全屏显示专题章节

The principal characteristic of twenty-first-century international relations is turning out to be nonpolarity:a world dominated not by one or two or even several states but rather by dozens of actors possessing and exercising various kinds of power.This represents a tectonic shift from the past.

The twentieth century started out distinctly multipolar.But after almost 50 years，two world wars，and many smaller conflicts，a bipolar system emerged.Then，with the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union，bipolarity gave way to unipolarity—an international system dominated by one power，in this case the United States.But today power is diffuse，and the onset of nonpolarity raises a number of important questions.How does nonpolarity differ from other forms of international order?Howandwhydiditmaterialize?Whatareitslikely consequences?And how should the United States respond?

In contrast to multipolarity—which involves several distinct poles or concentrations of power—a nonpolar international system is characterized by numerous centers with meaningful power.

In a multipolar system，no power dominates，or the system will beCome unipolar.Nor do concentrations of power revolve around two positions，or the system will beCome bipolar.Multipolar systems can be cooperative，even assuming the form of a concert of powers，in which a few major powers work together on setting the rules of the game and disciplining those who violate them.They can also be more competitive，revolving around a balance of power，or conflictual，when the balance breaks down.

At first glance，the world today may appear to be multipolar.The major powers—China，the European Union(EU)，India，Japan，Russia，and the United States—contain just over half the world's people and account for 75 percent of global GDP and 80 percent of global defense spending.Appearances，however，can be deceiving.Today's world differs in a fundamental way from one of classic multipolarity:there are many more power centers，and quite a few of these poles are not nation-states.Indeed，one of the cardinal features of the contemporary international system is that nation-states have lost their monopoly on power and in some domains their preeminence as well.States are being challenged from above，by regional and global organizations；from below，by militias；andfromtheside，byavarietyofnongovernmental organizations(NGOs)and corporations.Power is now found in many hands and in many places.In addition to the six major world powers，there are numerous regional powers:Braziland，arguably，Argentina，Chile，Mexico，and Venezuela in Latin America；Nigeria and South Africa in Africa；Egypt，Iran，Israel，and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East；Pakistan in South Asia；Australia in Oceania and South Korea in East Asia.A good many organizations would be on the list of power centers，including those that are global(the International Monetary Fund，the United Nations，the World Bank)，those that are regional(the African Union，the Arab League，the Association of Southeast Asian Nations，the EU，the Organization of American States，the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation)，and those that are functional(the International Energy Agency，OPEC，the Shanghai Cooperation Organization，the World Health Organization).So，too，would states within nation-states，such as California and India's Uttar Pradesh，and cities，such as New York，S2o Paulo，and Shanghai.Then there are the large global companies，including those that dominate the worlds of energy，finance，and manufacturing.Other entities deserving inclusion would be global media outlets(al Jazeera，the BBC，CNN)，militias(Hamas，Hezbollah，the Mahdi Army，the Taliban)，political parties，religious institutions and movements，terrorist organizations(al Qaeda)，drug cartels，and NGOs of a more benign sort(the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation，Doctors Without Borders，Greenpeace).Today's world is increasingly one of distributed，rather than concentrated，power.

In this world，the United States is and will long remain the largest single aggregation of power.But the reality of American strength should not mask the relative decline of the United States'position in the world—and with this relative decline in power an absolute decline in influence and independence.The U.S.share of global imports is already down to 15 percent.Although U.S.GDP accounts for over 25 percent of the world's total，this percentage is sure to decline over time given the actual and projected differential between the United States'growth rate and those of the Asian giants and many other countries，a large number of which are growing at more than two or three times the rate of the United States.

GDP growth is hardly the only indication of a move away from U.S.economic dominance.The rise of sovereign wealth funds—in countries such as China，Kuwait，Russia，Saudi Arabia，and the United Arab Emirates—is another.These government-controlled pools of wealth，mostly the result of oil and gas exports，now total some$3 trillion.They are growing at a projected rate of$1 trillion a year and are an increasingly important source of liquidity for U.S.firms.A majority of the world's foreign exchange holdings are now in currencies other than the dollar，and a move to denominate oil in euros or a basket of currencies is possible，a step that would only leave the U.S.economy more vulnerable to inflation as well as currency crises.

