[权衡]联合国:任务之巨,难于登天?(譯自《經濟學人》)

楼主:福建李菁 时间:2007-01-08 00:58:00 点击:241 回复:6
脱水 打赏 看楼主 设置

字体:

边距:

背景:

还原:

The United Nations
  Mission impossible?
  联合国:任务之巨,难于登天?
  
  Jan 4th 2007 / 2007年1月4日
  From The Economist print edition / 来自《经济学人》印刷版
  
  
  As Ban Ki-moon takes charge at the United Nations, we look at the prospects for this troubled body and for its peacekeeping efforts round the world
  随着潘基文掌门联合国,我们关注着陷入困境的联合国及其在世界各地的维和努力
  
  ANY new job brings challenges: but none quite like those facing Ban Ki-moon, the quiet Korean who has just become the UN's new secretary-general. Rising nuclear demons in Iran and North Korea, a haemorrhaging wound in Darfur, unending violence in the Middle East, looming environmental disaster, escalating international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the spread of HIV/AIDS. And then there are more parochial concerns, such as the largely unfinished business of the most sweeping attempt at reform in the UN's history. That effort was started by Kofi Annan, who stepped down this week after ten turbulent years at the helm.
  任何新工作,都会有挑战。但是,没人会遇上潘基文面对的挑战,这位文静的韩国人刚刚成为联合国的新秘书长。伊朗和朝鲜的核问题愈发严重,达尔富尔冲突流血不断,中东的暴力无休无止,环境恶化导致的灾难隐约呈现,国际恐怖主义持续升级,大规模杀伤性武器扩散着,艾滋病传播着。还有更多地方性关注有待解答,例如联合国历史上最彻底的改革尚未得竟。改革的努力始自科菲•安南,他执掌联合国在激流之中扬帆前行了十年之后,于本周卸下重担。
  
  Mr Ban now picks up the baton. As a member of a “group without a church”—a Christian organisation that emerged in Japan in the early 20th century, whose adherents make the Gospel a source of inspiration for their private and public life—the UN's first Asian secretary-general in 35 years has described himself as “a man on a mission”, keen to restore trust between member states and the secretariat, between rich and poor countries, and in the discredited organisation itself. He hoped, he joked to journalists last month, that this would not prove a “Mission Impossible”. The world will hope so, too.
  如今由潘基文接棒。他是一个“无教堂团体”的成员,该团体为一基督教组织,于20世纪早期在日本出现,其拥护者将福音书(译注:Gospel指的是《圣经•新约》中的《约翰(马太;马可;路加)福音》;也指福音书中的一节)作为私人与公共生活的激励之源。这位联合国的首位亚洲籍秘书长在35年中都将自己形容为“负有使命之人(a man on a mission)”,他极想修补成员国与联合国秘书处之间、富国与穷国之间的互信,重塑世人对于信誉受损的联合国之信任。上个月,他对记者开玩笑说,但愿到头来这“任务不会难于上青天”。想必这世界也希望如此。
  
  Mr Ban says he wants to concentrate on the goals already set for the UN, rather than find “new frontiers to conquer”. That is wise, but frustrating, because the UN's biggest problem is also its most intractable. It lies in the all-powerful Security Council or, more precisely, with its five permanent members. The UN's failure to stop the atrocities in Darfur or the nuclear posturing of Iran and North Korea has stemmed largely from the inability of the so-called P5 to agree on what should be done. If Mr Ban could simply conjure away the P5's extraordinary powers and privileges, which allow any one of them to paralyse the will of the rest of the world, everything, it seems, could be much easier.
  潘基文说,他希望专注于实现联合国的既定目标甚于寻找“新的领域来攻克”。这是明智的,但使人有受挫之感,因为联合国的最大问题也是最难处理的。说得更明了些,这有赖于有着五个常任理事国、全能的安理会。联合国在达尔富尔阻止暴行失败,也无法阻止伊朗与朝鲜的核计划,大多根源于所谓的“五常”无力在要做何事上达成共识。五常拥有过分权力与特权,其中任何之一都能使世界其他地区的意愿化为泡影,如果潘基文能消除五常的过分权力与特权,似乎任何事情都会更容易办到。
  
