金融时报:挥之不去的帝国遗梦

挥之不去的帝国遗梦

伦敦国王学院历史教师、《撒切尔的不列颠》一书作者理查德·维南(Richard Vinen)

测试中可能遇到的词汇和知识：

herring['herɪŋ] n.鲱鱼

Borough Market 博罗市场，是伦敦桥南端一个历史悠久的水果蔬菜批发市场，出售世界各国的美食。

kamikaze [,kæmɪ'kɑːzɪ] n.神风特攻队

the backbench 后排议席。英国下议院惯例：执政党和在野党领袖、内阁任职议员及反对党影子内阁成员等重要议员坐在前排，普通议员坐在后排。

bravura[brə'v(j)ʊərə] n.大胆的尝试；令人赞赏的演唱技巧

Belize[be'li:z] n.伯利兹，是个人口只有33万的中美洲小国，曾是英国殖民地，现为英联邦成员国。

acrimonious[,ækrɪ'məʊnɪəs] adj.严厉的；辛辣的

Household Cavalry 皇家近卫骑兵团

apoplexy['æpəpleksɪ] n.中风

Rue du Faubourg St-Honoré 巴黎圣奥诺雷市郊路，被视为世界上最时尚的街道。几乎整条街都是高级时装店，还有英、美、加等国大使馆和法国总统府爱丽舍宫。

the British Expeditionary Force 英国远征军，英国在两次世界大战期间派往欧陆作战的部队。

Imperial dreams still haunt Britain (1028 words)

George Orwell wrote that the loss of empire would reduce England to a “cold and unimportant little island where we should all have to work very hard and live on herrings and potatoes”. It has not turned out like that. The British live better than ever before. Herring is a pungent delicacy enjoyed by the Borough Market-going classes.

In spite of this, it is widely held to be political suicide for any British leader to suggest that their country might have a future that does not involve “greatness”. Indeed, the only politician to have taken such a stance was that great kamikaze of the backbenches, Enoch Powell.

Even Harold Macmillan, who was particularly qualified to understand the great sweep of history, managed to feign outrage when it was suggested that Britain was no longer a first-rate power. The party conferences will probably feature calls to “put the Great back in Great Britain”. But does anyone believe that Britain can be great again and does anyone, really, think it matters?

Escaping from greatness can be a tricky business. Postwar German politicians were able to abandon their country’s Bismarckian pretensions partly because they started with the melancholy advantage of having suffered a crushing military defeat and with the even more melancholy awareness of what horrors had been brought by German victories.

Charles de Gaulle covered his brisk realism about France’s place in the world with some extraordinary rhetoric. He wrote, in the bravura opening to his memoirs, that France could not be herself without greatness but he also remarked, revealingly, that France was “like the princess in the fairy tale”. A fairy tale, of course, preserves the power to move even when neither the teller nor their audience believes what is being said.

When British politicians talk of greatness, by contrast, it feels more like one of those embarrassing family rituals – Dad dressing up as Father Christmas. Everyone cringes but the grown-ups (in this case politicians) think that the children (in this case the electorate) will get upset if we admit to the reality.

Certain features of British history have made it difficult to recognise our changed position. One of these is the resilience of our institutions – it is hard to look relative decline in the face if one’s constitution and political system is still, to a large extent, the same as when Queen Victoria was Empress of India.

Britain’s position in world politics – its permanent seat on the UN Security Council, in particular – springs from having been on the winning side in the second world war. After 1945, Britain maintained an expensive façade of great power status: for the only time in its history, conscripts were called up in peacetime. A succession of military successes masked the changed realities of British status. In Malaya and Kenya, Britain defeated insurgencies and thus contrived to make backing out of empire look like a kind of victory.

However, there is a chance for British politicians to change things. The freedom of manoeuvre that they enjoy can be underlined by comparing their position with that of their American counterparts. Any US presidential candidate who dared suggest that the real challenge for their country involved the intelligent management of relative decline – and surely two such intelligent men as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama must know this in their own minds – would be sure of defeat.

Things are different in Britain. The country has never gone in for institutionalised patriotism. British schoolchildren do not salute the flag and I doubt one Briton in a hundred knows all the words to the national anthem. The British are moved by the suffering of individual soldiers but, perhaps because of this, are suspicious of generals.