U.S.primacy is also being challenged in other realms，such as military effectiveness and diplomacy.Measures of military spending are not the same as measures of military capacity.

Power and influence are less and less linked in an era of nonpolarity.U.S.calls for others to reform will tend to fall on deaf ears，U.S.assistance programs will buy less，and U.S.-led sanctions will accomplish less.After all，China proved to be the country best able to influence North Korea's nuclear program.

The trend also extends to the worlds of culture and information.Bollywood produces more films every year than Hollywood.Alternatives to U.S.-produced and disseminated television are multiplying.Web sites and blogs from other countries provide further competition for U.S.-produced news and commentary.The proliferation of information is as much a cause of nonpolarity as is the proliferation of weaponry.

Charles Krauthammer was more correct than he realized when he wrote in these pages nearly two decades ago about what he termed“the unipolar moment.”At the time，U.S.dominance was real.But it lasted for only 15 or 20 years.In historical terms，it was a moment.Traditional realist theory would have predicted the end of unipolarity and the dawn of a multipolar world.According to this line of reasoning，great powers，when they act as great powers are wont to do，stimulate competition from others that fear or resent them.Krauthammer，subscribing to just this theory，wrote，“No doubt，multipolarity will Come in time.In perhaps another generation or so there will be great powers coequal with the United States，and the world will，in structure，resemble the pre-World War I era.”

But this has not happened.Although anti-Americanism is widespread，no great-power rival or set of rivals has emerged to challenge the United States.

But even if great-power rivals have not emerged，unipolarity has ended.Three explanations for its demise stand out.The first is historical.States develop；they get better at generating and piecing together the human，financial，and technological resources that lead to productivity and prosperity.The same holds for corporations and other organizations.The rise of these new powers cannot be stopped.The result is an ever larger number of actors able to exert influence regionally or globally.A second cause is U.S.policy.To paraphrase Walt Kelly's Pogo，the post-World WarⅡcomic hero，we have met the explanation and it is us.By both what it has done and what it has failed to do，the United States has accelerated the emergence of alternative power centers in the world and has weakened its own position relative to them.U.S.energy policy(or the lack thereof)is a driving force behind the end of unipolarity.Since the first oil shocks of the 1970s，U.S.consumption of oil has grown by approximately 20 percent，and more important，U.S.imports of petroleum products have more than doubled in volume and nearly doubled as a percentage of consumption.This growth in demand for foreign oil has helped drive up the world price of oil from just over$20 a barrel to over$100 a barrel in less than a decade.The result is an enormous transfer of wealth and leverage to those states with energy reserves.In short，U.S.energy policy has helped bring about the emergence of oil and gas producers as major power centers.

Finally，today's nonpolar world is not simply a result of the rise of other states and organizations or of the failures and follies of U.S.policy.It is also an inevitable consequence of globalization.Globalization has increased the volume，velocity，and importance of cross-border flows of just abouteverything，fromdrugs，e-mails，greenhousegases，manufactured goods，and people to television and radio signals，viruses(virtual and real)，and weapons.

Multilateralism will be essential in dealing with a nonpolar world.To succeed，though，it must be recast to include actors other than the great powers.The UN Security Council and the G-8(the group of highly industrialized states)need to be reconstituted to reflect the world of today and not the post-World WarⅡera.A recent meeting at the United Nations on how best to coordinate global responses to public health challenges provided a model.Representatives of governments，UN agencies，NGOs，pharmaceutical companies，foundations，think tanks，and universities were all in attendance.A similar range of participants attended theDecember 2007Balimeetingonclimatechange.Multilateralism may have to be less formal and less comprehensive，at least in its initial phases.Networks will beneededalongside organizations.Gettingeveryonetoagreeoneverythingwillbe increasingly difficult；instead，the United States should consider signing accords with fewer parties and narrower goals.Trade is something of a model here，in that bilateral and regional accords are filling the vacuum created by a failure to conclude a global trade round.The same approach could work for climate change，where agreement on aspects of the problem(say，deforestation)or arrangements involving only some countries(the major carbon emitters，for example)may prove feasible，whereas an accord that involves every country and tries to resolve every issue may not.Multilateralism1la carte is likely to be the order of the day.

