Endangered Trade (The Asian Wall Street Journal, Mar., 1999) Such is the special relationship between America and its NATO partners that while that alliance cooperates to bomb Serbian forces, the U.S. and the EU are managing a trade war against each other. Fortunately, no lives are at stake in the latter conflict. Yet if it spreads unchecked, the rest of the world is sure to feel the pain of it. It’s hard to decide whether the U.S. or Europe deserves the most contempt for expanding their trade war. The first fight, over bananas, is essentially a struggle between two fruit distributors with strong political connections. Now Washington and Brussels are escalating their battle over beef, with European farmers stooping to phony science in their claims that hormone-treated American beef is unsafe. In his first term in office, President Bill Clinton teamed up with the Republicans to push major free-trade liberalizations. Now, however, he seems bent on pursuing ‘level even if playing fields,’ torpedoing the world economy. The latest salvo was fired this week, with the U.S. announcing it has targeted close to $1 billion of European products for 100% tariffs if the European Union doesn’t drop the hormone nonsense. The move follows an earlier announcement that the U.S. administration will fight Europe’s banana import regime by hitting a range of European goods with prohibitive tariffs. Add to this renewed American threats to raise the drawbridge to Russian, Japanese and Brazilian steel, as well as administration support for a congressional vote to ban Concorde flights from Europe in relation for EU threats to refuse landing rights to old-American planes retrofitted with noise reducing technology. Mr. Clinton sounded the protectionist battle cry in his January State of the Union address, where he vowed to fight for ‘a freer and fairer trading system for 21st century America.’ In the case of agriculture, when the respective lobbies on both sides of the Atlantic enter the fray, that translates into a sticky situation. On the whole, American farmers are major exporters. And U.S. farmers have a good case on beef hormones. But it is nonetheless dangerous for the U.S. to shut off $1 billion in trade. This is not to excuse the EU. The hormone argument is nonsense. The World Trade Organization has acknowledged as much, ordering the EU to allow imports of American meat by May 13. Brussels has responded by saying that it needs more time because European citizens, who supposedly don’t like hormones in their food, would rebel against their governments if American meat suddenly appeared on their store shelves. Were it not for the high stakes involved for both producers and consumers, the argument might be amusing. When governments curtail trade the global economy shrinks and for all the jobs ‘saved’ by protections, there are a lot more lost. The Smoot-Hawley agricultural protections imposed by the U.S. Congress in the late 1920s certainly contributed to the Great Depression. Mr. Clinton may believe he is fighting the good fight. But we’ve never thought much of the kind of war where you pose even when you win.
The author thinks that it is a right decision for the U.S. to shut off $1 billion in trade.
ID：9582-11685（本题为引用材料试题，请根据材料回答以下问题） What kind of writing technique is NOT employed in this passage? A. Reasoning. B. Quotation. C. Exemplification. D. Comparison.
ID：9582-11683（本题为引用材料试题，请根据材料回答以下问题） What does the sentence underlined and in boldface imply? A. I prefer to have a romantic boyfriend who can give me a ride either in a BMW or on a bike. B. I want to marry someone who will not make me feel sad in this expensive BMW car. C. My prospective boyfriend should be rich enough to give me a very comfortable life even if he will not always make me happy. D. Compared to the guy who can afford to buy a bicycle, I prefer the one who can afford a BMW.
ID：9582-11678（本题为引用材料试题，请根据材料回答以下问题） What does it mean by “game-changer” underlined and in boldface? A. It refers to the protesting movement that can lead people to change their attitude toward making efforts to stop offshore drilling. B. It indicates the time when people becomes more aware of the potential environmental hazards. C. It transmits the message that only by knowing exactly what everyone can contributes can we change the environment in a positive direction. D. It implicates the possible trends that could lead to changes of the current environmental situation.
ID：9582-11673 Protesters join ‘Hands Across the Sand’ to oppose offshore drilling —— Gloucester event is one of many held nationwide By Sydney Lupkin —”The Boston Globe” Correspondent / June 27, 2010 GLOUCESTER — Give Jane Barry five days and a bullhorn and she can give you 200 protesters and a message: No to offshore drilling. Barry, a 63-year-old real estate broker from Gloucester, organized one of 26 “Hands Across the Sand’’ protests in Massachusetts — 808 nationwide — to oppose offshore drilling and call for clean energy alternatives. Participants linked hands, standing on beaches together at noon for 15 minutes yesterday. “Sometimes in order to start something, you have to scream,’’ Barry said in an interview. Barry took an old real estate sign and decorated it with paper hands and an ocean made of blue electrical tape. Beneath her straw with the words “Hands Across the Sand’’ written in orange and blue marker, she was joined by 15 others who gathered at one end of Good Harbor Beach, held hands and started walking toward the other end, their feet splashing in the surf. Barry started yelling into her bullhorn for people to join. “S-O-S. Save our shores,’’ chanted Sarah Mahan, 17, of Andover, part of the group. Soon, echoed by the rest of the line, she began yelling, “Yes to clean energy. No to offshore drilling.’’ Within minutes, people lounging on chairs and towels dusted themselves off and joined in. The line grew to 200 people by the time it reached the other end of the beach. The movement has been spurred by the BP oil spill that has been polluting the Gulf of Mexico since April 20 It is considered the worst oil spill in US history. In Boston, a smaller group joined hands in the Boston Harbor Islands at noon. Bruce Berman, spokesman for Boston-based advocacy group Save the Harbor-Save the Bay, predicted that the protests would be a “game-changer. I think there’s an awful lot of frustration and concern about the extent and the duration of the BP oil spill, and I think that people are very cognizant and feel there’s not a lot they can do,’’ Berman said. “The good news about a symbolic gesture is that anybody can do it,’’ Berman said. “People are just drawing a line in the sand.’’ He said the 15-minute nationwide protest was one of the biggest grassroots efforts he had seen. It was publicized on Facebook pages and via word of mouth. He said seven people without computers called him for directions on Friday. Hannah Krieger, 17, saw the event on Facebook and drove from Andover. She arrived early to help Barry — whom she had not met before — pass out fliers along the beach and persuade people to sign a petition, which organizers plan to send to the Obama administration. “Even though not everyone was supportive, I loved shouting the message,’’ she said. Dave Rauschkolb, a 48-year-old restaurateur and surfer, founded the movement in Florida last year to oppose lifting a ban on local offshore drilling. The protests on 90 beaches persuaded the Florida Legislature to table the effort earlier this year. The BP oil spill persuaded Rauschkolb to expand his movement, he said. The movement has gone international, including 27 events in Canada, one in China, and five in India, according to the group’s website. “It made me feel really wonderful to be a vessel through which people could come together regardless of their political affiliation,’’ he said. Rauschkolb said the goal is getting attention from politicians. “They’re the people that hold the future of our energy policy in their hands,’’ he said. “If we can’t convince them, we can’t convince anybody.
