Instructions
1. This is a role-play about a group of refugees fleeing their homeland who wish to enter another country in search of safety.
2. What do you know about refugees? (Write the points on a large sheet of paper or flipchart paper to refer to in the discussion later.)
3. Fix the set-up in the room: draw a line on the floor to represent a border or arrange furniture to make a physical frontier with a gap for the check post. Use a table to serve as a counter in the immigration office and make signs for the immigration office about entry and customs regulations, etc. "It is a dark, cold and wet night on the border between X and Y. A large number of refugees have arrived, fleeing from the war in X. They want to cross into Y. They are hungry, tired and cold. They have little money, and no documents except their passports. The immigration officials from country Y have different points of view - some want to allow the refugees to cross, but others don't. The refugees are desperate, and use several arguments to try to persuade the immigration officials."
4. The participants must be divided into equal groups. One group to represent the refugees from country X, the second group to represent the immigration officers in country Y and the third group to be observers.
5. The "refugees" and the "immigration officers" need to work out a role for each person and what their arguments will be. Receive the handouts and you have fifteen minutes to prepare.
6. Start the role-play. Ten minutes should be long enough to make some kind of a conclusion.
7. The observers need 5 minutes to give their feedback on the role-play.
Debriefing and Evaluation
The observers give general feedback on the role-play. Then the players comment on how it felt to be a refugee or an immigration officer.
1) What did you learn?
2) How fair was the treatment of the refugees?
3) Refugees have a right to protection under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Were the refugees given their right to protection? Why/why not?
4) Should a country have the right to turn refugees away?
5) Would you do this yourself if you were an immigration officer? What if you knew they faced death in their own country?
6) What sorts of problems do refugees face once inside your country?
7) What should be done to solve some of the problems of acceptance faced by refugees?
8) Are there any Internally Displaced Persons in your country? Or in a neighbouring country?
9) What can and should be done to stop people becoming refugees in the first place?
For role cards and additional information look supplementary materials
READING COMPREHENSION
What have you heard about Israeli-Arab Wars?
What do you know about the current state of affairs between Israel and its neighbors?
Blair: Gaza's great betrayer
Avi Shlaim
The Guardian, Wednesday 3 February 2010
It's more than a year since Israel launched its immoral attack on Gaza and Palestinians are still living on the verge of a humanitarian disaster. So what has Tony Blair done to further peace in the region? Virtually nothing, argues the historian Avi Shlaim.
The savage attack Israel unleashed against Gaza on 27 December 2008 was both immoral and unjustified. Immoral in the use of force against civilians for political purposes. Unjustified because Israel had a political alternative to the use of force. The home-made Qassam rockets fired by Hamas militants from Gaza on Israeli towns were only the excuse, not the reason for Operation Cast Lead. In June 2008, Egypt had brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement. Contrary to Israeli propaganda, this was a success: the average number of rockets fired monthly from Gaza dropped from 179 to three. Yet on 4 November Israel violated the ceasefire by launching a raid into Gaza, killing six Hamas fighters. When Hamas retaliated, Israel seized the renewed rocket attacks as the excuse for launching its insane offensive. If all Israel wanted was to protect its citizens from Qassam rockets, it only needed to observe the ceasefire.
While the war failed in its primary aim of regime change in Gaza, it left behind a trail of death, devastation, destruction and indescribable human suffering. Israel lost 13 people, three in so-called friendly fire. The Palestinian death toll was 1,387, including 773 civilians (115 women and 300 children), and more than 5,300 people were injured. The entire population of 1.5 million was left traumatized. Across the Gaza Strip, 3,530 homes were completely destroyed, 2,850 severely damaged and 11,000 suffered structural damage.
The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, tending to the needs of four million Palestinian refugees, stated that Gaza had been "bombed back, not to the Stone Age, but to the mud age"; its inhabitants reduced to building homes from mud after the fierce 22-day offensive.
War crimes were committed and possibly even crimes against humanity, documented in horrific detail in Judge Richard Goldstone's report for the UN human rights council. The report condemned both Israel and Hamas, but reserved its strongest criticism for Israel, accusing it of deliberately targeting and terrorizing civilians in Gaza. The British government did not take part in the vote on the report, sending a signal to the hawks in Israel that they can continue to disregard the laws of war. Gordon Brown's 2007 appointment as a patron of the Jewish National Fund UK presumably played a part in the adoption of this pusillanimous position.
