题目内容

The most important fact in Washington’s failure on Thursday to be re-elected for the first time since 1947 to the U.N. Human Rights Commission is that it was America’s friends, not its enemies, that engineered the defeat. After all, China and Cuba and other targets of U.S.-led criticism in the committee were always going to vote and lobby against Washington; the shock came in the fact that the European and other Western nations that traditionally ensured U.S. reelection turned their backs on Washington. Many traditional U.S. supporters clearly withdrew their votes to signal displeasure over U.S. unilateralism. They have been increasingly chagrined by Washington’s tendency to ignore the international consensus on issues ranging from the use of land mines to the Kyoto climate change treaty. They are also critical of what they see as Washington’s tendency to publicise the issue of human rights, using annual resolutions at the committee to denounce China or Cuba when that conforms to U.S. foreign policy objectives but for the same reason voting alone in defence of Israel when that country is in the dock over its conduct. They are also critical of what they see as Washington’s tendency to publicise the issue of human rights, using annual resolutions at the committee to denounce China or Cuba when that conforms to U.S. foreign policy objectives but for the same reason voting alone in defence of Israel when that country is in the dock over its conduct.

查看答案

搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈

更多问题

窗体由多个部分组成，每个部分称为一个 “【】”。

Where can the man get money

A. From the Dunnes Stores.
B. From the Allied Irish Bank.
C. From the Bank of Ireland.

Consider the following statements, made by the same man eight years apart. "Eventually, being ’poor’ won’t be as much a matter of living in a poor country as it will be a matter of having poor skills." That was Bill Gates talking in 1992. Way back then, the Microsoft chairman’s image was that of a rather harsh, libertarian-leaning fellow who proudly declared his products alone would "change the world." When asked what he would do with his billions, the boy wonder of Silicon Valley used to shrug off the question, saying his long workdays didn’t leave time for charity. But now listen to the same Gates-or perhaps not quite the same Gages-talking in the fall of 2000: Whenever the computer industry has a panel about the digital divide and I’m on the panel, I always think, "OK, you want to send computers to Africa, what about food and electricity-those computers aren’t going to be that valuable"... The mothers are going to walk right up to that computer and say: "My children are dying, what can you do" Yes, even Bill Gates, the iconic capitalist of our day, seems to have come around. The self-assured Gates of 1992 was obviously a man of his times, confident of his industry’s ability to change the world, certain that the power of markets and new technology, once unleashed, would address most of the world’s ills. But the more skeptical Gates of the new millennium is someone who evinces a passion for giving and government aid. He shares a growing realization, even in the multibillionaire set, that something is amiss with the ideology that has prevailed since the end of the cold war: global-capitalism-as-panacea. He shares a growing realization, even in the multibillionaire set, that something is amiss with the ideology that has prevailed since the end of the cold war: global-capitalism-as-panacea.

The most important fact in Washington’s failure on Thursday to be re-elected for the first time since 1947 to the U.N. Human Rights Commission is that it was America’s friends, not its enemies, that engineered the defeat. After all, China and Cuba and other targets of U.S.-led criticism in the committee were always going to vote and lobby against Washington; the shock came in the fact that the European and other Western nations that traditionally ensured U.S. reelection turned their backs on Washington. Many traditional U.S. supporters clearly withdrew their votes to signal displeasure over U.S. unilateralism. They have been increasingly chagrined by Washington’s tendency to ignore the international consensus on issues ranging from the use of land mines to the Kyoto climate change treaty. They are also critical of what they see as Washington’s tendency to publicise the issue of human rights, using annual resolutions at the committee to denounce China or Cuba when that conforms to U.S. foreign policy objectives but for the same reason voting alone in defence of Israel when that country is in the dock over its conduct. After all, China and Cuba and other targets of U.S.-led criticism in the committee were always going to vote and lobby against Washington;