dole /dəʊl/ v. 发放（赈济物）

mushroom /ˈmʌʃrʊm/ v. 雨后春笋般地涌现，迅速增加

egregious /ɪˈgriːdʒəs/ adj. 过分的；惊人的；恶名昭彰的

escalate /ˈeskəleɪt/ v. 逐步上升，逐步增强

tit-for-tat /ˌtɪtfəˈtæt/ adj. 针锋相对的；一报还一报的





难句突破


In a few months the WTO will rule on a counter-claim by the European Union that Boeing received about $24 billion in subsidies over the past two decades as well as large, non-repayable benefits from military and space contracts.

主体句式：The WTO will rule on a counter-claim.

结构分析：本句主要包含了一个较长的同位语从句，由that引导来说明counter-claim的内容。同位语从句的主干是Boeing received $24 billion as well as benefits，从句中还有状语及两个宾语各自的定语对波音公司得到的好处进行了具体的补充说明。

句子译文：世贸组织还将在几个月之内就欧盟针对波音公司的反诉做出裁决，欧盟指控波音公司在过去20年里不仅接受了240亿美元的补助，而且还从与军事和航天业的合作中获得了巨大且不需偿还的利润。





题目分析


1. B 语义题。thunderbolt所在句子“This first ruling is a potential thunderbolt that could ignite a damaging trade dispute between America and Europe”的大致意思是第一次裁决可能会导致美欧之间的贸易争端，因此B项的cause最符合这个意思。

2. C 细节题。从第一段中可以看出，美国投诉欧洲商业飞机制造业接受非法补助，而欧盟反诉波音公司不但接受了高额补助，还从与军事和航天业的合作中获利，可见二者争论的核心是双方得到的政府援助是否合法、是否应该被禁止，所以C是正确答案。

3. A 推理题。本题需要对各个选项进行逐一判断。第二段指出“这场争端的起因在于，在波音公司的驱使下，美国政府于2004年决定撤销当时与欧盟已签订12年的大型民航客机贸易管制双边协议”，换句话说，正是因为波音，美国才退出该协议，因此A是正确选项。第二段接着指出，“然而波音公司希望这一双边协议会使空客公司得到的补助逐渐减少。波音没有如愿，因此退出了双边协议”，由此可见B项的错误在于弄反了先后时间顺序。第三段提到“但是尽管空客公司接受补助的方式不同于波音，但也不是比后者更差”，可见两种方式并没有谁优于谁的区分，因此C选项也不正确。第三段最后提到“两家公司接受补助的结果也没有影响市场的自由竞争”，由此可见这些补助并没有影响公平竞争，所以D项也不正确。

4. C 细节题。文章第三、四段主要论述了为什么波音公司关于补助的观点不完全正确。首先第三段主要反驳了目前的补助“扭曲了竞争”的观点，因此A项的表述是正确的。第四段又进一步提到了另外两个观点，第一个是波音公司不再是民族支柱企业，而“被迫拓展跨国供应链”成为了跨国公司，可见B项的表述也是正确的。第二个观点是在目前经济危机的背景下“明显违反世贸组织相关法规的给予某种工业补助金的现象也如雨后春笋般增长”，所以拿补助金作为借口进行诉讼并不是个好主意，因此D项的表述也是正确的。C的表述错误在于美国和欧洲的争端不会引发战争，文中的go to war只是一个比喻，指的是补助金之战。

5. D 推理题。本题主要针对最后一段，可以采取排除法。该段提到“双方在世贸组织对欧盟的诉讼做出裁决之前都应该按兵不动。之后，他们应该暂停随后的诉讼而走向谈判桌”，可见最好的办法还是坐下来谈判，因此A项的表述不够准确；而且也不是诉讼和谈判同时进行，因此B项也不正确。文中接下来还指出“谈判的目标应该是达成一项与旧协议类似的新协议”，可见不是新交易完全替代旧协议，因此C也不正确。而文章最后一句话指出“任何扩大欧洲和美国间贸易争端的做法都不在考虑范围内”，由此可以推断出作者的意思是，这种诉讼和反诉讼的恶性循环是美国和欧洲都无法长期承受的，因此D项是正确答案。