Nonpolarity complicates diplomacy.A nonpolar world not only involves more actors but also lacks the more predictable fixed structures and relationships that tend to define worlds of unipolarity，bipolarity，or multipolarity.Alliances，in particular，will lose much of their importance，if only because alliances require predictable threats，outlooks，and obligations，all of which are likely to be in short supply in a nonpolar world.Relationships will instead beCome more selective and situational.It will beCome harder to classify other countries as either allies or adversaries；they will cooperate on some issues and resist on others.There will be a premium on consultation and coalition building and on a diplomacy that encourages cooperation when possible and shields such cooperation from the fallout of inevitable disagreements.The United States will no longer have the luxury of a“You're either with us or against us”foreign policy.

Nonpolarity will be difficult and dangerous.But encouraging a greater degree of global integration will help promote stability.Establishing a core group of governments and others committed to cooperative multilateralism would be a great step forward.Call it“concerted nonpolarity.”It would not eliminate nonpolarity，but it would help manage it and increase the odds that the international system will not deteriorate or disintegrate.

1.How does the writer characterize international relations of the eventful twentieth century?

2.How does the writer characterize international relations of the twenty-first century?

3.What does the writer think are the major differences between multipolarity and nonpolarity?

4.What is meant by Krauthammer's“unipolar moment”?How does the writer respond to Krauthammer's views?

5.“Multilateralism1la carte is likely to be the order of the day”.Discuss the meaning of this sentence.

Richard N.Haass:President of the Council on Foreign Relations本文作者是现任美国外交协会(亦译美国对外关系协会)主席。The Council on Foreign Relations was established in 1921，with support from the Rockefeller family，to provide a forum for government officials，corporate executives，journalists，students，and other interested parties to study and discuss world issues and the related impact on American foreign policy.The council publishes Foreign Affairs，a magazine that Comes out six times a year，along with books and studies by its own scholars.Former president Leslie H.Gelb，once a columnist and editor at The New York Times，retired in 2003 after 10 years in the post，and was succeeded by diplomat Richard Haass.Prospective members must be US citizens(native-born or naturalized)and are nominated by an existing member.

Nation-state:The nation-state is a certain form of state that derives its legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit.The state is a political and geopolitical entity；the nation is a Cultural and/or ethnic entity.The term“nation-state”implies that the two geographically coincide，and this distinguishes the nation state from the other types of state，which historically preceded it.

The idea of a nation-state is associated with the rise of the modern system of states—often called the“Westphalian System”in reference to the Treaty of Westphalia(1648).The balance of power，which characterizes that system，depends for its effectiveness upon clearly defined，centrally controlled，independent entities，whether empires or nation states，which recognise each other's sovereignty and territory.The Westphalian System did not create the nation state，but the nation state meets the criteria for its component states(assuming that there is no disputed territory).

民族国家是一个独立自主的政治实体，乃20世纪主导的现代性民族自决和自治概念及实践。与18世纪和19世纪传统帝国和王国不同，民族国家成员效忠的对象有共同认同感的“同胞”及其共同形成的体制。认同感的来源可以是传统的历史、文化、语言或新创的政治体制，因此，从一个民族构成政府体制，或者由数个民族经同一共享的政府体制构成的民族统一体，都是民族国家的可能结合形式。民族国家是政府体制的一种形式。而民族则是共同体的认同概念，其来源可以是共享的体制、文化或族群。民族国家这个概念应包括以公民国族主义及种族国族主义等不同的思维，主要取决于认同概念的形成要素。所谓的单一民族国家，所有公民共享——价值、历史、文化或语言，不论是从继承前帝国王国的统治范围还是从当代全球化的移民现实来说，少有国家符合此类型。因此，当代民族国家常为多民族国家而多元文化主义常用来形塑及争取对体制的认同。

