调要注意的事项为（）。

A:越早期调效果越好 B:调要一次完成 C:要磨除所有的工作侧干扰 D:要少量多次进行调 E:要磨除所有平衡侧干扰

Soon after his appointment as secretary-general of the United Nations in 1997, Kofi Annan lamented that he was being accused of failing to reform the world body in six weeks. "But what are you complaining about" asked the Russian ambassador: "You’ve had more time than God." Ah, Mr. Annan quipped back, "but God had one big advantage. He worked alone without a General Assembly, a Security Council and [all] the committees."
Recounting that anecdote to journalists in New York this week, Mr. Annan sought to explain why a draft declaration on UN reform and tackling world poverty, due to be endorsed by some 150 heads of state and government at a world summit in the city on September 14th- 16th, had turned into such a pale shadow of the proposals that he himself had put forward in March. "With 191 member states", he sighed, "it’s not easy to get an agreement."
Most countries put the blame on the United States, in the form of its abrasive new ambassador, John Bolton, for insisting at the end of August on hundreds of last minute amendments and a line-by-line renegotiation of a text most others had thought was almost settled. But a group of middle-income developing nations, including Pakistan, Cuba, Iran, Egypt, Syria and Venezuela, also came up with plenty of last-minute changes of their own. The risk of having no document at all, and thus nothing for the world’s leaders to come to New York for, was averted only by marathon all-night and all-weekend talks.
The 35-page final document is not wholly devoid of substance. It calls for the creation of a Peacebuilding Commission to supervise the reconstruction of countries after wars; the replacement of the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights by a supposedly tougher Human Rights Council; the recognition of a new "responsibility to protect" peoples from genocide and other atrocities when national authorities fail to take action, including, if necessary, by force; and an "early" reform of the Security Council. Although much pared down, all these proposals have at least survived.
Others have not. Either they provod so contentious that they were omitted altogether, such as the sections on disarmament and non-proliferation and the International Criminal Court, or they were watered down to little more than empty platitudes. The important section on collective security and the use of force no longer even mentions the vexed issue of pre-emptive strikes; meanwhile the section on terrorism condemns it "in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes", but fails to provide the clear definition the Americans wanted.
Both Mr. Annan and, more surprisingly, George Bush have nevertheless sought to put a good face on things, with Mr. Annan describing the summit document as "an important step forward" and Mr. Bush saying the UN had taken "the first steps" towards reform. Mr. Annan and Mr. Bolton are determined to go a lot further. It is now up to the General Assembly to flesh out the document’s skeleton proposals and propose new ones. But its chances of success appear slim.
Who have recently listened to the story in the first paragraph of the text

A:Ambassadors. B:UN officials. C:The world’s leaders. D:Reporters.

Text 4
Some things are doomed to remain imperfect, the United Nations among them. De spite noble aspirations, the organization that more than any other embodies the collective will and wisdom of an imperfect world was created, in the words of one former secretary general, not to take humanity to heaven, but to save it from hell. Is it failing in that task
Alarmed at the bitter dispute over the war in Iraq, and at growing threats -- from the devastation of AIDS and the danger of failing states to the prospect of terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction -- that the UN ’ s founding powers hadn’ t even had night mares about, last year Kofi Annan, the current secretary-general, asked a group of eminent folk to put on their thinking caps. Their report on how the UN might in future better contribute to international peace and security--mobilising its own and the world’ s re sources to prevent crises where possible and to deal with them more resolutely and effectively where necessary--is due for delivery in two weeks’ time. Yet the thoughtful debate such proposals deserve risks getting lost in the poisonous war of words between UN-baiters and UN-boosters, and in the fisticuffs over what governments seem to care about most: who will get any extra seats that may be up for grabs on the Security Council.
The might-is-always-righter brigade, who brush aside the UN as irrelevant in today’ s world, are small in number but can seem troublingly influential. They are also dangerously shortsighted. Like other big powers, and plenty of smaller ones, America fosters the UN when it needs it, and sometimes circumvents it when it doesn’ t. But wiser heads recognize that being the world’s most powerful country and top gun has its problems. With global interests and global reach, America is most often called on to right the world’ s wrongs. It should have been interest in a rules-based system which keeps that burden to a minimum and finds ways for others, including the UN, to share it. What is more, as Chi na, India, Japan and others put on economic and military muscle, having agreed rules for all to play by as much as possible makes strategic sense too.
Yet the not-without-UN-approval school can be equally off the mark. For the system of international rules, treaties and laws is still a hodge-podge. Some, like the UN charter itself, are deemed universal, though they may at time be hotly disputed and sometimes ignored. Others, such as the prohibitions against proliferation of nuclear, chemical or bio logical weapons, are accepted by many, but not all. Some disputes can be settled in court--boundary disputes by the International Court of Justice, for example, accusations of war crimes or genocide by the International Criminal Court--but only where governments give the nod. For the rest, the UN Security Council is where most serious disputes end up.
And there trouble can start. The council is not the moral conscience of the world. It is a collection of states pursuing divergent interests, albeit -- one hopes--with a sense of responsibility. Where it can agree, consensus lends legitimacy to action. But should action always stop where consensus ends
There was nothing high-minded about Russia’ s refusal to countenance intervention in Kosovo in 1999 to end the Serb army’ s ethnic cleansing there; it was simply protecting a friend. Might, concluded NATO governments in acting without council approval, is not always wrong. Over Iraq, it is debatable what did more damage: America’ s failure to win support from the council before going to war anyway, or the hypocrisy that had allowed Iraq to flout all previous council resolutions with impunity.

