EGZAMIN RESORTOWY Z JĘZYKA ANGIELSKIEGO 10 września, 2007 I. Read the following article and summarize it in English using your words. DO NOT quote from the article. TIME, Tuesday, June 05, 2007 Behind Bush's Missile Defense Push By Massimo Calabresi/Prague In his search for a long-term foreign policy achievement that can offset Iraq in the history books, George W. Bush has returned to a central national security tenet of his early days as President: the need for missile defense. Beyond fighting terrorism, no issue is more important to the President's strategic vision, and he and his closest advisers have pursued anti-missile programs from the earliest days of the Administration. But as he presses his efforts to get a regional missile defense system in train for central Europe before he leaves office, Bush faces more resistance than he bargained for, resistance that now threatens to overshadow his other foreign policy legacy efforts. The biggest obstacle comes from Moscow, where President Vladimir Putin told reporters this week that Russia might again target countries in Europe that accept such a system. "If a part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States appears in Europe and, in the opinion of our military specialists, will threaten us, then we will have to take appropriate steps in response," Putin said in comments released Monday by the Kremlin. "What kind of steps? We will have to have new targets in Europe." Russia's Cold War rhetoric is set to disrupt an otherwise carefully orchestrated G-8 summit this week in Germany where Bush had planned to highlight global development efforts, a new climate change program and trade negotiations. It also threatens to fracture already weak European support for missile defense. Bush will meet Putin Thursday in Germany, and again early in July at Kennebunkport as part of the effort to reassure the Russians that missile defense is aimed not at undermining Russia's deterrent capability but at
combating regimes like Iran's that are developing missile arsenals and are hostile to the U.S. In Prague today, Bush said, "I look forward to having conversations with President Putin, not only at the G8, but in the United States when he comes over. And my message will be, Vladimir I call him Vladimir that you shouldn't fear a missile defense system." Bush followed up on the offer to collaborate with Russia on missile defense that his Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made recently in Moscow. Bush said he'd tell Putin, "Please send your generals over to see how such a system would work. Send your scientists. Let us have the ability to discuss this issue in an open forum where we'll be completely transparent." In fact, the success rates of U.S. missile defense systems are marginal at best. And the most optimistic projections put deployment in Europe more than five years away. Yet if that should reassure Putin, it hasn't. He and the Russians see the deployment as both a potential future threat to their missile arsenal and as an affront to their national security akin to the American view of Khrushchev's deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba in the early 1960s. So if the systems, which aren't even ready yet, are causing so much agitation in Russia, why is the Administration pushing as hard as it is on the issue now? For starters, Bush's top advisers are all graduates of the school of Star Wars, old national security hands who in one form or another cut their teeth on the issue as young policymakers. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley pursued missile defense with the Soviets as an arms control negotiator in the administration of George H. W. Bush. When he became George W. Bush's deputy National Security Adviser in 2001, he kept a small model of the Soviet ballistic missile arsenal near his desk and spent his first nine months so focused on getting a rollback of the anti-ballistic missile treaty that he was later accused of ignoring the terrorist threat as it built in the run-up to 9/11. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were both Russia experts at George H. W. Bush's National Security Council, and pursued the issue as closely as Hadley did. Rice and Hadley also schooled Bush himself on the importance of missile defense during his campaign for the Presidency in 1999 and 2000. On the theory that no weapons system has ever been developed that has not eventually been used, Hadley and others
argue that missile defense is a necessity in an era of proliferation one component of a defense that also includes deterrence and coercion. If the systems to be deployed by the U.S. have had low success rates against missiles thus far, they argue, all the more reason to continue our commitment to the program, in order to accelerate technological progress. Critics say the rush to deploy a system before it's ready and in the face of the opposition of nominal allies is unnecessary, expensive and damaging. They say unilateral agreements between the U.S. on the one hand and Poland and Czech Republic on the other cause friction with other European countries and undermine support for missile defense. And they argue that Bush's insistence on pursuing deployment agreements now shows that the current push is less about the imminent threat than it is about his legacy. "Bush wants to make an irreversible move forward before he leaves office," says Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations. "He wants this to be in train even if not completely deployed." Despite those criticisms and Russia's objections, however, Bush is in a good position to advance his missile defense agenda. At home, there is no real opposition to missile defense mainstream Democrats since Bill Clinton's presidency have shied away from dissenting over missile defense. And abroad there is some willingness to go along with the U.S. in the face of public resistance. Czech President Vaclav Klaus today said he supported Bush's program, despite 60% disapproval among Czechs. All of which means that even threats to target European countries are unlikely to shake the U.S.'s will to deploy, setting the two countries on an increasingly tense course for the final 18 months of Bush's Presidency.
II. Translate the following extract into Polish. Appointed Blair's head of policy in 1994 and an author of the election manifesto that helped sweep Labour to power three years later, Miliband is already a Labour eminence, if not yet a gray one. After winning a parliamentary seat in 2001, he was rapidly promoted by Blair, who once compared his precocious protégé to Wayne Rooney. The lanky, bookish Cabinet Minister may not seem to have much in common with the stocky, inarticulate Manchester United footballer (though Miliband proved a decent defender in Labour's soccer squad, the Demon Eyes). But like Rooney, Miliband is rated as a key player, with ample potential to score for his country. III. Write an essay on one of the following subjects. Use APPROXIMATELY 200 words. 1. If you were to become a Foreign Minister adviser in the near future, how would you define the best foreign policy for Poland? Name at least four most important issues and provide adequate examples and explanations. 2. Do you agree with the proposal made by a senior UN official that rich countries should not have to cut carbon emissions if they pay poor countries to do that on their behalf? 3. Reading books is indispensable to the development of the individual. How far do you agree with such a statement? Provide arguments for or against, or both.
IV. Complete each of the following gaps with one word only. IMPRESSIONIST PAINTING IS NOT SO SIMPLE There are many reasons (1) the enormous popularity of the Impressionists; but there can be (2) doubt about the main one. The pictures look so easy: easy to understand, easy to enjoy. The Impressionists, a (3) years ago, enshrined a vision of life (4) still represents a popular ideal. They belonged to an industrial society, but (5) from the odd smoke stack in the distance hardly (6) signs of industry appear in Impressionist painting. Work, in any demeaning sense, is virtually banished. But Impressionist painting is very deceptive. It (7) look simple but that is essentially a tribute, not to the (8) innocence but rather to their sophistication, their ability to create the proverbial art that conceals art. No one was more aware (9) the complexities and paradoxes of painting than Edgar Degas. He was committed to a form of naturalism but he (10) quite well that copying what is in (11) of you is only a part of the process of creation. There was no such thing (12) objectivity: One sees as one wishes to see, Degas once remarked, and it is that falsity that constitutes art. He knew it was really a (13) of equivalents, of observing and representing visual material in a way that will (14) justice not only to the observable facts of everyday life but also to the inherent properties of (15) itself, form, colour, texture, line. You cannot get life on to the (16) but you can suggest the restless flow of life by developing the right fragment pictorially so (17) it is able to take on larger overtones without sacrificing (18) naturalistic appearance in any given work. Degas was reserved and self-conscious. What fate it is always to be the spectator of the public, (19) part of it, Virginia Woolf was later to confess in her diary. Degas would (20) agreed.
1. for 2. no 3. hundred 4. that 5. apart 6. any 7. may (might) 8. artists 9. of 10.knew / understood 11.front 12.as 13.matter 14.do 15.art 16.canvas 17.that 18.its (the /?/) 19.never 20.have