Al Jazeera:半岛电视台Arabic-language cable news network founded in Qatar in 1996.It was established by the emir of Qatar and was transmitted from its capital，Doha，and from bureaus around the world.It began continuous programming in 1999.The editorial freedom exercised by its staff was unique in the Middle East，and its broadcasts were occasionally blocked by Arab states.It was the only network to broadcast fromKabulduringthe 2001U.S.-ledcampaignin Afghanistan.1996年11月在卡塔尔建立的卡塔尔半岛电视台是一家用阿拉伯语24小时不间断播送全球消息和报道的新闻电视台，观众达4 000万人。半岛电视台地处阿拉伯世界，在新闻报道方面有着许多不同的视角，它在节目中开创性地引入了电话采访、电视论战等节目，尤其在“9·11”事件之后，它多次率先播放本·拉登和其他基地组织领导人的录像声明，从而引起了全世界的广泛关注。除了新闻频道外，半岛电视台还开设有几个专门的频道，包括体育频道、生活频道和儿童频道，还有英语频道。在“9·11”事件发生后，卡塔尔半岛电视台几乎与美国CNN同步，用阿拉伯语播放美国遭袭击事件的整个过程，并调动它在世界各地的27个记者站进行24小时跟踪报道。半岛电视台在2006年3月更名为半岛电视新闻网(Al Jazeera Network)，扩增为国际性媒体集团，旗下包括半岛阿拉伯新闻台、半岛英语新闻台、半岛电视纪录片频道、半岛电视体育频道、半岛电视媒体训练与发展中心、半岛电视研究中心、半岛电视Mubasher(现场转播)、半岛行动电视网等。

Broad-based Islamic militant organization founded in Afghanistan by Osama bin Laden.Its members supported Muslim fighters during the Afghan War of 1979-1989；afterward the organization dispersed but continued to oppose secularized Muslim regimes and foreign(notably U.S.)presence in Islamic lands.It staged numerous terrorist attacks，including the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993，the destruction of two U.S.embassies in Africa in 1998，and a suicide bomb attack against the U.S.warship Cole in 2000.During that time it merged with other Islamic extremist organizations and eventually reestablished its headquarters in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan，where it trained thousands of Muslim militants.In 2001，19 such militants staged the September 11 attacks.The U.S.and allied forces responded by attacking Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan，killing and capturing thousands and driving the remainder into hiding.1988年，本·拉登在阿富汗建立了“基地”组织(又译阿尔—凯达组织、阿凯达组织、凯达组织、开打组织或盖达组织)。成立之初，其目的是为了训练和指挥与入侵阿富汗的苏联军队战斗的阿富汗义勇军，但是从苏军撤退后的1991年前后开始，该组织将目标转为打倒美国和伊斯兰世界的“腐败政权”。

Hamas:伊斯兰抵抗运动，简称哈马斯Militant Palestinian Islamic movement.The group is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian Islamic state.It was founded in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmad Yasin，and its leadership Comes from the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.Hamas's aims are more militant:it takes the position that Palestine cannot be surrendered to non-Muslims.It opposed the 1993 peace agreement between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel.Beginning in 2000，the group intensified its violent acts against Israelis，including numerous suicide bombings.In 2006 Hamas participated in the elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council and won a surprise victory over Fatah.

Hezbollah:黎巴嫩真主党(Also called Party of God)It is an Iranian movement formed at the time of the Iranian Revolution to assist the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his forces in consolidating power.Hezbollah is/was not a tightly structured independent organisation，but more a movement of loosely bound groups，usually centered around a mosque，whose“members”are referred to as Hezbollahi and who generally act without meaningful police restraint or fear of persecution.