  When the UN was created in 1945, its founder-nations—the four main victors of the second world war, America, Britain, China and Russia, plus France—allocated to themselves the only five permanent seats, with veto powers, on what was then an 11-seat Security Council. The other members, all elected by the General Assembly, held two-year non-renewable seats without a veto. Since then, the number of the UN's member states has almost quadrupled from 51 to 192, two-thirds of them in the developing world.
  联合国于1945年创立时,第二次世界大战的四个主要战胜国,美国、英国、中国与苏联,加上法国,它们在后来总共11席的安全理事会中给自己分配了仅有的5个拥有否决权的常任席位。其他的安理会成员国全部由联合国大会选出,任期两年,不得连任,也无否决权。自那时迄今,联合国的成员国数量几乎增至原来51个的四倍,现为192个,其中三分之二为发展中国家。
  
  Yet apart from the addition of four more non-permanent seats in 1965, membership of the Security Council, the only UN body whose decisions are binding, has remained unchanged. The system is not only undemocratic, anachronistic and unfair, but also—as Paul Kennedy, professor of history at Yale, suggests in his new book, “The Parliament of Man”—outrageous. Yet it cannot be changed without inviting a veto from one of the very nations whose powers might be diminished.
  然而,安理会的决议具有约束力,这样的机构在联合国中仅此一个,除了1965年增设4个安理会非常任理事国席位,依然毫无改变。这一体制不民主、不合时宜、也不公平,不仅如此,也如同耶鲁大学历史学教授保尔•肯尼迪在其新书《人之议会》(The Parliament of Man)中所表明的那样——安理会令人无法容忍。然而,这些可能被削弱权力的国家中,只要引来一张否决票,就无法改变安理会的体制了。
  
  Change might well be unwise, too. As Mr Kennedy notes, powerful nations will always be tempted to go their own way. The League of Nations, set up between the two world wars, failed precisely because it was too democratic, too liberal, and toothless. The United States was never a member. Germany and Japan pulled out in 1933, Italy four years later. A different system had to be devised if the potentially isolationist great powers of the post-1945 world were to be kept inside a new world body.
  改变大概也不明智。肯尼迪教授指出,有权力的国家通常总想自行其是。国联建立于两次世界大战之间的时期,其失败恰恰是由于其过于民主、太自由,且无执行力。美国那时也不是成员之一。德国与日本于1933年退出国联,4年后意大利退出。如果二战后,有可能奉行孤立主义的世界列强要被纳入一个新的世界性机构,那就要创制一个迥然相异的体制。
  
  The veto, which America and Russia insisted on as the quid pro quo for their membership of the UN, allows any one of the P5 to block any action brought before the Security Council that it deems contrary to its—or its friends'—interests, without needing to resort to force. If, on the other hand, a country finds itself blocked by a veto (or threatened veto), it can still decide to go it alone, as America did over the invasion of Iraq. Far from being a failure of the UN system, Mr Kennedy argues, this should be seen as the successful operation of a safety valve. Much better to have an obstructionist America on board than a furious one walking out.
  美国与(前)苏联坚持要拥有否决权,作为其联合国成员地位的报酬。否决权使得五常任何之一可以阻止任何被认为反对安理会或其盟友利益的行动,而无需诉诸武力。另一方面,如果任何一国发现自己被否决票所阻止(或以否决相威胁),仍然能决定我行我素,一如美国入侵伊拉克的所作所为。肯尼迪教授认为,这远算不上是联合国体系的失败,而该视为安全阀的成功操作。美国在机构中阻碍议事的做法,比起美国大发雷霆愤而退出联合国,好得太多了。
  
  Without American involvement the UN would not amount to much, as successive secretary-generals have recognised. Before taking up his new post, Mr Ban made it clear that one of his first tasks would be to forge closer relations with the United States. That pledge is an indication of how poisonous they had become under his predecessor.
  诚如历任秘书长所承认的,没有了美国的参与,联合国所起的作用就有限得很了。在赴职新位之前,潘基文明确提出,他的首批任务之一将是打造与美国更加密切的关系。这一宣誓暗示了在他前任掌门时,双方之间变得多么不愉快。
  
  
  Restraining the mighty 抑制强权
  
  The low point came when Washington, ever suspicious of the UN's desire to restrain it, reacted furiously to Mr Annan's purported failure to deliver UN backing for the Iraq war—not in fact his own doing, but the result of divisions on the Security Council. There followed the $64 billion oil-for-food scandal, and reports of UN peacekeepers sexually abusing the people they had been sent to protect. Congress and the American press had a field day, vying with one another to see how much blame they could dump at Mr Annan's door. The arrival of John Bolton as America's ambassador to the UN in August 2005 did not help matters; the two men never got on.
  华盛顿曾怀疑联合国意图对其制肘,安南声称联合国无法对伊拉克战争提供支持时,美国对此大为光火,这时到了双方关系的谷底,但这并非安南的个人作为,而是安理会分歧的结果。接着有640亿美元的石油换食品丑闻,还有报道针对联合国维和人员对他人性虐待,本来他们是派去保护人们的。美国国会与新闻界顿时群起鼓噪,好不热闹,他们互相竞赛,看看他们的指责能让安南多么灰头土脸。美国驻联合国大使约翰•伯尔顿在2005年8月到任,但他对问题的改善毫无助益;安南与他二人从不投契。
  
