Test for Interpreters of Level 1

　　Speeches for Consecutive Interpreting

　　Transcripts for the Recorded Speeches

　　Part I

　　Interpret the following passages from English into Chinese. Start interpreting at the signal and stop at the signal. You may take notes while you are listening. You will hear each passage only once. Now let’s begin.

　　Passage 1 下面你將聽到的是一段對(duì)聯(lián)合國(guó)前秘書長(zhǎng)安南的評(píng)論。

　　Whatever disadvantages Ban Ki-moon, the new Secretary-General, brings with

　　him, he at least lacks the baggage that burdened Kofi Annan heading out of the door.

　　Mr Annan took the top job at the UN a decade ago, already battered from his years in

　　charge of UN peacekeeping, after the organization (and everybody else) failed to stop

　　the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. He leaves weighed down by a miserable relationship

　　with the world’s most powerful country.

　　Mr. Annan’s record, inevitably, is a mixed one. Enjoying few powers of his own,

　　the Secretary-General has influence only when strong states cooperate. Last week he

　　used a talk in Missouri to scold America for not working better with other countries.

　　He referred repeatedly to Harry Truman, quoting the former president as saying that

　　“no matter how great our strength, we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please.”

　　In some areas Mr. Annan and the superpower have been of one mind. The UN can

　　claim significant successes in encouraging Nigeria to give up military rule and in

　　deploying a peacekeeping force to East Timor. On Mr. Annan’s watch, the UN also

　　contributed to peace efforts in Congo, Sierra Leone, Liberia and elsewhere. In 2001,

　　Mr. Annan and the organization picked up a Nobel peace prize. At other times Mr.

　　Annan’s office and the White House agreed on what should be done, but achieved

　　little. In Sudan, Mr. Annan wants the deployment of a powerful UN peacekeeping

　　force. Darfur is a case study for his principle of the “responsibility to protect”.

　　Although the member states endorsed his idea at a summit in late 2005, in the absence

　　of a standing army deployed by the Secretary-General, or of substantial military

　　support from member states, his idea has yet translated into anything meaningful.

　　But Mr. Annan experienced his greatest difficulties when in opposition to the

　　United States. After America and its allies failed to get Security Council endorsement

　　for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, hostility towards Mr. Annan grew in Washington, DC.

　　By September 2004 Mr. Annan was openly calling the invasion of Iraq illegal, which

　　in turn provoked complaints from Republicans that he was trying to influence that

　　year’s American presidential election. Some of Mr. Annan’s American critics called

　　for his removal as Secretary-General and cast around for sticks to beat him with. Late

　　in 2005, an American investigation into the UN’s oil-for-food program in Iraq

　　concluded that waste, inefficiency and corruption had cost billions of dollars and

　　could be blamed in part on UN staff at headquarters and in the field, though it failed

　　to show any evidence that Mr. Annan himself was involved.

　　Given such frosty relations and the ongoing debacle in Iraq, it is perhaps

　　remarkable that there have since been any substantial attempts at cooperation at all.

　　Yet the UN and America have striven to find the killers of a former Lebanese prime

　　minister; there is joint opposition to nuclear proliferation, for example, in Iran; and, as

　　mentioned, there is a shared approach to Sudan. And in a conciliatory gesture, also

　　last week, Mr. Annan used a speech to the UN to express sympathy with the notion

　　widely held in America that the organization, especially its General Assembly, is too

　　often mindlessly opposed to Israel. Such efforts to reach out to America, along with

　　the removal of John Bolton as America’s representative at the UN, may mean a

　　friendlier start for Mr. Ban in 2007. And that may, possibly, mean a greater chance of

　　getting America’s help for protecting the weak in Darfur and elsewhere.

　　Passage 2 下面你將聽到的是一段有關(guān)食品安全的講話。

　　Ten years ago, food safety was not on many people’s mind in Europe. We all expected our food to be safe, not only because it generally was safe, but also because incidences of chemical or microbiological contamination were local in nature. What a  contrast with the present. Today, food safety is one of the highest priority issues for consumers, producers and governments alike, all over Europe.

　　What has caused this change? The occurrence of mad cow disease, of course,

　　which brought with it the link to the terrible and fatal disease, created a widespread

　　and deep-set unease about meat products. To date, the consequences of mad cow

　　disease are felt across Europe and beyond.