NGO:Non-governmental organization.Organization that is not part of any government.A key distinction is between not-for-profit groups and for-profit corporations；the vast majority of NGOs are not-for-profit.In some countries，particularly socialist ones，some NGOs are governmentorganized.The purposes of NGOs cover the entire range of human interests and may be domestic or international in scope.Many NGOs are key sources of information for governments on issues such as human rights abuses and environmental degradation.Some NGOs fulfill quasigovernmental functions for ethnic groups that lack a state of their own.NGOs may be financed by private donations，international organizations，governments，or a combination of these.In Britain，quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organizations，or“quangos，”are organizations that have nonelected boards and receive public funds which they also disburse.

Sovereign wealth fund:主权财富基金A sovereign wealth fund(SWF)is a state-owned investment fund composed of financial assets such as stocks，bonds，property，precious metals or other financial instruments.Sovereign wealth funds invest globally.Some of them have grabbed attention making bad investments in several Wall Street financial firms including Citigroup，Morgan Stanley，and Merrill Lynch.These firms needed a cash infusion due to losses resulting from mismanagement and the subprime mortgage crisis.Some sovereign wealth funds are held solely by a central bank，who accumulate the funds in the course of their management of a nation's banking system；this type of fund is usually of major economic and fiscal importance.Other sovereign wealth funds are simply the state savings which are invested by various entities for the purposes of investment return，and which may not have significant role in fiscal management.The accumulated funds may have their origin in，or may represent foreign currency deposits，gold，SDRs and International Monetary Fund reserve positions held by central banks and monetary authorities，along with other national assets such as pension investments，oil funds，or other industrial and financial holdings.These are assets of the sovereign nations which are typically held in domestic and different reserve currencies such as the dollar，euro and yen.Such investment management entities may be set up as official investment companies，state pension funds，or sovereign oil funds，among others.所谓主权财富，与私人财富相对应，是指一国政府通过特定税收与预算分配、可再生自然资源收入和国际收支盈余等方式积累形成的，由政府控制与支配的，通常以外币形式持有的公共财富。主权财富基金主要来源于外汇储备盈余、自然资源出口盈余和国际援助基金；其设立动因主要包括稳定型、冲销型、储蓄型、预防型和战略型五类主权财富基金；管理模式上分中央银行直接管理和专门投资机构管理两个阶段。国际上最新的发展趋势是成立主权财富基金，并设立通常独立于央行和财政部的专业投资机构管理这些基金。商业化、专业化与独立化原则应为设立中国主权财富基金的关键。

IPO:IPO是指企业透过证券交易所首次公开向投资者增发股票，以期募集用于企业发展资金的过程。Initial public offering(IPO)，also referred to simply as a“public offering”or“flotation，”is when a company issues common stock or shares to the public for the first time.They are often issued by smaller，younger companies seeking capital to expand，but can also be done by large privately-owned companies looking to beCome publicly traded.

Bollywood:The name is a portmanteau of Bombay(the former name for Mumbai)and Hollywood，the center of the American film industry.However，unlike Hollywood，Bollywood does not exist as a physical place.It is the informal term popularly used for the Hindi-language film industry based in Mumbai，India.The term is often incorrectly used to refer to the whole of Indian cinema；it is only a part of the Indian film industry.Bollywood is the largest film producer in India and one of the largest in the world.宝莱坞是位于印度孟买的广受欢迎的电影工业基地的别名。宝莱坞每年出产的电影数量和售出的电影票数量居全世界第一。宝莱坞对印度以至整个印度次大陆、中东以及非洲和东南亚一部分地区的流行文化都有重要的影响，并通过南亚的移民输出传播到整个世界。

Cash crop:In agriculture，a cash crop is a crop which is grown for money.The term is used to differentiate from subsistence crops，which are those fed to the producer's own livestock or grown as food for the producer's family.In earlier times cash crops were usually only a small(but vital)part of a farm's total yield，while today，especially in the developed countries，almost all crops are mainly grown for cash.In nondeveloped nations，cash crops are usually crops which attract demand in more developed nations，and hence have some export value.

Discretionary spending:裁量性支出，机动开支Discretionary spending is a spending category about which government planners can make choices.It refers to spending set on a yearly basis by decision of Congress and is part of fiscal policy.This spending is optional，in contrast to entitlement programs for which funding is mandatory.