It can be inferred from the second paragraph that（）

A:UN is in an unprepared predicament. B:noble aspirations take humanity to heaven. C:UN is in an unprecedented dilemma. D:former secretary-general saves human from hell.

Text 4
Some things are doomed to remain imperfect, the United Nations among them. De spite noble aspirations, the organization that more than any other embodies the collective will and wisdom of an imperfect world was created, in the words of one former secretary general, not to take humanity to heaven, but to save it from hell. Is it failing in that task
Alarmed at the bitter dispute over the war in Iraq, and at growing threats -- from the devastation of AIDS and the danger of failing states to the prospect of terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction -- that the UN ’ s founding powers hadn’ t even had night mares about, last year Kofi Annan, the current secretary-general, asked a group of eminent folk to put on their thinking caps. Their report on how the UN might in future better contribute to international peace and security--mobilising its own and the world’ s re sources to prevent crises where possible and to deal with them more resolutely and effectively where necessary--is due for delivery in two weeks’ time. Yet the thoughtful debate such proposals deserve risks getting lost in the poisonous war of words between UN-baiters and UN-boosters, and in the fisticuffs over what governments seem to care about most: who will get any extra seats that may be up for grabs on the Security Council.
The might-is-always-righter brigade, who brush aside the UN as irrelevant in today’ s world, are small in number but can seem troublingly influential. They are also dangerously shortsighted. Like other big powers, and plenty of smaller ones, America fosters the UN when it needs it, and sometimes circumvents it when it doesn’ t. But wiser heads recognize that being the world’s most powerful country and top gun has its problems. With global interests and global reach, America is most often called on to right the world’ s wrongs. It should have been interest in a rules-based system which keeps that burden to a minimum and finds ways for others, including the UN, to share it. What is more, as Chi na, India, Japan and others put on economic and military muscle, having agreed rules for all to play by as much as possible makes strategic sense too.
Yet the not-without-UN-approval school can be equally off the mark. For the system of international rules, treaties and laws is still a hodge-podge. Some, like the UN charter itself, are deemed universal, though they may at time be hotly disputed and sometimes ignored. Others, such as the prohibitions against proliferation of nuclear, chemical or bio logical weapons, are accepted by many, but not all. Some disputes can be settled in court--boundary disputes by the International Court of Justice, for example, accusations of war crimes or genocide by the International Criminal Court--but only where governments give the nod. For the rest, the UN Security Council is where most serious disputes end up.
And there trouble can start. The council is not the moral conscience of the world. It is a collection of states pursuing divergent interests, albeit -- one hopes--with a sense of responsibility. Where it can agree, consensus lends legitimacy to action. But should action always stop where consensus ends
There was nothing high-minded about Russia’ s refusal to countenance intervention in Kosovo in 1999 to end the Serb army’ s ethnic cleansing there; it was simply protecting a friend. Might, concluded NATO governments in acting without council approval, is not always wrong. Over Iraq, it is debatable what did more damage: America’ s failure to win support from the council before going to war anyway, or the hypocrisy that had allowed Iraq to flout all previous council resolutions with impunity.

