thrive in our wake? Theanswer depends on who you ask. An anti-Qaddafi Libyan will have nice things to say aboutNATO s role there right now. But you will get very different views from an Afghan, an Iraqi, aBosnian or a Kosovar.
我們有權(quán)干預(yù)外國嗎?我們的干預(yù)真的有利嗎?我們能夠阻止戰(zhàn)爭和屠殺嗎?我們能夠消滅掉那些邪惡的獨(dú)裁者嗎?我們能夠激發(fā)他們的斗志，促使他們建造一個現(xiàn)代的民主國家嗎?這些答案因人而異。談起北約在推翻其政權(quán)中起到的重要作用，一個反對利比亞卡扎菲政權(quán)的人立即就滔滔不絕。但是如果你問一個阿富汗人，伊拉克人，波斯尼亞或是科索沃人，得到的答案就會大不相同。
Rory Stewart and Gerald Knaus are well placed to pose and answer these questions. BeforeMr Stewart became a Conservative MP, he was a deputy governor of two Iraqi provinces. Healso walked across Afghanistan and wrote a bestseller about the experience. Mr Knaus, apolitical economist, runs the European Stability Initiative, a Berlin-based think-tank foundedin Sarajevo in 1999, which has been particularly influential in the Balkans.
Rory Stewart 和 Gerald Knaus根據(jù)自身的經(jīng)歷，給出了合宜的答案。在Stewart成為一個保守黨議員之前，他曾擔(dān)任過伊拉克兩個省的省長。他還曾橫穿阿富汗，將自己的經(jīng)歷寫成了書，并成為了暢銷書。Knaus則是一名政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家，他管理一家位于柏林的智庫，叫作歐洲穩(wěn)定計(jì)劃。其于1999年創(chuàng)建于薩拉熱窩，在巴爾干半島各國特別有影響力。
The book is structured as two essays with a lengthy joint introduction. Mr Stewart haswritten a colourful account of his time in Afghanistan and his failed attempts to stop what hesees as a self- defeating build-up of ambitions, troops and plans. He skewers gobbledygooknotions of bringing Afghans accountable governance and Western-style rule of law. It is notthat he is against such things, but that he doubts the ability of foreigners to impose it all. Hecites a pragmatic admonition from English Mountain Rescue: Be prepared to turn back ifconditions turn against you.
本書由2片論文及一篇很長的合序構(gòu)成。Stewart描繪了他在阿富汗時多姿多彩的生活，也寫了他對阿富汗一系列的雄心壯志，軍隊(duì)的建立以及計(jì)劃的制定的看法，認(rèn)為這都是自拆臺腳，他想要阻止卻未能成功。他竭力譏諷那些官腔，說什么建立一個可信賴的阿富汗政府，引進(jìn)西方式法治。他并不是反對這些做法，而是質(zhì)疑外國人的執(zhí)行力。他在此引用了英國高山救援隊(duì)的一條樸實(shí)的警告;如情況不利，請準(zhǔn)備回程。
Writing about Bosnia, Mr Knaus deploys heavy artillery in arguments that he has madebefore. Intervention there has been a stunning success, he says, given the state of Bosnia atthe end of its devastating war in 1995. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have returned,not a single intervening soldier was killed , and today s problems are of theconventional political sort, not the kind that herald another war. Not only does Bosnia enjoyfree and fair elections, but also it has relatively little crime. Mr Knaus argues that the onlymissteps came from assumptions held by those like Lord Ashdown, when he was de factogovernor of Bosnia, that well-meaning envoys could behave like imperial viceroys, sackingelected yet obstructive leaders at will.
談到波斯尼亞時，Knaus大量引用了他之前發(fā)表的觀點(diǎn)，火力十足。鑒于那場1995年波斯尼亞發(fā)生的殘酷的戰(zhàn)爭的結(jié)局，干預(yù)確實(shí)取得了驚人的成功，他說。成百上千的難民都回歸故土，且沒有一個外來士兵死于戰(zhàn)后重建工作中。但是今天的問題是常規(guī)政治，并非預(yù)示著另一場戰(zhàn)爭的那種。不僅波斯尼亞有了公平自由的選舉，而且犯罪也相對減少。Knaus認(rèn)為，唯一的錯處在于阿什當(dāng)勛爵等人的錯誤假設(shè)。阿什當(dāng)勛爵為波西尼亞實(shí)際領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人時，滿懷善意的使者卻能像帝國總督那樣，任意將選舉出來卻礙手礙腳的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人撤職。
From rather successful interventions, defined as Bosnia and Kosovo, the authors convey animportant lesson: that is, the experience garnered in one place is generally not much useelsewhere. Bosnia was a success because the intervention came as part of the 1995 Daytonpeace agreement, which ended the war and which all the exhausted sides committedthemselves to. In Kosovo the vast majority of its peopleethnic Albanians, nearly all ofthem Muslimswere very grateful for what they saw as their America-led liberation fromthe Serbs. Mr Knaus also argues that the United Nations war-crimes tribunal was vital as aform of closure and for removing from the political scene characters such as Ratko Mladic, aBosnian Serb general now on trial for genocide in The Hague.
從波斯尼亞、科索沃等干預(yù)的成功案例中，作者得出了一個重要的結(jié)論，那就是，從一處獲得的經(jīng)驗(yàn)多數(shù)時候在其他地方并不管用。波斯尼亞干預(yù)的成功是因?qū)ζ涓深A(yù)是作為1995年代頓和平協(xié)議中的一部分提出的，協(xié)議旨在結(jié)束戰(zhàn)爭，而精疲力竭的雙方也都愿意遵守。而在科索沃，大多數(shù)國民為阿爾巴尼亞人，幾乎所有人都是穆斯林，他們十分感激美國領(lǐng)導(dǎo)他們從塞爾維亞人手中解放。Knaus還談到，聯(lián)合國軍事法庭對于消滅拉特科穆拉迪克這樣的人至關(guān)重要。Ratko Mladic是波斯尼亞的塞爾維亞將軍，如今因涉嫌種族滅絕而在海牙國家法庭受審。
So, does intervention work? As any Bosnian peasant may tell you, maybe yes, maybe no.It depends on the circumstances and requires modest ambitions. Muddle through with asense of purpose, says Mr Knaus. Do what you can, where you can and no more, agrees MrStewart. In policy terms that sounds a bit like yes to Libya, no to Syria and so on.
那么，干預(yù)究竟是否有用呢?隨便哪個波斯尼亞的農(nóng)民都會這樣告訴你，可能有用吧，也可能沒用。它取決于現(xiàn)實(shí)情況，并且人們的目標(biāo)也要合理。有目標(biāo)地混日子，Knaus如是說道。你想做就做，能做就做，沒別的了，Stewart以此表示贊成。從政策的角度來看，這似乎是在對利比亞稱好，對敘利亞搖頭之類的。
