Give Russian equivalents of the following words and phrases.
A long-term security requirement; to trigger; a clash over; a determination; to exceed; to compel; to offset; a multilateral institution; to be compatible with; primacy; an engagement; Gordian knot; to bar; a ballistic missile defense system; benign; to bring about; an adjustment; indispensable; to base on smth.
Give English equivalents of the following words and phrases.
Препятствовать; превосходство; компенсировать; превышать; противоракетная оборона; вывести; долгосрочное требование в области безопасности; вызвать; столкновение из-за чего-либо; незаменимый; решимость; корректировка (приспособление); принуждать; вовлечение; благоприятный; вызывать (быть причиной); совместимый с; Гордиев узел; строить/основывать на чем-либо.
Read the article again and answer the questions using the active vocabulary.
1. What is the US global strategy based on during and right after the Cold War?
2. Does the current alliance system get stronger?
3. What do Japanese experts fear?
4. What are Japanese experts deeply concerned about?
5. What do Japanese experts worry about?
6. What marks Washington's approach to current alliances?
7. What does the Bush administration intend to abandon in its policy?
8. How should Japan change its constitution?
9. What does Japanese constitution bar?
10. Should the United States resort to military force in its policy towards China?
11. What do most friendly to America governments believe in both Europe and Asia?
12. What do the US allies neglect?
13. How is the United States described as a nation?
Using the active vocabulary render the article in English.
Questions for discussion.
1. What can the widening gap between the military capabilities of the United States and those of its European partners lead to?
2. To what extent do you think Japanese experts' concerns are justified?
3. What is your assessment of the idea that the world order should serve US interests based on US military and economic primacy?
4. Should Japan redefine the constitution and embark on a military build up?
5. Do you see eye to eye with those who believe that growing Chinese power may challenge US and Japanese security? If yes, how should both US and Japan react to it?
|
|
|
6. What do you think is meant by the following statement: «To the extent that US allies neglect to maintain the capacity for basic collective military defense, they are forgetting or ignoring the lessons of history»?
7. Do you support the approach that the United States is still the indispensable nation?
III
Translate the following articles into English using Translation Notes.
1
Представители Госдепартамента США намерены встретиться с японскими и южнокорейскими коллегами для обсуждения дальнейших действий в отношении Северной Кореи. Как стало известно из дипломатических кругов, в центре внимания встречи будут вопросы о том, как убедить КНДР отказаться от ядерной программы. Затем высокопоставленные американские официальные лица отправятся в страны региона.
2
Президент США подтвердил, что его администрация намерена согласовывать с другими странами свою политику в отношении КНДР. Ранее президент США неоднократно выражал готовность продолжать тесные консультации на эту тему с Японией, Республикой Корея[10], Китаем и Россией. Однако в их подходах к северокорейской проблеме существуют различия. Вашингтон выступает за усиление международной изоляции Пхеньяна[11], а Токио, Сеул, Пекин и Москва считают, что урегулирование на Корейском полуострове[12] может быть достигнуто только путем активного политического диалога.
|
|
|
Comment on the quotations:
DIPLOMACY: The ability to tell someone to go to Hell so that he'll look forward to making the trip.
«Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments». (Frederick the Great)
SECTION С
Read the article and look up the meaning of the underlined words in the dictionary.
Diplomacy
The armed forces are the instruments of foreign policy, not its master
No successful and no peaceful foreign policy is possible without observance of this rule. No nation can pursue a policy of compromise with the military determining the ends and means of foreign policy. The armed forces are instruments of war; foreign policy is an instrument of peace. It is true that the ultimate objectives of the conduct of war and of the conduct of foreign policy are identical: Both serve the national interests. Both, however, differ fundamentally in their immediate objectives, in the means they employ, and in the modes of thought they bring to bear upon their respective tasks.
The objective of war is simple and unconditional: to break the will of the enemy. Its methods are equally simple and unconditional: to bring the greatest amount of violence to bear upon the most vulnerablespots in the enemy's armor. The military leader lives in the present and in the immediate future. The sole question before him is how to win victories as cheaply and quickly as possible and how to avoid defeat.
The objective of foreign policy is relative and conditional: to bend. not to break, the will of the other side as far as necessary in order to safeguard one's own vital interests without hurting those of the other side. The methods of foreign policy are relative and conditional: not to advance by destroying the obstacles in one's way, to retreat before them, to circumvent them, to maneuver around them, to soften and dissolve them slowly by means of persuasion, negotiations, and pressure.
To surrender the conduct of foreign affairs to military is to destroy the possibility of compromise and thus surrender the cause of peace. The military mind knows nothing how to operate between the absolutes of victory and defeat. It knows nothing of that patient intricate and subtle maneuvering of diplomacy, whose main purpose is to avoid the absolutes of victories and defeats and meet the other side on the middle ground of negotiated compromise. A foreign policy conducted by military men according to the rules of the military art can only end in war.
|
|
|
Peace must be the goal of any foreign policy. Foreign policy must be conducted in such a way as to make the preservation of peace possible and not to make the outbreak of war inevitable. In a society of sovereign nations military force is a necessary instrument of foreign policy. Yet this instrument of foreign policy should not become the master of foreign policy. As war is fought in order to make peace possible, foreign policy should be conducted in order to make peace permanent. For the performance of both tasks, the subordination of the military under civilian authorities which are constitutionally responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs is an indispensable prerequisite.
Дата добавления: 2019-01-14; просмотров: 293; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!