It can be inferred from the last paragraph that（）

A:dishonesty is generally followed by impunity. B:NATO' s assertion can hold water in terms of Kosovo. C:America tailed to win approval from UN due lo Russia's decline. D:N ATO's conclusion contradicts UN basic principles.

A former head of UN is quoted in

A:foretelling the fragility of an imperfect world. B:restraining the noble aspirations of heaven. C:depicting the aim of establishing UN. D:pursuing the collective will and wisdom of humanity.

Soon after his appointment as secretary-general of the United Nations in 1997, Kofi Annan lamented that he was being accused of failing to reform the world body in six weeks. "But what are you complaining about" asked the Russian ambassador. "You’ve had more time than God." Ah, Mr. Annan quipped back, "but God had one big advantage. He worked alone without a General Assembly, a Security Council and [all] the committees."
Recounting that anecdote to journalists in New York this week, Mr. Annan sought to explain why a draft declaration on UN reform and tackling world poverty, due to be endorsed by some 150 heads of state and government at a world summit in the city on September 14th-16th, had turned into such a pale shadow of the proposals that he himself had put forward in March. "With 191 member states", he sighed, "it’s not easy to get an agreement."
Most countries put the blame on the United States, in the form of its abrasive new ambassador, John Bolton, for insisting at the end of August on hundreds of last-minute amendments and a line-by-line renegotiation of a text most others had thought was almost settled. But a group of middle-income developing nations, including Pakistan, Cuba, Iran, Egypt, Syria and Venezuela, also came up with plenty of last-minute changes of their own. The risk of having no document at all, and thus nothing for the world’s leaders to come to New York for, was averted only by marathon all-night and all-weekend talks.
The 35-page final document is not wholly devoid of substance. It calls for the creation of a Peacebuilding Commission to supervise the reconstruction of countries after wars; the replacement of the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights by a supposedly tougher Human Rights Council; the recognition of a new "responsibility to protect" peoples from genocide and other atrocities when national authorities fail to take action, including, if necessary, by force; and an "early" reform of the Security Council. Although much pared down, all these proposals have at least survived.
Others have not. Either they proved so contentious that they were omitted altogether, such as the sections on disarmament and non-proliferation and the International Criminal Court, or they were watered down to little more than empty platitudes. The important section on collective security and the use of force no longer even mentions the vexed issue of pre-emptive strikes; meanwhile the section on terrorism condemns it "in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes", but fails to provide the clear definition the Americans wanted.
Both Mr. Annan and, more surprisingly, George Bush have nevertheless sought to put a good face on things, with Mr. Annan describing the summit document as "an important step forward" and Mr. Bush saying the UN had taken "the first steps" towards reform. Mr. Annan and Mr. Bolton are determined to go a lot further. It is now up to the General Assembly to flesh out the document’s skeleton proposals and propose new ones. But its chances of success appear slim.