  Mr Annan was never in any doubt about the importance of strong American leadership, without which, he said, he saw “no hope of a peaceful and stable future for humanity in this century”. At the same time, he insisted, no nation, however powerful, could hope to tackle today's increasingly global threats and challenges alone. Nor—as he declared pointedly in one of many valedictory speeches last month—could a nation “make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others”. Historically, America had been in the vanguard of the global human-rights movement, Mr Annan noted; but that lead could be maintained only if America remained “true to its principles in the struggle against terror”.
  安南对于美国强力领导的重要性从无一丝怀疑,他说,如果没有这样的领导,他视“本世纪人类无望拥有和平与稳定的未来”。同时,他坚称,不论这个国家多么强有力,没有国家有望单独处理今日持续增长的全球威胁与挑战。一如他在上个月许多临别演说之一中,直截了当宣称,一个国家“想通过寻求凌驾于所有他国之上的霸权,借此确保自身安全”也是徒劳的。安南指出,历史上,美国处于全球人权运动的先驱地位;但是,只有美国依然“忠实于其反恐斗争的原则”,其领导地位才能保持。
  
  Mr Ban was asked what he thought of such undiplomatic sideswipes at the Bush administration. He replied firmly that they represented Mr Annan's “personal assessment and insight”. South Koreans are used to that sort of thing from Mr Ban; back home, the former diplomat's tendency to duck awkward questions won him the nickname “the slippery eel”.
  潘基文被问及对于与布什政府如此的非外交擦撞有何感想。他断然回答,这些代表了安南的“个人评价与洞察力”。韩国人习惯潘基文的这些套路了;在国内,这位前外交官回避棘手问题的倾向为他赢得了“滑鳝”的绰号。
  
  But he is in an awkward spot. He owes his election as much to the backing of America and China as to his own superbly organised campaign, and dare not offend either of them. At the same time, Mr Ban knows that he cannot be seen to be too cosy with the American superpower. Mr Annan, who also started out with American backing, soon showed his independence. Mr Ban could do the same—especially if, as he claims, he wants to win the trust of the increasingly assertive and obstreperous group of developing countries known as the G77.
  但他处于尴尬之境。他选举成功,不仅归功于组织得声势浩大的竞选活动,也有赖于美国与中国的支持,双方不论哪方都得罪不得。同时,潘基文知道,他不能让外界看来与超级大国美国过于亲密。安南也始自美国的支持,不过很快就表现出他的独立姿态了。潘基文可能也是如此,一如他声称的,尤其是如果他想赢得七十七国集团(G77)信任的话,G77是发展中国家组织,如今正越发武断与任性。(译注:G77即Group of Seventy-Seven,七十七国集团,是世界上发展中国家驻联合国外交官所组成的一个非正式集团,前身为“七十五国决策委员会”)
  
  For many years after it was set up, in 1964, to represent the interests on trade and development of 77 poor countries, this group was regarded as a fairly negligible force, unable to agree on anything other than more aid and plumper trade concessions. It is now much bigger—131 countries plus China—and bolder, heartened by the growing oil wealth of some of its members and by deepening divisions, on matters ranging from Kyoto to Iraq, between America and its European partners. The abrasive Mr Bolton, in his 16-month stint at the UN, probably did more than any other single factor to encourage the G77 to get its act together and resist the United States.
  在G77于1964年成立之后,多年以来,G77在贸易与发展方面代表着77个穷国的利益,该集团曾被视为相当微不足道的一股力量,除了接受更多的援助以及在鞣皮除酸剂贸易上做出让步,无法在任何议题上与他国达成共识。如今,该集团扩大了很多,有131个成员国外加中国。石油使集团的一些成员国财富成长,加之美国与其欧洲伙伴之间在许多议题上的分歧加深,这些议题涵盖的范围自(日本的)京都至伊拉克,这都使G77更加大胆,精神为之振奋。伯尔顿在联合国工作了16个月,不断引发摩擦,较之任何其他的单项因素,很可能伯尔顿更能促使G77共同行动,抵制美国。
  