One year on, the Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated areas on earth, continues to teeter on the verge of a humanitarian disaster. Israel's illegal blockade of Gaza, in force since June 2007, restricts the flow not only of arms but also food, fuel and medical supplies to well below the minimum necessary for normal, everyday life. Reconstruction work has hardly begun because of the Israeli ban on bringing in cement and other building materials to Gaza. Thousands of families still live in the ruins of their former homes. Hospitals, health facilities, schools, government buildings and mosques cannot be rebuilt. Nor can the basic infrastructure of the Gaza Strip, including Gaza City's sewage disposal plant. Today, 80% of Gaza's population remains dependent on food aid, 43% are unemployed, and 70% live on less than $1 a day.
Meanwhile, the so-called peace process cannot be revived because Israel refuses to freeze settlement expansion on the West Bank. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu recently agreed to a temporary freeze of 10 months, but this does not apply to the 3,000 pre-approved housing units to be built on the West Bank or to any part of Greater Jerusalem. It's like two men negotiating the division of a pizza while one continues to gobble it up.
Politically, the disjunction between words and deeds persists. Appeals to the Israeli government to lift or relax the blockade of Gaza were not backed up by effective pressure or the threat of sanctions. In fact, the only effective pressure was applied by the US on the Egyptian government – to seal its border with Gaza. Egypt has its own reason for complying: Hamas is ideologically allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic opposition to the Egyptian regime. The tunnels under the border separating Egypt from the Gaza Strip bring food and material relief to the people under siege. Yet, under US supervision and with the help of US army engineers, Egypt is building an 18-metre-deep underground steel wall to disrupt the tunnels and tighten the blockade.
The wall of shame, as Egyptians call it, will complete the transformation of Gaza into an open-air prison. It is the cruelest example of the concerted Israeli-Egyptian-US policy to isolate and prevent Hamas from leading the Palestinian struggle for self-determination. Hamas is habitually dismissed by its enemies as a purely terrorist organization. Yet no one can deny that it won a fair and free election in the West Bank as well as Gaza in January 2006. Moreover, once Hamas gained power through the ballot box, its leaders adopted a more pragmatic stand towards Israel than that enshrined in its charter, repeatedly expressing its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire. But there was no one to talk to on the Israeli side.
Israel adamantly refused to recognize the Hamas-led government. The US and the European Union followed, resorting to economic sanctions in a vain attempt to turn the people against their elected leaders. This cannot possibly bring security or stability because it is based on the denial of the most elementary human rights of the people of Gaza and the collective political rights of the Palestinian people. Through its special relationship with the US and its staunch support for Israel, the British government is implicated in this shameful policy.
At present the British public is preoccupied with Tony Blair and the war in Iraq. What is often overlooked is that this was only one aspect of a disastrous British policy towards the Middle East, inaugurated by Blair, and which shows no sign of changing under his successor.
One of Blair's arguments used to justify the Iraq war was that it would help bring justice to the long-suffering Palestinians. In his House of Commons speech on 18 March 2003, he promised that action against Iraq would form part of a broader engagement with the problems of the Middle East. He even declared that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute was as important to Middle East peace as removing Saddam Hussein from power.
Yet by focusing international attention on Iraq, the war further marginalized the Palestinian question. To be fair, Blair persuaded the Quartet (a group consisting of the US, the UN, the EU and Russia) to issue the Roadmap in 2003, which called for the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel by the end of 2005. But President George Bush was not genuinely committed and only adopted it under pressure from his allies. Ariel Sharon, Israel's hard-line prime minister at the time wrecked the plan by continuing to expand Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Could Blair really not have realized that for Bush the special relationship that counted was the one with Israel? Every time Bush had to choose between Blair and Sharon, he chose Sharon.
Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in August 2005 was not a contribution to the Roadmap but an attempt to unilaterally redraw the borders of Greater Israel and part of a plan to entrench the occupation there. Yet in return for the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, Sharon extracted from the US a written agreement to Israel's retention of the major settlement blocs on the West Bank. Bush's support amounted to an abrupt reversal of US policy since 1967, which regarded the settlements as illegal and as an obstacle to peace. Blair publicly endorsed the pact, probably to preserve a united Anglo-American front at any price. It was the most egregious British betrayal of the Palestinians since the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
In July 2006, at the height of the savage Israeli onslaught on Lebanon, Blair opposed a Security Council resolution for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire: he wanted to give Israel an opportunity to destroy Hezbollah, the radical Shiite religious-political movement. One year later, in June 2007, he resigned from office. That day he was appointed the Quartet's special envoy to Israel and the Palestinian Authority. His main sponsor was Bush and his blatant partisanship on behalf of Israel was probably considered a qualification. His appointment coincided with the collapse of the Palestinian national unity government, the reassertion of Fatah rule in the West Bank and the violent seizure of power by Hamas in Gaza.
