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 下面你将听到的是一段对联合国前秘书长安南的评论。

　　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 下面你将听到的是一段有关食品安全的讲话。

　　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 下面你将听到的是一段有关中国经济发展的讲话。

　　在刚刚过去的一年里，中国经济保持了发展势头，增长较快、效益较好。国

　　内生产总值达到2.6万亿美元，比去年增长10.7%;城镇新增就业人数达1184

　　万人，比去年增长了22%;全年进出口总额1.76万亿美元，比上一年增长23.8%。

　　回头看看，从2003年开始以来这四年，世界经济的年均增长率为4.8%，通货膨

　　胀率年均3.7%，发展态势良好。在这样的国际经济环境下，中国经济的增长率

　　连续四年保持在10%左右，通货膨胀率为年均2.1%。这些数据表明，中国经济

　　与世界经济是密切相关的。中国经济的发展离不开世界，世界经济的发展同样需

　　要中国。

　　同时，我们也清醒地知道，中国的经济和社会发展仍然面临着许多困难和问

　　题。我国的人均GDP现在是2000美元，排名在世界100位之后。中国的城镇乡

　　村还有两三千万贫困人口，诸如投资消费不协调、不同地区之间发展差距较大等

　　矛盾还很突出，中国的现代化建设还有很长的路要走。努力改变这种状况，是中

　　国当前面临的主要问题。目前，中国的工业化、城镇化进程正在加快，人民收入

　　水平和消费结构在不断升级。投资和消费对经济增长一直起着主要的拉动作用，

　　巨大的国内需求和广阔的国内市场是中国经济发展的持续动力所在。

　　2007年，中国完全有可能继续保持良好的发展势头。我们的宏观调控和管

　　理将进一步完善。中国实行改革开放已经30年了。深化改革是发展生产力的强

　　大动力，为中国经济社会发展提供了体制保障。坚定不移地推进改革开放，将贯

　　穿中国现代化建设的全过程。我们对中国的未来充满信心。

　　Passage 2 下面你将听到的是一段建设社会主义新农村的讲话。

　　最近，社会各界高度关注的一个话题就是建设社会主义新农村。中央一直非

　　常重视农村问题。从今年起，我国全部取消农业税，中央财政支农资金达到3400

　　亿元。下面，我想谈一谈关于建设社会主义新农村的三个重要考虑。

　　第一，建设社会主义新农村就是把农业和农村工作放在现代化建设全局的更

　　加突出的位置。为了实现这一目标，工业应该反哺农业，城市应该支持农村，促

　　进农村的小康和农业的现代化。加强农业和农村建设十分关键，这一步棋走好了，

　　就能够带动内需和消费，从而使中国的经济发展建立在更加坚实的基础上。

　　第二，建设社会主义新农村的着眼点是发展现代农业，提高农业的综合生产

　　能力，我们之所以提出要加强农村基础设施建设，就是为了改善农民的生产和生

　　活条件。

　　第三，建设社会主义新农村必须坚持两条基本原则，一是保障农民的民主权

　　利，特别是土地承包经营的自主权，要尊重农民的意愿，不搞强迫命令，二是让

　　农民得到实实在在的利益，要把提高农民的物质文化生活水平贯穿始终，要讲究

　　实效，不搞形式主义。

　　中国农民问题的核心是土地问题，中国的农村改革最重要的是实行了家庭承

　　包经营，土地所有权属于集体，但生产和经营权属于农民。在中国，必须实行最

　　严格的耕地保护制度，必须保护农民对土地生产经营的自主权，占用农民土地必

　　须给予应有的补偿。必须依法严惩那些违背法律强占乱占农民土地的人，中国通

　　过改革，特别是农村改革，成功地解决了13亿人口的吃饭问题，消除了两亿多

　　人口的贫困，中国的发展稳定是对世界繁荣与和平的重大贡献。