Current Account:经常账户是一国国际收支的主要组成部分，主要包括商品贸易收支，即有形货物的进出口和服务贸易收支，即诸如旅游、银行及保险等各种服务的往来。经常账户不包含长期借贷和投资的资金流，这些均是资本账户上的项目。经常账户或“经常项目”是指本国与外国进行经济交易而经常发生的项目，是国际收支平衡表中最主要的项目，包括对外贸易收支、非贸易往来和无偿转让三个项目。

国际关系中的单极、两极、多极与无极:Polarity in international relations is a description of the distribution of power within the international system.It describes the nature of the international system at any given period of time.There are three types of systems，Unipolarity，Bipolarity，and Multipolarity.The type of system is completely dependent on the distribution of power and influence of states in a region or internationally.

Unipolarity in international politics describes a distribution of power in which there is one state with most of the Cultural，economic，and military influence.Since a hegemony may not have total control of the sea ports or“commons”.A true unipolarity that has influence all over the known world is difficult to form prior to the so-called Age of Discovery between 15th and 17th centuries due to the lack of communication and information regarding other nations.Examples include:the Roman Empire from 31 BC to the 5th century—Europe，Northern Africa，and Asia Minor；the Byzantine Empire，6th century onwards until its gradual decline and replaComent by the Ottoman Empire—Eastern Europe，Northern Africa and Asia Minor，with influence reaching to as far as Spain at times.Exists as a bipolarity with the Western Roman Empire before its fall；the British Empire from the end of Napoleonic Wars—beginning of the 20th century；and arguably the United States；with the fall of the Soviet Union，the United States beCome the dominant military force in the world，along with considerable economic，Cultural，and political influence.

Bipolarity in international politics describes a distribution of power in which two states have the majority of economic，military，and Cultural influence internationally or regionally.Often，spheres of influence would develop.For example，in the Cold War，most Western and democratic states would fall under the influence of the USA，while most Communist states would fall under the influence of the USSR.After this，the two powers will normally maneuver for the support of the unclaimed areas.Examples include the United States and the Soviet Union during the peak of the Cold War.However，the Sino-Soviet split of circa 1960 led to the rise of China as a possible third superpower.Also，Roman Empire and China's Han Dynasty.While the world was very much not globalized at the time，the Chinese empire under the Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire were clearly the two most powerful states at the time.Both were equally impressive，with the Romans in the west and the Han Empire in the east.

The bipolar system can be said to extend to much larger systems，such as alliances or organizations，which would not be considered nation-states，but would still have power concentrated in two primary groups.

In both World Wars，much of the world，and especially Europe，the United States and Japan had been divided into two respective spheres—one case being the Axis and Allies of World WarⅡ(1939-1945)—and the division of power between the Central Powers and Allied Powers during World War I(1914-1918).Neutral nations，however，may have caused what may be assessed as an example of tripolarity as well within both of the conflicts.

Multipolarity in international politics describes a distribution of power in which more than two nation-states have nearly equal amounts of military，Cultural，and economic influence.

Classical realist theorists，such as Hans Morgenthau and E.H.Carr hold that multipolar systems are more stable than bipolar systems，as great powers can gain power through alliances and petty wars that do not directly challenge other powers；in bipolar systems，classical realists argue，this is not possible.On the other hand，the neorealist focus on security and invert the formula:states in a multipolar system can focus their fears on any number of other powers and，misjudging the intentions of other states，unnecessarily compromise their security，while states in a bipolar system always focus their fears on one other power，meaning that at worst the powers will miscalculate the force required to counter threats and spend slightly too much on the operation.However，due to the complexity of mutually assured destruction scenarios，with nuclear weapons，multipolar systems may be more stable than bipolar systems even in the neorealist analysis.This system tends to have many shifting alliances until one of two things happens.Either a balance of power is struck，and neither side wants to attack`the other，or one side will attack the other because it either fears the potential of the new alliance，or it feels that it can defeat the other side.

Nonpolarity refers to an international system with numerous centers of power；no one center of power dominates.Centers of power can be nation-states，corporations，non-governmental organizations，terrorist groups，and such.Power is found in many hands and many places.