参考译文


经过五年的诉讼，世界贸易组织即将就美国投诉欧洲商业飞机制造业接受非法补助一案做出最初裁决。美国声称，在20多年间，欧洲商业飞机制造业接受的补助总额达到两千亿美元。同时世贸组织还将在几个月之内就欧盟针对波音公司的反诉做出裁决，欧盟指控波音公司在过去20年里不仅接受了240亿美元的补助，而且还从与军事和航天业的合作中获得了巨大且不需偿还的利润。这两项裁决都可以上诉。第一个裁决的结果很可能是一个晴天霹雳，由此引发美国和欧盟之间一场破坏性巨大的贸易争端大战，但在目前这个时候，这两个经济体最需要做的是结成贸易统一战线，以防止向贸易保护主义倾斜。

这场争端的起因在于，在波音公司的驱使下，美国政府于2004年决定撤销当时与欧盟已签订12年的大型民航客机贸易管制双边协议。该协议禁止直接对生产和销售给予补助，但允许政府为新的飞行器项目不断注入资金。它既允许可应偿还的政府直接援助（欧洲模式）高达开发成本的三分之一，即所谓的研发资助；也允许间接政府援助（美国模式），只要援助金额不高于国内工业产品销售额的3%。然而波音公司希望这一双边协议会使空客公司得到的补助逐渐减少。波音没有如愿，因此退出了双边协议。到底是什么使波音失去了耐性？有两方面的原因：一是上世纪90年代末空客取得了与波音旗鼓相当的市场份额，二是旨在结束波音747统治地位的空客A380客机得到了研发资助，波音对此非常不满。

波音关于所有补助都扭曲了竞争的观点是正确的。但是尽管空客公司接受补助的方式不同于波音，但也不见得比后者更糟糕。至少空客得到的补助都是透明的——欧洲声称截至2007年，空客公司偿还的资金比它接受的援助还多40%。两家公司接受补助的结果也没有影响市场的自由竞争。波音和空客公司像在粮袋里争食的老鼠一样为每一笔销售大打出手，而各个航空公司则因此能够买到比它们某一家独占鳌头时更物美价廉的飞机。

还有两点也应该谨记在心。首先把这两家公司的任何一家再看成是民族支柱企业的想法早已过时了。大型商业飞机项目的庞大规模和巨大风险使得波音公司被迫拓展跨国供应链；其次，在过去一年中，大西洋两岸的这两家飞机制造商得到的补助金与其他少量的救济金相比更加少得可怜。姑且不谈为避免金融崩溃而花费的上万亿美元，就是明显违反世贸组织相关法规的工业补助金现象也如雨后春笋般增长。

因此，双方在世贸组织对欧盟的诉讼做出裁决之前都应该按兵不动。然后他们应该暂停随后的诉讼而走向谈判桌。谈判的目标应该是在旧协议的基础上达成一项新协议，但这次的目标显然是要在一个合理的期限内逐步取消那些数额惊人的补助金。任何扩大欧洲和美国间贸易争端的做法都不在考虑范围内。





Unit 67


The American military tribunals set up to pass judgment on terrorism suspects at Guantánamo Bay lurched into life this week when David Hicks, the “Australian Taliban”, unexpectedly pleaded guilty. The Pentagon will be relieved that the tribunals have started to show results after five years of controversy over the status of “enemy combatants”, claims of torture, the admissibility of forced confessions and a Supreme Court ruling last year that halted an earlier version of the tribunals. Yet the Hicks case is hardly an impressive start for America’s offshore justice. Critics say the 31-year-old Mr Hicks, a former kangaroo skinner and alleged al-Qaeda fighter, faces a “kangaroo court”. Two of his civilian lawyers were barred from the hearing on March 26th. His military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, has been threatened with prosecution for harshly criticising the tribunals.