How should politicians use this attitude to good ends? Cuts in military spending would be one answer. Service chiefs will always say that we need to be prepared for every eventuality, from the invasion of Belize to all-out nuclear war, but in truth Britain faces fewer threats to its existence than almost any other major country in the world.

A defence review should not mean the usual acrimonious battle to make small savings. Rather, ministers should start from the assumption that all defence spending is a luxury. Set the tone with some spectacular gestures – such as the abolition of the Household Cavalry. Unless at least one general, two admirals and a dozen Tory backbenchers are hospitalised with apoplexy, the defence secretary should assume that he has not been radical enough.

The Foreign Office should be another target. If you recruit many of your brightest young people into an institution that is designed to help Britain play a world role, then they will (à la Douglas Hurd) spend the rest of their lives devising expensive ways in which Britain can “punch above its weight”. How far do we need diplomats at all? What harm would be done if we just sold off that grand embassy on the Rue du Faubourg St-Honoré?

All this would save money. It would also change the structure of the economy – more people would devote their talents to the profits of private companies rather than the prestige of the state. It would change our national definition of success. It is absurd and undignified to insist that the British state should aim to be “great” rather than just to make its citizens happier and more prosperous.

We should not be ashamed of our history. Our empire was no worse than anyone else’s, our role in helping the US to contain the Soviet Union was important and our stand against Nazism in 1940 was heroic. All these things, however, belong to the past. In 1914, Britain’s entry into the first world war propelled the country into a period of greater military and imperial commitments at just the moment when relative economic decline was starting to sap its capacity to sustain such commitments. British troops will probably return from Afghanistan 100 years after the British Expeditionary Force left for the killing fields of northern France. This would be a good moment to admit that “greatness” has been, for many years, a fairy tale, and to close the book.

请根据你所读到的文章内容，完成以下自测题目：

1.Why does the writer call MP. Enoch Powell a "great kamikaze "?

A. Because nobody acted as he did.

B. Because he said Britain might have a future without “greatness”.

C. Because he was from the backbench.

D. Because he ended up commited suicide.

答案(1)

2.Which of the following is not true, according to the passage, about postwar German politicians and Charles de Gaulle?

A. Bismarckian pretensions are about the greatness of an empire.

B. Postwar German politicians felt fear about German military victories.

C. Charles de Gaulle did not believe in the greatness about France.

D. It was a fairy tale that France would remain great.

答案(2)

3.Belize is such a small and unimportant country in the Central America. Why does the writer mention "the invasion of Belize"?

A. To tell us that Belize is actually a very dangerous country but few people know that.

B. To feel sorry about declining British military force.

C. Belize has once in history invaded Britain.

D. To make fun of Britain's huge military spending.

答案(3)

4.What are the writer's suggestions to politicians?

A. American politicians should take "the intelligent management of relative decline" seriously.

B. Rules need be introduced that British schoolchildren should salute the flag.

C. The defence secretary should not abolish the Household Cavalry.

D. all of above

答案(4)

* * *

(1) 答案：B.Because he said Britain might have a future without “greatness”.

解释：作者在第二段说，对英国政客来说，说出英国的未来可能与“伟大”无关这事 is a political suicide.

(2) 答案：C.Charles de Gaulle did not believe in the greatness about France.

解释：作者在四、五段中用德国和法国政治家的例子，来与英国首相哈罗德·麦克米兰对比。作者认为，德法的政治家已经认识到，自己的国家不能继续生活在“伟大帝国的旧梦”中。 而英国首相麦克米兰（1957年-1963在任）则拒绝承认这一点。C是正确的，戴高乐He wrote······that France could not be herself without greatness.

(3) 答案：D.To make fun of Britain's huge military spending.

解释：答案很明确，作者认为军方要求大量军费开支是为了防止“从伯利兹入侵到全面核战争”的各种危险，但这是不必要的：but in truth Britain faces fewer threats to its existence than almost any other major country in the world.

(4) 答案：A.American politicians should take "the intelligent management of relative decline" seriously.

解释：A项是正确的，作者原话是两位美国总统候选人都不敢直接说“我们的相对衰落不可挽回，让我们认真应对吧”这种话，但是他们当然应该仔细考虑这个问题。 B项不是作者的主张，C项与他主张相反，他认为国防大臣应该坚决推进废除皇家近卫骑兵团，“除非一些将军和保守党后排议员被气得中风住院”。

《金融时报》原文阅读精选集