　　The recent occurrence of foot-and-mouth disease and other incidents let European

　　consumers wake up to the reality that the trade in food and farm products is truly

　　international. They are starting to discover the intricate network of international trade

　　that underlies the food industry and brings products to supermarket shelves.

　　Between the 1950s and 1980s, we saw tremendous improvements in the safety of

　　the food we eat in Europe. What we can call the “first wave” of food safety measures

　　came with the sterilization of milk and milk products and the introduction of rigid and

　　effective hygiene systems in the production chain, mainly from the dairy and the

　　abattoir to the supermarket. The “second wave” of food safety measures came with

　　the widespread introduction of the hazard control system for the production chain.

　　Yet, since the early 1980s, we have seen a marked increase in the reports of

　　food-borne diseases, resulting from chemical contamination. This situation, and

　　associated loss of public confidence, suggest that something has gone wrong. We need

　　a “third wave” of food safety measures. This third wave must focus on the direct risk

　　to humans. We need to begin with the epidemiology of food-borne diseases and track

　　them back through the food chain, all the way to the farm.

　　It means building up the capacity — and making effective use of expertise in

　　assessing risks to human health. It means building up capacity for epidemiological

　　tracking and mapping of food-related diseases. It means improving our data collection

　　efforts for both the pathogens in the food and human disease.

　　And it will mean that officials concerned with agricultural productivity, and

　　officials responsible for the health of populations, work together. Not only must they

　　communicate. They must collaborate closely so that they can quickly trace back each

　　incident of suspected food-borne disease to its source, analyze the size and geography

　　of the problem and suggest both short- and long-term remedial measures.

　　This all calls for political action. People — both as consumers and producers —

　　expect their government officials to work together for the common good. Not only do

　　they expect their politicians to make sure that government works in the primary

　　interests of those who consume food: they also expect politicians to take action based

　　on expert evidence.

　　This will mean a restructuring of agricultural ministries so that they move beyond

　　a primary focus on economic issues. They need to represent the interests of the whole

　　community — producers, processors and consumers. This kind of transformation

　　will make for a healthier base for the future of the industry.

　　It will also mean that ministries of health have to take interest in, and give priority

　　to, action to monitor and prevent food-borne illness. They would need to strengthen

　　their food safety resources and improve collaboration with other ministries. An

　　incident of suspected food poisoning should no longer just be seen by doctors as a

　　temporary health problem. It should be considered as a possible symptom of the

　　break-down in the food-safety system.

　　Part II

　　Interpret the following passages from Chinese into English. Start

　　interpreting at the signal and stop at the signal. You may take notes while you are

　　listening. You will hear each passage only once. Now let’s begin.

　　Passage 1 下面你將聽到的是一段有關(guān)中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的講話。

　　在剛剛過去的一年里，中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)保持了發(fā)展勢(shì)頭，增長(zhǎng)較快、效益較好。國(guó)

　　內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值達(dá)到 2.6 萬(wàn)億美元，比去年增長(zhǎng) 10.7%;城鎮(zhèn)新增就業(yè)人數(shù)達(dá) 1184

　　萬(wàn)人，比去年增長(zhǎng)了 22%;全年進(jìn)出口總額 1.76 萬(wàn)億美元，比上一年增長(zhǎng) 23.8%。

　　回頭看看，從 2003 年開始以來這四年，世界經(jīng)濟(jì)的年均增長(zhǎng)率為 4.8%，通貨膨

　　脹率年均 3.7%，發(fā)展態(tài)勢(shì)良好。在這樣的國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)環(huán)境下，中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長(zhǎng)率

　　連續(xù)四年保持在 10%左右，通貨膨脹率為年均 2.1%。這些數(shù)據(jù)表明，中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)

　　與世界經(jīng)濟(jì)是密切相關(guān)的。中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展離不開世界，世界經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展同樣需

　　要中國(guó)。

　　同時(shí)，我們也清醒地知道，中國(guó)的經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)發(fā)展仍然面臨著許多困難和問

　　題。我國(guó)的人均GDP現(xiàn)在是 2000 美元，排名在世界 100 位之后。中國(guó)的城鎮(zhèn)鄉(xiāng)