Who have recently listened to the story in the first paragraph of the text（）

A:Ambassadors B:UN officials C:The world’s leaders D:Reporters

Soon after his appointment as secretary-general of the United Nations in 1997, Kofi Annan lamented that he was being accused of failing to reform the world body in six weeks. "But what are you complaining about" asked the Russian ambassador. "You’ve had more time than God." Ah, Mr. Annan quipped back, "but God had one big advantage. He worked alone without a General Assembly, a Security Council and [all] the committees."
Recounting that anecdote to journalists in New York this week, Mr. Annan sought to explain why a draft declaration on UN reform and tackling world poverty, due to be endorsed by some 150 heads of state and government at a world summit in the city on September 14th-16th, had turned into such a pale shadow of the proposals that he himself had put forward in March. "With 191 member states", he sighed, "it’s not easy to get an agreement."
Most countries put the blame on the United States, in the form of its abrasive new ambassador, John Bolton, for insisting at the end of August on hundreds of last-minute amendments and a line-by-line renegotiation of a text most others had thought was almost settled. But a group of middle-income developing nations, including Pakistan, Cuba, Iran, Egypt, Syria and Venezuela, also came up with plenty of last-minute changes of their own. The risk of having no document at all, and thus nothing for the world’s leaders to come to New York for, was averted only by marathon all-night and all-weekend talks.
The 35-page final document is not wholly devoid of substance. It calls for the creation of a Peacebuilding Commission to supervise the reconstruction of countries after wars; the replacement of the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights by a supposedly tougher Human Rights Council; the recognition of a new "responsibility to protect" peoples from genocide and other atrocities when national authorities fail to take action, including, if necessary, by force; and an "early" reform of the Security Council. Although much pared down, all these proposals have at least survived.
Others have not. Either they proved so contentious that they were omitted altogether, such as the sections on disarmament and non-proliferation and the International Criminal Court, or they were watered down to little more than empty platitudes. The important section on collective security and the use of force no longer even mentions the vexed issue of pre-emptive strikes; meanwhile the section on terrorism condemns it "in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes", but fails to provide the clear definition the Americans wanted.
Both Mr. Annan and, more surprisingly, George Bush have nevertheless sought to put a good face on things, with Mr. Annan describing the summit document as "an important step forward" and Mr. Bush saying the UN had taken "the first steps" towards reform. Mr. Annan and Mr. Bolton are determined to go a lot further. It is now up to the General Assembly to flesh out the document’s skeleton proposals and propose new ones. But its chances of success appear slim.

According to the text, empty platitudes might be found in the section on （）

A:Peacebuilding Commission B:UN Commission on Human Rights C:terrorism D:the Security Council

Soon after his appointment as secretary-general of the United Nations in 1997, Kofi Annan lamented that he was being accused of failing to reform the world body in six weeks. "But what are you complaining about" asked the Russian ambassador. "You’ve had more time than God." Ah, Mr. Annan quipped back, "but God had one big advantage. He worked alone without a General Assembly, a Security Council and [all] the committees."
Recounting that anecdote to journalists in New York this week, Mr. Annan sought to explain why a draft declaration on UN reform and tackling world poverty, due to be endorsed by some 150 heads of state and government at a world summit in the city on September 14th-16th, had turned into such a pale shadow of the proposals that he himself had put forward in March. "With 191 member states", he sighed, "it’s not easy to get an agreement."
Most countries put the blame on the United States, in the form of its abrasive new ambassador, John Bolton, for insisting at the end of August on hundreds of last-minute amendments and a line-by-line renegotiation of a text most others had thought was almost settled. But a group of middle-income developing nations, including Pakistan, Cuba, Iran, Egypt, Syria and Venezuela, also came up with plenty of last-minute changes of their own. The risk of having no document at all, and thus nothing for the world’s leaders to come to New York for, was averted only by marathon all-night and all-weekend talks.
The 35-page final document is not wholly devoid of substance. It calls for the creation of a Peacebuilding Commission to supervise the reconstruction of countries after wars; the replacement of the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights by a supposedly tougher Human Rights Council; the recognition of a new "responsibility to protect" peoples from genocide and other atrocities when national authorities fail to take action, including, if necessary, by force; and an "early" reform of the Security Council. Although much pared down, all these proposals have at least survived.
Others have not. Either they proved so contentious that they were omitted altogether, such as the sections on disarmament and non-proliferation and the International Criminal Court, or they were watered down to little more than empty platitudes. The important section on collective security and the use of force no longer even mentions the vexed issue of pre-emptive strikes; meanwhile the section on terrorism condemns it "in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes", but fails to provide the clear definition the Americans wanted.
Both Mr. Annan and, more surprisingly, George Bush have nevertheless sought to put a good face on things, with Mr. Annan describing the summit document as "an important step forward" and Mr. Bush saying the UN had taken "the first steps" towards reform. Mr. Annan and Mr. Bolton are determined to go a lot further. It is now up to the General Assembly to flesh out the document’s skeleton proposals and propose new ones. But its chances of success appear slim.
According to the text, empty platitudes might be found in the section on ______.

A:Peacebuilding Commission B:UN Commission on Human Rights C:terrorism D:the Security Council

The UN should （）the establishment of Iraqi government after the war, I think.

A:take part in B:play a leading role in C:play a role among D:play an important part for