  Some see the gulf between rich and poor countries as the single most important issue confronting the UN. It is paralysing vital proliferation talks and blocking badly needed reforms. The G77 now sees everything through the distorting lens of the North-South divide. UN management reform? An attempt by rich white countries to gain even more influence over a secretariat already dominated by the North. Greater powers for the secretary-general? A bid to reduce his accountability to the General Assembly, one of the few UN bodies where the developing countries have a controlling voice. The replacement of the assembly's principle of “one country, one vote” by a system of weighted voting based on the size of a country's contributions to the UN? Another attempt at a power-grab by the North. The newly adopted “responsibility to protect” victims of genocide and other atrocities? Hypocritical northerners claiming the right to meddle in the domestic affairs of the South. Even proposals to expand Security Council membership to include more developing countries, which might have been expected to attract G77 support, are opposed on the ground that these would simply strengthen a body that, whatever happens, will remain dominated by four white veto-wielding northerners, plus China.
  一些人将富国与穷国之间的鸿沟,视为联合国面临的最重大之单项议题。亟需改革的是瘫痪中重要的防扩散谈判及改正谈判被阻断的现状。南北分歧扭曲了视线,G77现在通过这样的“透镜”看待一切。联合国的管理要改革吗?白人富国的企图在联合国秘书处取得了更大的影响力,秘书处也已由北方主导。给秘书长更大的权力呢?有种努力意在降低他对联合国大会的责任,发展中国家的声音在屈指可数的几个联合国机构中占主导,联大是其中之一。联大的原则是“一国一票”,要换成根据一个国家对联合国的捐款规模加权投票吗?这是北方攫取权力的另一个企图。“有责任保护”种族屠杀与其他暴行的受害者,是新近被采用的政策,这又如何?虚伪的北方人声称他们有权干涉南方的内部事务。更有提议要扩大安理会,囊括更多发展中国家,预计这可能会吸引G77的支持,但基于这些提议将仅使增强一个机构,也会遭到反对,不论发生何事,握有否决权的四个北方国家,再加上中国,依然将成为主导。
  
  
  Kofi's legacy 安南的遗产
  
  Will Mr Ban, who hails from what is now the world's tenth biggest economy (in nominal terms), be able to win the co-operation of the G77 any better than his Ghanaian-born predecessor? Many doubt it. But at least he is making the right noises, announcing that his first foreign trip will be to attend the African Union summit in Addis Ababa later this month, and promising to make the Millennium Development Goals one of his top priorities.
  潘基文来自如今是世界第十大经济体的国家(按名义上的说法),他与G77的合作能比他加纳生人的前任更好吗?许多人对此存疑。不过,至少他发出了正确的声音,宣布本月晚些时候,他的首个外方行程将出席在亚的斯亚贝巴(译注:埃塞俄比亚首都)举行的非洲联盟峰会,也承诺将千年发展目标(the Millennium Development Goals)列为他优先推动的议题之一。
  
  These goals, adopted in 2000 and regarded by Mr Annan as his proudest legacy, commit world leaders to halving poverty, slashing mortality and illiteracy rates and raising aid levels to 0.7% of GDP by 2015. But as Mr Annan himself has admitted, he leaves the UN with the job “far from done”. Although some encouraging progress has been made, notably on debt relief and HIV/AIDS, the world was “not on track”, he said, to meet many other goals. In Africa, for example, poverty has actually risen over the past decade.
  这些目标于2000年获得正式通过,安南也将其视为他最引以为傲的遗产,这些目标要求各国领导人到2015年实现贫穷人口减半、降低儿童死亡率及文盲率,并且提高援助标准使金额达到国民生产总值的0.7%。但正如安南自己承认的那样,他留给联合国的工作“远未完成”。虽然一些鼓舞人心的进步已经实现,特别是在减轻债务与防治艾滋病方面,但他说,面对许多其他目标,世界“并未走上成功在望之路”。例如在非洲,贫穷在过去的十年实际上加重了。
  
