English Quiz 145

(English Quiz 145)

1. To this point, Rice's tenure as Secretary of State has been long on procedural victories but short on substantive policy results. Her most clear-cut successes have been forging a strategic alliance with India and improving the U.S.'s tattered relationship with its European allies. "She's been a good diplomat in the true sense of the word, going around talking and listening," says Charles Grant, director of the London-based Center for European Reform. "Although America's image hasn't changed, she's blameless in that."
Q: 試翻 "Her most clear-cut successes ... its European allies."

2. But Rice has been slow to recognize the extent to which the U.S.'s prestige has declined. In 2005, the convergence of elections in the Palestinian territories and Iraq and the popular uprising against Syria's presence in Lebanon spurred Rice all but to declare that Washington was guiding the march of history. In a speech at the American University in Cairo, she criticized the government of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for failing to liberalize and said, "For 60 years, my country pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region ... and we achieved neither. Now we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people." Less than two years later, Rice rarely speaks in such exalted tones; when she visited Egypt last month, she went out of her way to praise the U.S.'s "strategic relationship" with the Mubarak regime. Rice told TIME that she "always" raises the issue of democracy in private meetings with Arab leaders, including Mubarak. But the time for public tongue lashings is over.
Q: 試翻 "But Rice has been slow ... has declined."

3. Rice's new restraint reflects a broader reworking of the democracy agenda that dominated U.S. foreign policy after 9/11. Two factors have contributed to that change. The first is the reality that free elections in places like Lebanon and the Palestinian territories have handed power to fundamentalist groups like Hizballah and Hamas that have little interest in pluralistic, secular governance. Whatever the ultimate benefits of implanting democracy in the Middle East, in the short run it's more likely to damage U.S. interests than serve them. The second cause for the shift is Iraq. The country's dissolution has reduced the U.S.'s leverage in the region, emboldened Iran and alienated the U.S.'s traditional Sunni allies. "They've been reticent to provide real support," says Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution. "They think we've created a government that is nothing but a facade for a bunch of vicious Shi'i militias." Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month that the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is on "borrowed time." Rice says now that "Iraqis will have to decide whether their government is functioning. But that's not for us to decide." And yet the very fact that the U.S. would raise the possibility that a popularly elected government in Iraq might get dumped reflects an acknowledgment that elections alone won't bring stability.
Q: 試翻 "The second cause ... Sunni allies."