<dfn id="eawnb"><del id="eawnb"><pre id="eawnb"></pre></del></dfn>
        1. <acronym id="eawnb"></acronym>
        2. 各地
          資訊
          當前位置:中華考試網 >> 翻譯資格考試 >> 高級筆譯 >> 模擬試題 >> 2019年翻譯資格考試一級筆譯提升練習題

          2019年翻譯資格考試一級筆譯提升練習題(十)

          中華考試網   2019-08-07   【

            “Whisky is for drinking, water is for fighting over,” Mark Twain once said. At the start of the 21st century, his gloomy view on the water side of the equation has been getting endorsements from an impressive — if unlikely — cast of characters. The Central Intelligence Agency, the accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers and, most recently, Britain’s Ministry of Defense have all raised the specter of future “water wars.” With water availability shrinking across the Middle East, Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, so the argument runs, violent conflict between states is increasingly likely.

            The specter is also on the agenda for the experts from 140 countries gathered this week at the annual World Water Week forum in Stockholm. Meetings of water experts are not obvious forums for debating issues of global peace and security. But the ghost of Mark Twain is in Stockholm this week as we reflect on the links between water scarcity and violent conflict between states. So, here’s the question. Are we heading for an era of “hydrological warfare” in which rivers, lakes and aquifers become national security assets to be fought over? Or can water act as a force for peace and cooperation?

            Water conflicts are invariably shaped by local factors. But the sheer scale of these conflicts makes it impossible to dismiss them as isolated events. What we are dealing with is a global crisis generated by decades of gross mismanagement of water resources. The facts behind the crisis tell their own story. By 2025, more than two billion people are expected to live in countries that find it difficult or impossible to mobilize the water resources needed to meet the needs of agriculture, industry and households. Population growth, urbanization and the rapid development of manufacturing industries are relentlessly increasing demand for finite water resources. The threats posed by competition for water are real enough — but for every threat there is an opportunity. Cooperation tends to attract less news than violent conflict. Perhaps that is why “water wars” get such exaggerated coverage. Yet cooperation over water is far more widespread than conflict.

            How can the world move toward a future of cooperation rather than conflict on water? We believe that there are three broad rules. First, governments have to stop treating water as an infinitely available resource to be exploited without reference to ecological sustainability. Yes, water is scarce in many countries. But the scarcity is the product of poor economic policies. Improving the efficiency of water use and encouraging conservation through pricing and more efficient technologies in agriculture and industry would help reduce scarcity. Second, countries must avoid unilateralism. Any major upstream alteration to a river system, or increase in use of shared groundwater, should be negotiated, not imposed. Governments should look beyond national borders to basin-wide cooperation. Building strong river-basin institutions could provide a framework for identifying and exploiting opportunities for cooperation. Third, political leaders need to get involved. Too often, dialogue on transboundary water management is dominated by technical experts. Whatever their level of expertise, dedication and professionalism, the absence of political leadership tends to limit the scope for far-reaching cooperation.

            The most obvious reason for greater political and financial investment in transboundary water cooperation is spelled out in an unlikely source. “By means of water,” says the Koran, “we give life to everything.” As a single human community sharing a single planet, we need to look beyond our national borders to work out ways of sustaining the ecological systems on which human progress depends. By means of water, perhaps we can display a capacity for resolving problems and sustaining through cooperation.

            馬克·吐溫說過,“威士忌是供飲用的,水是用來搶奪的。”他對水所持的悲觀看法,到了 21 世紀初,卻受到一批如不可能卻引人注目的人物的贊同。美國中央情報局、普華永道會計師事務所,以及最近英國國防部,都談到將來“為水而戰”的可怕景象。根據他們的說法,由于中東、亞洲以及非洲小撒哈拉地區可用水量日漸減少,國家間發生暴力沖突的可能性日益增大。

            本周有 140 個國家的專家云集斯德哥爾摩,舉行世界水周論壇年會。上述可怕景象也反映在年會的議程上。水專家的會議顯然不是討論世界和平與安全問題的論壇。然而,馬克·吐溫的幽靈本周來到了斯德哥爾摩,因為我們要反映水荒和國家間的暴力沖突的關系。這樣問題就來了。難道說我們正走向“為水而戰”的時代,河流、湖泊和地下蓄水層都成為需要爭奪的國家安全資產?還是說水可以成為一支和平與合作的力量?

            關于水的沖突總是由局部地區的多種因素引發的。但看一看這些沖突的純粹規模,讓人不能把它們看作是孤立的事件,而不予重視。我們當前面對的是一場全球性危機,這種危機是幾十年來對水資源管理不當而造成的。危機背后的事實最能說明問題。預計到 2025 年,在兩億多人生活的那些國家將無法或難以開發足夠的水資源,以滿足農業、工業和生活用水的需求。人口增長、城市化、制造業的迅猛發展都對有限的水資源毫不留情地提出越來越大的需求。爭水的威脅確實存在,但每個威脅都會帶來一個機遇。合作往往比暴力沖突吸引更少的新聞報導。也許正是因為這個原因,“為水而戰”才受到那樣言過其實的報道。然而,在水的問題上進行的合作要比它引起的沖突更為廣泛。

            世界怎樣才能在將來為水而合作,而不是走向沖突呢?我們認為,總的說來有三項規則。第一、各國政府不可繼續把水看作是一種可供無限使用的資源,而不考慮生態的可持續發展。的確,許多國家都在鬧水荒。但水荒是貧窮的經濟政策產品。提高水的利用率,通過調整價格和改進工農業技術鼓勵節水,都有助于緩解水荒。第二、各國必須避免單邊主義。某一水系的上游的任何重大變化,或者共用的地下水開采量的增加,應經過談判,而不能強加于人。各國政府應放眼跨國界全流域的合作。建立強有力的涵蓋全流域的機構將會提供一個框架,以利于尋求和利用合作機會。第三、政治領導者需要參與。跨邊界水管理的對話,往往由技術專家把持。不論他們的技術水平有多高,不論他們多么敬業與在行,如果缺少政治領導,都會限制具有深遠意義的合作。

            為水而進行跨邊界合作,需要增加政治的和財政的投入,其最明顯的一條理由,竟來自一個意想不到的出處。《古蘭經》云:“借助于水,我們賦萬物以生命。”我們同屬一個人類社會,共享一個星球,我們的眼光需要超越自己的國度,去尋求維護生態系統的途徑。也許我們能借助于水來展示一種能力——通過合作解決問題并實現可持續發展的能力。

            翻譯點擊查看講義輔導資料及網校課程

            熱點試題1:2019-2011年翻譯資格考試高級筆譯真題 

            熱點試題2:翻譯資格考試英語筆譯高級模擬題(21篇)

            熱點試題3:2019年CATTI高級筆譯模擬試題10篇

            想獲得更多試題?歡迎加入考試群432919366翻譯資格考試或者掃描下面的二維碼進群。

          趕緊掃描下面二維碼!!!

          QQ群二維碼
          糾錯評論責編:liyuxin
          相關推薦
          熱點推薦»
          6080新视觉电影