语言是技能。掌握一门语言无疑是多了一项交流沟通的技能，对个人事业发展有好处。由于中巴特殊的全天候战略伙伴关系，巴基斯坦学生学习汉语拥有更为 有利的条件。中国总理温家宝去年底的成功访问极大丰富了两国人文交流的内涵。在《联合声明》中，双方同意全面拓展人文交流，重点加强中文和乌尔都语教育。 中方今年将邀请100名巴基斯坦高中生赴华参加汉语桥夏令营，并继续向伊斯兰堡孔子学院提供奖学金。中方还将自今年起，在三年之内向巴方提供500名 政府奖学金名额。可以说，你们学习汉语正逢其时。
语言是桥梁。第13任中国驻巴大使张春贤能够说一口流利的乌尔都语。我知道我的很多同事对学习乌尔都语怀有浓厚的兴趣。我还知道，很多巴基斯坦朋友会说 汉语，其中就有巴国立现代语言大学和伊斯兰堡孔子学院的校友。我们为他们骄傲。今天，我还想特别提及伊斯兰堡孔子学院的学生。去年温总理来巴，我们在巴中 友谊中心举办了这样一场活动，就是两国总理与为中巴友谊做出突出贡献人士座谈。座谈会临近结束的时候，伊斯兰堡孔子学院学员朱雷和14岁女孩拉比亚分别用 中文和英文深情并茂地朗诵了一首题为巴中友谊的诗。在场观众深受感染，有人不禁落泪。这就是语言直通心灵的力量。
语言是乐趣。寓教于乐也许正是汉语桥取得成功的重要原因。作为一名外交官，我不仅在你们的国家工作，还在你们的国家生活。生活需要有乐趣。两周前， 我从当地英文报纸上得知，著名乌尔都语作家、诗人阿卜杜尔•哈米德先生因病辞世。巴国立语言研究机构主席称，哈米德先生的去世意味着巴浪漫诗歌黄金时代 的终结。包括我在内的很多中国人都是诗歌爱好者。然而，由于我不懂乌尔都语，虽身在巴基斯坦，却难以欣赏文学巨匠的作品，宝山空回实为憾事。我常常 在想，如果我懂乌尔都语，在这儿的常驻生活会更加有趣和充实。
英译汉真题（节选）：Calls for Recognizing Least Developed Countries as ‘Vast Reservoirs’ of Untapped Potential
There are few better places to hold the first major development conference of the decade. Here in Istanbul, cultures converge and continents connect. You provide a bridge between North and South, East and West. We are here to continue building a bridge, a bridge we started to build four decades ago.
In 1971, the international community identified 25 Least Developed Countries: the poorest and weakest members of our global family, those in need of special attention and assistance. Today there are 48 LDCs, home to nearly 900 million people, 12 per cent of the global population, half of whom live on less than $2 a day.
They suffer disproportionately from largely preventable diseases. They are most vulnerable to natural disasters, environmental change and economic shocks. They are the least secure. Eight of the United Nations 15 peacekeeping operations are in least developed countries. In the past decade those nations have produced some 60 per cent of the world’s refugees.
The facts are plain. We live in an unbalanced world, an unfair world. With 12 per cent of the global population, LDCs account for just 1 per cent of world exports, and less than 2 per cent of global direct investment. Recent years have seen a transformation of the global economic landscape.
Since the 2001 Brussels Programme of Action was adopted, many LDCs have benefited from this changing environment. But others have seen little progress or have even slid back. We risk a splintered world economy, a widening gap between haves and have-nots, between those who have hope and those who do not.
This cannot continue.
I have painted rather a bleak picture. But there is another one, a landscape of opportunity. It is this outlook that I want to present to you today. It is time to change our mindset. Instead of seeing LDCs as poor and weak, let us recognize these 48 countries as vast reservoirs of untapped potential. Investing in LDCs is an opportunity for all.
First it is an opportunity to relieve the world’s most vulnerable people of the burdens of poverty, hunger and needless disease. This is a moral obligation. Second, investing in LDCs can provide the stimulus that will help to propel and sustain global economic recovery and stability. This is not charity, it is smart investment. Third, it provides a massive opportunity for South-South cooperation and investment. The world’s rapidly emerging economies need both resources and markets. LDCs can provide both — and are increasingly doing so. Fourth, the LDCs represent a vast and barely touched area for enterprise, for business.