The prosecutor, Colonel Morris Davis, said the defence lawyer may have breached military law that bans officers from using “contemptuous words” against the president or senior officials. Major Mori filed a counter-charge against the prosecution, saying it was trying to intimidate him. In the end the motion will not be heard because Mr Hicks, looking pale and bedraggled, admitted the charge of “providing material support for terrorism”. A charge of “attempted murder in violation of the laws of war” was dropped. As The Economist went to press, the tribunal was due to hear details of his plea and pass sentence, which Mr Hicks is expected to serve out in Australia. His father, Terry Hicks, said his son had had “five years of absolute hell” since being captured in Afghanistan and allegedly suffering beatings, rape and forced injections in American custody—accusations rejected by the Pentagon. The guilty plea was just “a way to get home”, said Mr Hicks’s father.

Many in Australia regard Mr Hicks as more of a lost soul than a dangerous terrorist. Indeed, his charge sheet portrays him as little more than an al-Qaeda foot-soldier, and a poor one at that. His jihadi CV is pitiful compared with the evidence being given by some of the 14 “high value detainees” belatedly brought to Guantánamo from CIA secret prisons in September. They include al-Qaeda’s operational chief, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who in a closed hearing to determine whether he was an “enemy combatant” earlier this month boasted that he had organised the September 11th attacks “from A to Z”, and 30 other plots. Meanwhile, Ahmed Ghalfan Ghailani and Waleed bin Atttash, from Tanzania and Yemen respectively, have admitted supplying equipment for the bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

Many of these big names will face trial, and perhaps the death penalty. But the tribunals are expected to try only 60-80 of the more than 380 prisoners currently in Guantánamo. Over the years hundreds of detainees have been sent back to their countries, where some have been jailed and most have been released—and sometimes re-arrested. The Bush Administration says it wants to phase out and eventually close the jail. But it is unlikely to do so for some years, either because it lacks the evidence to prosecute detainees（even under the more lax military rules it is using）, or because other countries are unwilling to take them back.

注（1）：本文选自Economist；

注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象为2004年真题Text 3（题目顺序稍微调整）。



1. What does the author intend to illustrate with the Hicks case?

A) The case is not encouraging in promoting America’s justice outside the country.

B) The Pentagon is finally beginning to work effectively to try the detainees of its anti-terrorist war.

C) The detainees are not supposed to have civilian lawyers, while only military lawyers are allowed.

D) The fact that the Pentagon has been involved in a series of controversies leads to the public attention of the Hicks case.

2. What can we infer from the second paragraph?

A) Hicks’ military lawyer was also sued by the prosecutor.

B) The reason that Mr. Hicks pleaded guilty was to escape from the bad treatment.

C) Mr. Hicks has admitted guilty of both charges by the prosecutor.

D) The Pentagon is unaware of the accusation toward the American custody.

3. What does “kangaroo court”（Line 7, Paragraph 1）mean?

A) a court dealing with kangaroo smuggle

B) a weird court

C) an unfair court

D) a military court

4. The fourth paragraph suggests that _______.

A) the jail in Guantánamo Bay will be closed in the near future

B) the government is too optimistic in closing the jail

C) the tribunals will eventually try all the detainees

D) all the detainees will be sent back to their own countries

5. Which of the following is TRUE according to the text?

A) Australians regard Mr. Hicks as a hero since he is a big name in the al-Qaeda organization.

B) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is charged of his organization of the entire event of the September 11 attacks.

C) Most detainees will face severe trials and sentences when they are sent back to their home countries.

D) The whole passage is permeated by an ironic tone towards the saying that the Hicks case showcases America’s justice.





篇章剖析


本文就来自澳大利亚的塔利班恐怖分子大卫·希克斯承认法庭对他的指控一事展开讨论。第一段就整个事件的前因后果进行了简要的讨论，从希克斯案引出了对于美国军事法庭不公平性问题的讨论；第二段对事件进一步展开了详细论述，并引用了各方人士的观点，说明了针对军事法庭争议的复杂性；第三段说明希克斯只是一个小角色，被关押的还有许多具有重要地位的恐怖分子；第四段则指出布什关于关闭关塔那摩基地计划的难度所在。





