金融時報:揮之不去的帝國遺夢

揮之不去的帝國遺夢

倫敦國王學院歷史教師、《撒切爾的不列顛》一書作者理查德·維南(Richard Vinen)

測試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識：

herring['her??] n.鯡魚

Borough Market 博羅市場，是倫敦橋南端一個歷史悠久的水果蔬菜批發(fā)市場，出售世界各國的美食。

kamikaze [,kæm?'kɑ?z?] n.神風特攻隊

the backbench 后排議席。英國下議院慣例：執(zhí)政黨和在野黨領袖、內閣任職議員及反對黨影子內閣成員等重要議員坐在前排，普通議員坐在后排。

bravura[br?'v(j)??r?] n.大膽的嘗試；令人贊賞的演唱技巧

Belize[be'li:z] n.伯利茲，是個人口只有33萬的中美洲小國，曾是英國殖民地，現(xiàn)為英聯(lián)邦成員國。

acrimonious[,ækr?'m??n??s] adj.嚴厲的；辛辣的

Household Cavalry 皇家近衛(wèi)騎兵團

apoplexy['æp?pleks?] n.中風

Rue du Faubourg St-Honoré 巴黎圣奧諾雷市郊路，被視為世界上最時尚的街道。幾乎整條街都是高級時裝店，還有英、美、加等國大使館和法國總統(tǒng)府愛麗舍宮。

the British Expeditionary Force 英國遠征軍，英國在兩次世界大戰(zhàn)期間派往歐陸作戰(zhàn)的部隊。

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.

請根據你所讀到的文章內容，完成以下自測題目：

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”.

解釋：作者在第二段說，對英國政客來說，說出英國的未來可能與“偉大”無關這事 is a political suicide.

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

解釋：作者在四、五段中用德國和法國政治家的例子，來與英國首相哈羅德·麥克米蘭對比。作者認為，德法的政治家已經認識到，自己的國家不能繼續(xù)生活在“偉大帝國的舊夢”中。 而英國首相麥克米蘭（1957年-1963在任）則拒絕承認這一點。C是正確的，戴高樂He wrote······that France could not be herself without greatness.

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

解釋：答案很明確，作者認為軍方要求大量軍費開支是為了防止“從伯利茲入侵到全面核戰(zhàn)爭”的各種危險，但這是不必要的：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.

解釋：A項是正確的，作者原話是兩位美國總統(tǒng)候選人都不敢直接說“我們的相對衰落不可挽回，讓我們認真應對吧”這種話，但是他們當然應該仔細考慮這個問題。 B項不是作者的主張，C項與他主張相反，他認為國防大臣應該堅決推進廢除皇家近衛(wèi)騎兵團，“除非一些將軍和保守黨后排議員被氣得中風住院”。

《金融時報》原文閱讀精選集