We have here, this week, all the ingredients for success, for a genuine partnership for development. You have worked hard in your preparations. You have reviewed the impact of the Brussels Programme of Action. You know what worked, and what did not, what should have been done and what still needs to be done.
Your negotiations for a new programme of action are on track. The issues are complex. Some are contentious. All are interlinked. I urge you to be ambitious and forward-looking. Deliver an Istanbul Programme of Action that will help the maximum number of LDCs to graduate from this category in the shortest time.
I would like to close, ladies and gentlemen, by highlighting some broad areas where we can reap the maximum benefits for LDCs and the global economy.
First, productive capacity. Most LDCs are rich in resources. All have young and vibrant populations. These men and women need decent jobs, education, training, so they can make the most of their country’s assets — minerals and other commodities, farmland, rich stores of biodiversity and tourism potential.
However, enhanced productive capacity will only be achieved with a dynamic and thriving private sector. One of the most significant aspects of this Conference is the enthusiastic engagement of the business community. Let us ensure that business has the right environment to thrive. It is no coincidence that the three countries that have graduated from the LDCs also score high on governance and democratic principles.
Let me now turn to the issue of aid. Official development assistance (ODA) to LDCs has nearly tripled in the past decade. But it remains below agreed targets. Yes, it is true that we live in times of austerity. But as I have said, assistance to LDCs is not charity, it is sound investment. Many also argue that current aid places too little emphasis on economic infrastructure and productive sectors. Furthermore, many LDCs are still saddled with unsustainable debt burdens. I urge lenders to revisit this issue.
Let me now turn to agriculture, which employs as much as 70 per cent of workers in LDCs. This is perhaps the most important sector for development. We need to invest more in smallholder farmers and the infrastructure they need. This means transferring appropriate technologies, supporting climate change adaptation and protecting ecosystems. We need to invest, too, in basic social protection and safety nets.
Global food prices are at new record levels. LDCs face a real prospect of a new crisis in food and nutrition security. In many LDCs, the poor spend more than half their incomes on food. More than 40 per cent of children in LDCs have had their growth and development stunted by malnutrition. A country that cannot feed its children cannot thrive.
My final point concerns trade. The international community has failed to follow through on global commitments in the Monterrey Consensus and the Doha Declaration on Financing for Development. I call again for a successful conclusion to the Doha Development Round of multilateral trade negotiations. There is little point in helping LDCs to grow food and other commodities, manufacture products and develop services if they cannot trade fairly in the global marketplace.
The United Nations system will continue to prioritize LDC issues throughout its programmes. We will work diligently with all partners to help implement the new Istanbul Programme of Action.
A measure of any society is how well it looks after its least fortunate. The same is true of the international community. Now is not the time to turn our backs, but to increase our support.
The past two decades saw spectacular progress among emerging economies. The LDCs are poised to be the next wave of development achievement. Let me emphasize again, ladies and gentlemen: I am not arguing for charity, but investment. The returns can be profound — not just for the people living in LDCs, but for all people — for the global economy. Success for the LDCs is ultimately success for all.
Let us try our best to make this world harmonious, balanced and better for all.
英译汉真题：Managing Globalization: The trouble with water
This month, the United Nations Development Program made water and sanitation the centerpiece of its flagship publication, the Human Development Report.
Claims of a "water apartheid," where poor people pay more for water than the rich, are bound to attract attention. But what are the economics behind the problem, and how can it be fixed?
In countries that have trouble delivering clean water to their people, a lack of infrastructure is often the culprit. People in areas that are not served by public utilities have to rely on costlier ways of getting water, such as itinerant water trucks and treks to wells.
Paradoxically, as the water sources get costlier, the water itself tends to be more dangerous. Water piped by utilities - to the rich and the poor alike - is usually cleaner than water trucked in or collected from an outdoor tank.
The problem exists not only in rural areas but even in big cities like Manila and Jakarta, said Hakan Bjorkman, program director of the UN agency in Thailand. Further, subsidies made to local water systems often end up benefiting people other than the poor, he added.
The agency proposes a three-step solution. First, make access to 20 liters, or 5 gallons, of clean water a day a human right. Next, make local governments accountable for delivering this service. Last, invest in infrastructure to link people to water mains.
The report says governments, especially in developing countries, should spend at least 1 percent of gross domestic product on water and sanitation. It also recommends that foreign aid be more directed toward these problems.