  Much else, too, remained undone or unfinished on Mr Annan's watch. The long-awaited reform of the Security Council has been pushed once again onto the back burner. The new Human Rights Council is almost as ineffectual as its discredited predecessor, and is equally stuffed with flagrant human-rights violators. Under Mr Annan, the UN proclaimed a new high-minded “responsibility to protect”; but in Darfur the raping and killing continue unabated. The search for a definition of terrorism has been abandoned; management reform has been blocked. But Mr Annan is not solely, or even chiefly, responsible for these failures. As Mr Bolton himself conceded before stepping down last month, “While it is easy to blame the UN as an institution for some of the problems we confront today, we must recognise that ultimately it is member states that must take action and therefore bear the responsibility.”
  安南在任期间,也仍然有许多别的任务未做或未竟。让人久等的安理会改革再度推迟。新的人权理事会与其声名不佳的前身几乎一样无能为力,同样充斥着明目张胆侵犯人权的国家。安南主持之下的联合国,宣布了新的“保护责任”,格调高尚;但在达尔富尔,蹂躏与杀戮继续着,依然不减。寻求“恐怖主义”一词的定义已被放弃;管理改革也已受阻。但对于这些失败,安南无需负全责,甚至主要责任也不必承担。正如伯尔顿在上个月卸任之前自己承认的,“对于今天我们面对的一些问题,指责联合国这样一个机构是很容易的,但我们必须认识到,到底还是成员国必须采取行动并为此承担责任。”
  
  In some areas Mr Annan notched up notable achievements. Thanks to an overhaul of the organisation's department of humanitarian affairs and much better co-ordination with NGOs in the field, the UN's once shambolic relief operations are now regarded as second to none. Around 30m people in some 50 countries currently depend on its services for survival. In March a new $500m central emergency relief fund was launched to deliver assistance within hours, rather than months, of an emergency. Another $250m fund, administered by the UN's new intergovernmental Peacebuilding Commission, has been set up to help finance reconstruction in countries emerging from conflict. Sierra Leone and Burundi have been designated as the first two beneficiaries. In return, they will have to produce evidence of good governance.
  在一些领域,安南取得了显著的成就。由于检讨了联合国的人道事务部门,并与该领域的非政府组织好得多的协作,一度混乱不堪的联合国救援行动,如今被公认一流。现在有近50个国家的约3千万人有赖于联合国的服务才得以生存。(去年)三月,新一笔5亿美元的中央紧急救援基金启动,为在数小时,而非数月之间的紧急情况提供协助。另一笔25亿美元的基金,由联合国新成立的政府间机构建设和平委员会(Peacebuilding Commission)管理,该委员会的成立是为了帮助摆脱了冲突的国家进行金融重建。塞拉里昂与布隆迪被选定为最先两个受益国。作为回报,两国必须提出实行良治的证据。
  
  Peacekeeping, which is not even mentioned in the UN Charter, is another of the organisation's recent success stories. The explosion of civil wars and of ethnic and religious violence at the end of the cold war caught the UN by surprise. It had no standing army, no effective military staff, and very little peacekeeping experience. What troops it managed to muster, mostly from developing countries, were often poorly trained and badly equipped. Peacekeeping mandates from the Security Council tended to be far too restrictive both in scope and numbers. Some terrible mistakes were made: the UN's failure to stop the slaughter in Rwanda and the massacre in Srebrenica continues to haunt it. But over the past five years or so there has been a marked improvement.
  “维和”的字眼不仅只在《联合国宪章》中提及,联合国最近的成功案例是“维和”的另一形式。冷战末期爆发了内战以及种族与宗教暴力,引起联合国的惊讶。当时的联合国没有常备军,没有得力的军事人员,维和经验寥寥无几。联合国能成功召集的军队大多来自发展中国家,常常是训练欠佳且装备低劣。安理会授权的维和行动在规模与数量上都远更倾向于有所限定。但出现了一些严重失误:联合国没能阻止卢旺达的杀戮,而斯雷布列尼察(Srebrenica)屠杀的阴影依然令联合国耿耿于怀。但在过去五年左右的时间里,那儿有了明显改善。
  
  A 2005 Rand Corporation study of American and UN peacekeeping operations concluded that the blue-helmet missions were not only cheaper, but had a higher success rate and enjoyed greater international legitimacy. Another Canadian study attributed the dramatic decline in the number of conflicts and battle deaths over the past decade to the “huge increase” in preventive diplomacy and peacekeeping over the same period, “for the most part authorised and mounted by the UN”. Never has the demand for the organisation's peacekeeping services been so great (see article). As the UN's former head of peacekeeping, Mr Annan had a lot of experience in the field. Mr Ban has none.
  兰德公司(Rand Corporation)2005年一项对美国与联合国维和行动的研究得出结论,蓝盔部队执行任务不仅更便宜,还会有更高的成功率,并享有更大的国际合法性。过去十年间冲突与战争死亡数量显著降低,另一项加拿大的研究将此归功于同一时期内预防性外交活动与维和行动“巨幅增长”,“大部分由联合国授权并提供装备”。要求联合国给予维和服务,其数量从来没有这么巨大(另见他文)。安南作为联合国维和行动的前任首脑,在这一领域经验丰富。而潘基文则白纸一张。
  