词汇注释


tribunal /trɪˈbjuːnl/ n. （特等）法庭

lurch /lɜːtʃ/ vi. 突然倾斜

combatant /ˈkɒmbətənt/ n. 战士，战斗员

halt /hɔːlt/ vt. 使停止

skinner /ˈskɪnə/ n. 皮革商

bar /bɑː/ vt. 禁止，阻挡，妨碍

breach /briːtʃ/ v. 违背，破坏

contemptuous /kənˈtemptjʊəs/ adj. 轻蔑的，侮辱的

intimidate /ɪnˈtɪmɪdeɪt/ v. 胁迫

begraggled /bɪˈdʒægld/ adj. 全身泥污的

injection /ɪnˈdʒekʃən/ n. 注射；注射剂

custody /ˈkʌstədi/ n. 监管，保管

detainee /ˌdɪteɪˈniː/ n. 被拘留者，未判决囚犯

penalty /ˈpenəlti/ n. 处罚，罚款

phase out 使逐步淘汰，逐渐停止

lax /læks/ adj. 松的，不严格的





难句突破


The American military tribunals set up to pass judgment on terrorism suspects at Guantánamo Bay lurched into life this week when David Hicks, the “Australian Taliban”, unexpectedly pleaded guilty.

主体句式：The American military tribunals lurched into life.

结构分析：本句中的动词词组set up并不是本句的谓语，而是用来修饰the American military的过去分词结构。本句的真正谓语是lurch into life。

句子译文：人称“澳大利亚塔利班”的大卫·希克斯在本周出乎人们意料地承认了法庭对他的指控，这意味着美国军事法庭对关押在关塔那摩湾的恐怖分子嫌犯进行审判的努力终于开始发挥实际作用了。





题目分析


1. A 推理题。文章对应信息为第一段的“Yet the Hicks case is hardly an impressive start for America’s offshore justice”。B选项的错误原因在于文章第一句话指出，美国军事法庭终于开始发挥作用，但这并不表示五角大楼在这方面的工作效率开始提高。C选项错误在于根据文章第一段最后两句话，犯人可以同时拥有民事律师和军事律师。D选项错误在于该表述中的两个事件并不存在直接的因果联系。

2. B 推理题。文章第二段希克斯的父亲说the guilty plea was just “a way to get home”，并且前文提到了希克斯遭受的各种折磨，这都暗示希克斯承认罪行的目的是希望能够逃离折磨，回到澳大利亚。

3. C 语义题。“kangaroo court”的意思是“所做裁决不够公正透明的法庭”。如果不知道这个意思也无妨，因为可以从上下文意思中推出。后一句话中提到，“Two of his civilian lawyers were barred from the hearing on March 26th. His military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, has been threatened with prosecution for harshly criticising the tribunals”，希克斯的律师都无法出庭，说明这个法庭是不公正的。

4. B 细节题。B选项的原文对应信息为“The Bush Administration says it wants to phase out and eventually close the jail. But it is unlikely to do so for some years”，可见布什政府在这一问题上的态度过于乐观。

5. D 细节题。文章从头到尾所传达的信息是，希克斯一案存在很多不公正因素。A选项的错误原因在于文章第三段第一句话中提到，澳大利亚人们认为希克斯先生丧失了灵魂，并不是什么英雄，同时他在塔利班组织中也不是什么大人物。B选项错误的原因在于文章只是提到哈立德·谢赫·穆罕默德自称策划了911事件，并没有提到他是否因此受到指控。C选项的错误原因在于文章最后一段指出，那些被遣送回国的囚犯大多不会受到很严厉的惩罚，在监狱中呆几年就可以获得自由。





参考译文


人称“澳大利亚塔利班”的大卫·希克斯在本周出乎人们意料地承认了法庭对他的指控，这意味着美国军事法庭对关押在关塔那摩湾的恐怖分子嫌犯进行审判的努力终于开始发挥实际作用了。五角大楼将会对军事法庭初步显示出的结果感到轻松，因为其五年来一直受到各种争议的困扰，包括“敌对战斗人员”身份地位，折磨罪犯的指证，逼供的可接受性，以及去年代替了先前的军事法庭的最高法院审判等。尽管如此，对于美国的国际正义来说，希克斯的案件还很难说是一个令人振奋的开端。评论家们称，31岁的希克斯先生曾经是袋鼠皮革商人和所谓的基地组织战士，他现在面对的是一个不公正的法庭。他的两位民事律师被禁止在3月26号听讼，而其军事律师少校迈克尔·莫里则因对军事法庭的尖刻批评面临被起诉的威胁。