Clearly, this approach relies heavily on government intervention, something Bjorkman readily acknowledged. But there are some market-based approaches as well.
By offering cut-rate connections to poor people to the water mainline, the private water utility in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, has steadily increased access to clean water, according to the agency's report. A subsidy may not even be necessary, despite the agency's proposals, if a country can harness the economic benefits of providing clean water.
People who receive clean water are much less likely to die from water-borne diseases - a common malady in the developing world - and much more likely to enjoy long, productive, taxpaying lives that can benefit their host countries.
So if a government is trying to raise financing to invest in new infrastructure, it might find receptive ears in private credit markets - as long as it can harness the return. Similarly, private companies may calculate that it is worth bringing clean water to an area if its residents are willing to pay back the investment over many years.
By further opening up water infrastructure to investors, globalization might actually help people to get the clean water they need. But globalization could also make the problem harder to solve by creating a world market for water.
"As competition for water intensifies within countries, the resulting pressures will spill across national borders," the report predicts.
Some water supply basins are shared between as many as 19 countries, and 800 million people get their water from sources that originate outside their countries' borders. Without cooperation or regulation, that competition for water is likely to be won by wealthier bidders.
In the meantime, some local solutions are being found. In Thailand, Bjorkman said, some small communities are taking challenges like water access upon themselves.
"People organize themselves in groups to leverage what little resources they have to help their communities," he said. "That's especially true out in the rural areas. They invest their money in revolving funds and saving schemes, and they invest themselves to improve their villages."
It is not always easy to take these solutions and replicate them in other countries, though. Assembling a broad menu of different approaches can be the first step in finding the right solution for a given region or country.
第一篇：Study Finds Hope in Saving Saltwater Fish
Can we have our fish and eat it too? An unusual collaboration of marine ecologists and fisheries management scientists says the answer may be yes.
In a research paper in Friday’s issue of the journal Science, the two groups, long at odds with each other, offer a global assessment of the world’s saltwater fish and their environments.
Their conclusions are at once gloomy — overfishing continues to threaten many species — and upbeat: a combination of steps can turn things around. But because antagonism between ecologists and fisheries management experts has been intense, many familiar with the study say the most important factor is that it was done at all.
They say they hope the study will inspire similar collaborations between scientists whose focus is safely exploiting specific natural resources and those interested mainly in conserving them.
We need to merge those two communities, said Steve Murawski, chief fisheries scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This paper starts to bridge that gap.
The collaboration began in 2006 when Boris Worm, a marine ecologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and other scientists made an alarming prediction: if current trends continue, by 2048 overfishing will have destroyed most commercially important populations of saltwater fish. Ecologists applauded the work. But among fisheries management scientists, reactions ranged from skepticism to fury over what many called an alarmist report.
Among the most prominent critics was Ray Hilborn, a professor of aquatic and fishery sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. Yet the disagreement did not play out in typical scientific fashion with, as Dr. Hilborn put it, researchers firing critical papers back and forth. Instead, he and Dr. Worm found themselves debating the issue on National Public Radio.
We started talking and found more common ground than we had expected, Dr. Worm said. Dr. Hilborn recalled thinking that Dr. Worm actually seemed like a reasonable person.
The two decided to work together on the issue. They sought and received financing and began organizing workshops at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, an organization sponsored by the National Science Foundation and based at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
At first, Dr. Hilborn said in an interview, the fisheries management people would go to lunch and the marine ecologists would go to lunch — separately. But soon they were collecting and sharing data and recruiting more colleagues to analyze it.
As I mentioned last week, I’ve recently returned from Australia. While I was there,I visited a eucalyptus forest that, in February, was the scene of an appalling wildfire. Perhaps naively, I had expected to find that many trees had been killed. They hadn’t. They had blackened bark, but were otherwise looking rather well, many of them wreathed in new young leaves. This prompted me to consider fire and the role it plays as a force of nature.
Fossil charcoals tell us that wildfires have been part of life on Earth for as long as there have been plants on land. That’s more than 400 million years of fire. Fire was here long before arriviste plants like grasses; it pre-dated the first flowers. And without wanting to get mystical about it, fire is, in many respects, a kind of animal, albeit an ethereal one. Like any animal, it consumes oxygen. Like a sheep or a slug, it eats plants.
Sometimes, it merely nibbles a few leaves; sometimes it kills grown trees. Sometimes it is more deadly and destructive than a swarm of locusts.