　　村還有兩三千萬(wàn)貧困人口，諸如投資消費(fèi)不協(xié)調(diào)、不同地區(qū)之間發(fā)展差距較大等

　　矛盾還很突出，中國(guó)的現(xiàn)代化建設(shè)還有很長(zhǎng)的路要走。努力改變這種狀況，是中

　　國(guó)當(dāng)前面臨的主要問題。目前，中國(guó)的工業(yè)化、城鎮(zhèn)化進(jìn)程正在加快，人民收入

　　水平和消費(fèi)結(jié)構(gòu)在不斷升級(jí)。投資和消費(fèi)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)一直起著主要的拉動(dòng)作用，

　　巨大的國(guó)內(nèi)需求和廣闊的國(guó)內(nèi)市場(chǎng)是中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的持續(xù)動(dòng)力所在。

　　2007 年，中國(guó)完全有可能繼續(xù)保持良好的發(fā)展勢(shì)頭。我們的宏觀調(diào)控和管

　　理將進(jìn)一步完善。中國(guó)實(shí)行改革開放已經(jīng) 30 年了。深化改革是發(fā)展生產(chǎn)力的強(qiáng)

　　大動(dòng)力，為中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)發(fā)展提供了體制保障。堅(jiān)定不移地推進(jìn)改革開放，將貫

　　穿中國(guó)現(xiàn)代化建設(shè)的全過程。我們對(duì)中國(guó)的未來充滿信心。

　　Passage 2 下面你將聽到的是一段建設(shè)社會(huì)主義新農(nóng)村的講話。

　　最近，社會(huì)各界高度關(guān)注的一個(gè)話題就是建設(shè)社會(huì)主義新農(nóng)村。中央一直非

　　常重視農(nóng)村問題。從今年起，我國(guó)全部取消農(nóng)業(yè)稅，中央財(cái)政支農(nóng)資金達(dá)到 3400

　　億元。下面，我想談一談關(guān)于建設(shè)社會(huì)主義新農(nóng)村的三個(gè)重要考慮。

　　第一，建設(shè)社會(huì)主義新農(nóng)村就是把農(nóng)業(yè)和農(nóng)村工作放在現(xiàn)代化建設(shè)全局的更

　　加突出的位置。為了實(shí)現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)，工業(yè)應(yīng)該反哺農(nóng)業(yè)，城市應(yīng)該支持農(nóng)村，促

　　進(jìn)農(nóng)村的小康和農(nóng)業(yè)的現(xiàn)代化。加強(qiáng)農(nóng)業(yè)和農(nóng)村建設(shè)十分關(guān)鍵，這一步棋走好了，

　　就能夠帶動(dòng)內(nèi)需和消費(fèi)，從而使中國(guó)的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展建立在更加堅(jiān)實(shí)的基礎(chǔ)上。

　　第二，建設(shè)社會(huì)主義新農(nóng)村的著眼點(diǎn)是發(fā)展現(xiàn)代農(nóng)業(yè)，提高農(nóng)業(yè)的綜合生產(chǎn)

　　能力，我們之所以提出要加強(qiáng)農(nóng)村基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)，就是為了改善農(nóng)民的生產(chǎn)和生

　　活條件。

　　第三，建設(shè)社會(huì)主義新農(nóng)村必須堅(jiān)持兩條基本原則，一是保障農(nóng)民的民主權(quán)

　　利，特別是土地承包經(jīng)營(yíng)的自主權(quán)，要尊重農(nóng)民的意愿，不搞強(qiáng)迫命令，二是讓

　　農(nóng)民得到實(shí)實(shí)在在的利益，要把提高農(nóng)民的物質(zhì)文化生活水平貫穿始終，要講究

　　實(shí)效，不搞形式主義。

　　中國(guó)農(nóng)民問題的核心是土地問題，中國(guó)的農(nóng)村改革最重要的是實(shí)行了家庭承

　　包經(jīng)營(yíng)，土地所有權(quán)屬于集體，但生產(chǎn)和經(jīng)營(yíng)權(quán)屬于農(nóng)民。在中國(guó)，必須實(shí)行最

　　嚴(yán)格的耕地保護(hù)制度，必須保護(hù)農(nóng)民對(duì)土地生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)的自主權(quán)，占用農(nóng)民土地必

　　須給予應(yīng)有的補(bǔ)償。必須依法嚴(yán)懲那些違背法律強(qiáng)占亂占農(nóng)民土地的人，中國(guó)通

　　過改革，特別是農(nóng)村改革，成功地解決了 13 億人口的吃飯問題，消除了兩億多

　　人口的貧困，中國(guó)的發(fā)展穩(wěn)定是對(duì)世界繁榮與和平的重大貢獻(xiàn)。