公诉人莫利斯·戴维斯上校称辩护律师可能已违背军法中关于禁止军官对主席或者高级官员使用侮辱性词语的条例。而莫里少校针对该起诉也提出了一项反向指控，认为起诉意在胁迫他。现在人们不会再听到类似这样的传闻，因为看上去面色苍白、精神颓废的希克斯先生已经承认了关于“给恐怖主义提供重要支持”的指控。法庭已经放弃了关于“违背战争法而谋杀未遂”一案的审理。当经济学家发刊时，军事法庭一定会听到更多他的抗辩之词和宣判细节，人们认为希克斯先生将会在澳大利亚服刑。他的父亲特里·希克斯声称其子自从在阿富汗被捕以来经历了五年地狱般的生活，遭受了殴打、强奸和强迫注射等——尽管这些指控已被五角大楼驳回。希克斯先生的父亲说承认有罪只不过是一种得以回家的方法罢了。

在澳大利亚，很多人认为希克斯先生更像一个丧失灵魂的人而并非危险的恐怖分子。确实，指控记录中他被描述成一个基地组织的普通步兵，一个可怜的小角色。同9月份从中情局秘密监狱转到关塔那摩的14名具有极高价值的囚犯相比，希克斯的圣战履历看起来非常令人同情。前者包括基地组织首领哈立德·谢赫·穆罕默德，在本月一个对其是否是敌对战斗人员身份的封闭听讼会中，他自夸他从头到尾策划了911袭击和30个其他秘密计划。与此同时，分别来自坦桑尼亚和也门的艾哈迈德·盖凡·盖拉尼和瓦立德·本阿塔什也承认曾为1998年肯尼亚和坦桑尼亚引爆美国大使馆的恐怖分子提供了相应设备。

这些鼎鼎大名的恐怖分子将面临审判，而且可能被判死刑。但是军事法庭目前只打算审判380多名被关押在关塔那摩囚犯中的60~80名囚犯。几年来，囚犯中已有上百人被遣送回了自己的国家，他们有的被继续监禁，而大多数则被释放——不过有时又被重新逮捕。布什政府宣称有必要逐渐减少囚犯并最终关闭这个监狱。但很难在几年内做到这一点，一方面是因为缺乏起诉这些囚犯的证据（即使是在不够严谨的军法框架下），另一方面则是因为这些囚犯所属的国家事实上并不愿意他们被遣回本国。





Unit 68


Technology is a two-edged sword. Rarely is this as clear as it is in the realm of health care. Technology allows doctors to test their patients for genetic defects—and then to turn around and spread the results throughout the world via the Internet. For someone in need of treatment, that’s good news. But for someone in search of a job or an insurance policy, the tidings can be all bad.

Last week President Bill Clinton proposed a corollary to the patients’ bill of rights now before Congress: a right to medical privacy. Beginning in 2002, under rules set to become law in February, patients would be able to stipulate the conditions under which their personal medical data could be divulged. They would be able to examine their records and make corrections. They could learn who else had seen the information. Improper use of records by a caregiver or insurer could result in both civil and criminal penalties. The plan was, said Clinton, “an unprecedented step toward putting Americans back in control of their own medical records.”

While the administration billed the rules as an attempt to strike a balance between the needs of consumers and those of the health-care industry, neither doctors nor insurance companies were happy. The doctors said the rules could actually erode privacy, pointing to a provision allowing managed-care plans to use personal information without consent if the purpose was “health-care operations.” That, physicians said, was a loophole through which HMOs and other insurers could pry into the doctor-patient relationship, in the name of assessing the quality of care. Meanwhile, the insurers protested that the rules would make them vulnerable to lawsuits. They were especially disturbed by a provision holding them liable for privacy breaches by “business partners” such as lawyers and accountants. Both groups agreed that privacy protections would drive up the cost of health care by at least an additional $3.8 billion, and maybe much more, over the next five years. They also complained about the increased level of federal scrutiny required by the new rules’ enforcement provisions.