The shape-shifting nature of fire makes it hard to study, for it is not a single entity. Some fires are infernally hot; others, relatively cool. Some stay at ground level; others climb trees. Moreover, fire is much more likely to appear in some parts of the world than in others. Satellite images of the Earth show that wildfires are rare in, say, northern Europe, and common in parts of central Africa and Australia. Once a fire gets started, many factors contribute to how it will behave. The weather obviously has a huge effect: winds can fan flames, rains can quench them. The lie of the land matters, too: fire runs uphill more readily than it goes down. But another crucial factor is what type of plants the fire has to eat.
It’s common knowledge that plants regularly exposed to fire tend to have features that help them cope with it — such as thick bark, or seeds that only grow after being exposed to intense heat or smoke.
最新情况：2007年下半年以来，中国经济的发展确实非同寻常。随着全球金融危机的爆发，中国经济从2008年一季度过热的结束到四季度硬着陆 的开始，经历了一个为期6个月的短周期。中国通过前所未有的强力政策，终于成为第一个从大衰退中复苏的主要经济体。面对当前的强劲复苏，越来越多的人 开始关注这些超级宽松的货币和财政政策的潜在后果以及相关的退出战略。
结论：我们认为，高储蓄率对于理解中国经济的各种现象的演化和内在联系起着极为重要的作用。高储蓄率主要是中国人口政策下的人口结构、经济快速增长背景 下家庭消费习惯改变缓慢等长期因素作用的结果。在过度储蓄优点的影响下，中国已经并可能继续保持高增长、低通胀，而且只要继续保持高储蓄率，就足以抵 御来自外部的冲击。在这一背景下，挥之不去的资产价格上涨压力可能成为中国经济的一个常态现象，而非特例，从而成为政策制定者面临的最大、也是经常化的宏 观经济挑战，而为了最大限度地防范资产价格破裂所造成的系统性风险，降低杠杆率很可能成为经济政策的一个重点。
中国的国民储蓄约占GDP的55%，其中19%为家庭储蓄，11%为政府储蓄， 25%为企业储蓄。国民储蓄只能用于三种用途：境内有形资产、境外有形资产和境外金融资产。境内有形资产主要通过国内固定资产投资的方式形成；境外有形资 产的形成途径为中国居民的境外直接投资，或以并购方式获得现有境外有形资产的所有权；境外金融资产的形成途径为中央银行的官方外汇储备积累，或跨境自由流 动机制(即无资本账户控制)下的私人投资。
高储蓄为促进国内投资的快速增长提供了充足的资金，而高投资反过来又促进了经济的快速增长。在其他条件不变的情况下，国内高储蓄支撑的高增长通常会导致 紧缩压力，而非通胀压力。具体而言，实施初期的投资项目是总体需求的一部分(即需求曲线向右平移)，因而通常会增长价格上涨的压力，但是投资最终将导致产 能的扩大，从而大幅增长供给(即供给曲线向右平移)。
中国的境外金融资产的主要表现形式为中央银行的外汇储备，约占中国境外总资产的70%。这主要是因为资本账户的管制导致国内居民不能自由进行境外投资。 不过，以官方外汇储备形式体现的境外金融资产并不真正反映国内私人储蓄在境外使用的情况，因为国内的流动性(即如果没有资本账户管制，则可能已由私营部门 投资于境外有形资产或金融资产所对应的那部分储蓄)正是由央行的外汇储备积累而创造的，但却被限制在中国国内。
在中国这样过度储蓄的经济体，管理资产价格的持续上涨压力，可能在未来几年内成为比控制传统的CPI上涨或促进经济增长更重要的政策目标。不过，由 于传统的货币政策工具并非最合适的资产价格上涨管理工具，所以当前的紧迫任务是最大限度地防范资产价格破裂带来的系统性风险。在低杠杆率下，资产价格破裂 造成的损失要小得多。
通过合格国内机构投资者(QDII)以及合格国内散户投资者(QDRI)的投资活动，开放对外资本账户，当有助于满足国内储蓄者直接拥有境外金融资产的 需求，从而放缓中央银行外汇储备积累及国内流动性创造的速度。不过，对资本流入(特别是短期投资)的控制应当继续维持或逐步取消。否则资本的流入将会对国 内储蓄导致的严重资产价格上涨压力起到推波助澜的作用，并使政策博弈进一步复杂化。