国际关系中的“均势”:即balance of power，指的是两个或多个个体处于平衡状态的一种情况，可以用于许多学科中。在现代国际关系体系中，均势指的是没有一国处于优势地位或能对其他国家发号施令的状态，是与霸权相对而言的一种国际体系，是国家间力量对比的一种暂时的均衡状态，又称势力均衡，而努力建立和维持这样一种状态的战略或政策即为均势理论或均势政策。从地域来看，均势则可以被划分为局部均势或全球均势。局部均势指的是局部地区的一定范围内形成的均势，如维也纳会议后欧洲所形成的均势；而全球均势则是指在全球范围内没有占优势地位的行为体，如冷战时期的美苏两极均势。Probably the oldest concept in the study of International Relations going back at least to the work of Thucydides，balance of power is an equilibrium of power sufficient to discourage or prevent one nation or party from imposing its will on or interfering with the interests of another；a system of international relations in which nations seek to maintain an approximate equilibrium of power among many rivals，thus preventing the preponderance of any one state.It is closely associated with both diplomatic parlance and realist theory.Its logic derives from the self-help imperative of the international system's anarchic structure，in which states are obliged to give priority to survival and security.In pursuing this logic，states will usually join together to oppose any expansionist centre of power that threatens to dominate the system and thus threaten their sovereignty.Balance of power behavior is central to conceptions of the national interest and to alliance policy.If successful，it preserves individual states and the anarchic structure of the system as a whole.Its opposite is“bandwagoning”，in which states seek security by joining with the dominant power.Realists conceive balance of power as an automatic tendency in state behaviour.In an international society perspective，balance of power is a conscious policy shared amongst a group of states，and serving as the principle by which they regulate their relations.Neither“balance”nor“power”are measurable，and their interpretation is much debated.

●报纸一般可以分为两大类型:大报(quality paper)与小报(tabloid)。这种大与小以前是以印刷纸张大小而定:大报指印在整张纸上，对折起来就是A2纸大小；而小报则印在A2纸上，对折成A3纸。但确定报纸的性质并非看其纸张大小，而更多是看其内容与风格。英国的《泰晤士报》、《独立报》、《卫报》、《金融时报》、《每日电讯报》和美国的《纽约时报》、《华盛顿邮报》、《国际先驱论坛报》、《华尔街日报》、《基督教科学箴言报》等属大报。而小报包括英国的《每日镜报》、《每日邮报》以及美国的《今日美国报》、《费城日报》、《纽约邮报》等。

Ⅰ.According to the article，determine which statements are true and which are false.

1.The world in the twentieth century experienced unipolarity，multipolarity and bipolarity in the order of appearance.

2.Multipolar systems can be both cooperative and competitive.

3.The six major world powers today do not include the EU.

4.Inanonpolarworld，manyglobal，regional，functional organizations as well as NGOs can be power centers.

5.Power and influence are less and less linked in an era of multipolarity.

1.When talking about today's world of distributed power，the writerlists which of the following as a possible player?

A.ASEAN.

B.BBC.

C.Shanghai.

D.All of the above.

2.Which of the following statements best describes the status of theUnited States today?

A.Its military is the strongest.

B.Its economy is the largest.

C.Its percentage of global total GDP has been consistently declining.

D.All of the above.

3.Which is NOT true about“the unipolar moment”?

A.It was coined by Charles Krauthammer.

B.The term first appeared in the journal of Foreign Affairs.

C.It was used to refer to the supposed short duration of US dominance in world affairs.

D.The writer and Krauthammer both think multipolarity will follow it.

4.The writer lists the following as explanations for the demise ofunipolarity，except

A.an ever larger number of actors able to exert influence regionally or globally.

B.“imperial overstretch”by former Soviet Union.

C.globalization.

D.failed US policy.

5.Which of the following is true about multilateralism?

A.It may turn more informal and more comprehensive.

B.Getting everyone to agree on everything will be as hard as before.

C.The US should consider signing agreements with more parties and broad goals.

D.None of the above.