  Indeed, the more people compare the UN's new secretary-general with his predecessor, the glummer they tend to become. Mr Ban is said to be bland, given to platitudes, lacking charisma. Honest, intelligent and diligent he may be (his only hobby is said to be his work), but many fear he is unlikely to provide the strong, inspiring leadership the UN so badly needs. Some even wonder whether America deliberately chose a weak candidate in order to undermine an organisation with which it has always had problems. But the inscrutable Mr Ban replies that, in Asia, a smiling face often hides an inner strength. He could surprise everyone.
  的确,人们将联合国的新秘书长与其前任比较得越多,他们倾向于变得更愁容满面。据说潘基文态度温和,用陈词滥调来说,即缺乏领袖魅力。他可能很诚实、很有才智,也很勤奋(据说他的唯一嗜好就是工作),但许多人担心,他不大可能强势领导联合国以振奋人心,而这是联合国如此急切需要的。一些人甚至在想,是否美国故意选择一位弱势的候选人,为的是暗中破坏总是与其产生难题的联合国。但这位高深莫测的潘基文回应说,在亚洲,一张笑脸背后往往隐藏着内在的力量。他可能真会让每个人大吃一惊。
  
  Almost since its inception, the UN has been charged with failing to live up to its original high ideals. But big changes in world governance seem possible only after great global upheavals. At other times, the world has to be content with small incremental steps. The UN's new secretary-general, eager to find consensus, might be rather good at those.
  几乎自其肇始,联合国就被责难无法实行其初始高标准的理想。但只有在全球剧变之后,世界治理的巨大变化才看似可能。在其他时候,世界必定还是满足于一小步一小步增进。联合国的新秘书长渴望寻找共识,可能在实现小进步方面会相当上手。
  
  Gladwyn Jebb, the British negotiator at the UN's founding conference and later its first (acting) secretary-general, reckoned that its founding fathers had simply aimed too high for “this wicked world”. But as Dag Hammerskjöld, the organisation's third secretary-general, wisely noted: “The UN was not created to take humanity to heaven, but to save it from hell.”
  格拉德温•捷布是参加联合国成立大会的英国谈判代表,也是后来的联合国首任(代理)秘书长猜想,建立联合国的先贤仅仅是对“这个邪恶的世界”怀志过高了。联合国第三任秘书长哈马绍(Dag Hammerskjöld)智慧地指出:“创设联合国,并非为了将人类带往天堂,而是将其救出地狱。”

打赏

0 点赞

主帖获得的天涯分:0
举报 | | 楼主 | 埋红包
楼主发言:1次 发图:0张 | 添加到话题 |
楼主福建李菁 时间:2007-01-08 01:05:20
  本文附圖版:
  http://www.ecocn.org/forum/viewthread.php?tid=2372&page=1&extra=#pid13158
楼主福建李菁 时间:2007-01-08 01:07:23
  聯合國第三任秘書長哈馬紹的英文名為 Dag Hammerskjold(字母o上原有兩點)
楼主福建李菁 时间:2007-01-08 01:26:21
  As Ban Ki-moon takes charge at the United Nations, we look at the prospects for this troubled body and for its peacekeeping efforts round the world
  修正一下本句譯文:
  随着潘基文掌门联合国,我们关注着困境中联合国的前景及其在世界各地的维和努力
楼主福建李菁 时间:2007-01-08 01:32:44
  感覺還是不太對,改成這樣吧
  
  “随着潘基文掌门联合国,我们关注着陷于困境的联合国及其在世界各地的维和努力之前景”
作者:shenlang158 时间:2007-01-21 16:50:17
  As Ban Ki-moon takes charge at the United Nations, we look at the prospects for this troubled body and for its peacekeeping efforts round the world
  译成:“随着潘基文执掌联合国,我们关注困境中联合国的前景,也希望其能为世界各地的维和付出更多努力。”
  
楼主福建李菁 时间:2007-01-21 21:25:23
  謝謝樓上 :)
发表回复

请遵守天涯社区公约言论规则,不得违反国家法律法规