Blair's main tasks were to mobilize international assistance for the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, to promote good governance and the rule of law in the Palestinian territories, and to further Palestinian economic development. His broader mission was "to promote an end to the conflict in conformity with the Roadmap".
On taking up his appointment, Blair said that: "The absolute priority is to try to give effect to what is now the consensus across the international community – that the only way of bringing stability and peace to the Middle East is a two-state solution." His appointment was received with great satisfaction by the Israelis and with utter dismay by the Arabs.
In his two and a half years as special envoy, Blair has achieved remarkably little. True, Blair helped persuade the Israelis to reduce the number of West Bank checkpoints from 630 to 590; he helped to create employment opportunities; and he may have contributed to a slight improvement in living standards in Palestine. But the Americans remained fixated on security rather than on economic development, and their policy remains skewed in favor of Israel. Barack Obama made a promising start as president by insisting on a complete settlement freeze on the West Bank, but was compelled to back down, dashing many of our high hopes.
One reason for Blair's disappointing results is that he wears too many hats and cannot, as he promised, be "someone who is on the ground spending 24/7 on the issue". Another reason is his "West Bank first" attitude – continuing the western policy of bolstering Fatah and propping up the ailing Palestinian Authority against Hamas. His lack of commitment to Gaza is all too evident. During the Gaza war, he did not call for a ceasefire. He has one standard for Israel and one for its victims. His attitude to Gaza is to wait for change rather than risk incurring the displeasure of his American and Israeli friends. As envoy, Blair has been inside Gaza only twice; once to visit a UN school just beyond the border and once to Gaza City. His project for sanitation in northern Gaza was never completed because he could not persuade the Israelis to allow in the last small load of pipes needed. A growing group of western politicians has publicly acknowledged the necessity of talking to Hamas if meaningful progress is to be achieved; Blair is not one of their number.
Blair has totally failed to fulfill the official role of the envoy "to promote an end to the conflict in conformity with the Roadmap", largely for reasons beyond his control. The most important of these is Israel's determination to perpetuate the isolation and the de-development of Gaza and deny the Palestinian people a small piece of land – 22% of Mandate-era Palestine, to be precise – on which to live in freedom and dignity. It is a policy that Baruch Kimmerling, the late Israeli sociologist, named "politicize" – the denial to the Palestinian people of any independent political existence in Palestine.
Partly, however, Blair's failure is due to his own personal limitations; his inability to grasp that the fundamental issue in this tragic conflict is not Israeli security but Palestinian national rights, and that concerted and sustained international pressure is required to compel Israel to recognize these rights. The core issue cannot be avoided: there can be no settlement of the conflict without an end to the Israeli occupation. There is international consensus for a two-state solution, but Israel rejects it and Blair has been unable or unwilling to use the Quartet to enforce it.
Blair's failure to stand up for Palestinian independence is precisely what endears him to the Israeli establishment. In February of last year, while the Palestinians in Gaza were still mourning their dead, Blair received the Dan David prize from Tel Aviv University as the "laureate for the present time dimension in the field of leadership". The citation praised him for his "exceptional intelligence and foresight, and demonstrated moral courage and leadership". The prize is worth $1m. I may be cynical, but I cannot help viewing this prize as absurd, given Blair's silent complicity in Israel's continuing crimes against the Palestinian people.
Avi Shlaim is professor of international relations at St Antony's College, Oxford, and the author of Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations (Verso, 2009). His fee for this article has been donated to Medical Aid for Palestine
Make sure you know the meaning of the underlined words in the article.
Answer the questions:
Judging by the content of the article can you name chronologically the development of Israeli-Palestinian affairs starting from the year 2000?
What’s the meaning of the Roadmap?
Why isn’t there any development of the conflict?
How can you describe the role of Tony Blair as an envoy for this conflict’s resolution?
Why do you think the world’s community unable to change the current state of the conflict development?
LISTENING COMPREHENSION 1
Multiple sites in the Indian city of Mumbai were attacked with bombs and gunfire in a coordinated terror attack that began on November 26, 2008, and lasted for three days. The attacks killed 179 people, including at least 22 foreigners. Over 300 injuries were reported.
On March 23, 2009, the trial began for Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, the only gunman charged in the attacks. Kasab was captured during the attacks. He appeared in court through closed circuit television rather than in person, because of security risks. Kasab did accept the government-provided lawyer, and indicated he had yet to receive any legal counsel. American FBI agents are among more than 100 people scheduled to testify in the case.
Indian authorities believe that the attackers entered Mumbai via the waterfront near the two hotels. A fishing trawler is being held for investigation.
The first attack occurred about 9:30 pm at the Cafe Leopold. As the rampage progressed, gunmen opened fire at several locations throughout the city, including a crowded train station and several luxury hotels. The terrorists were reported to be seeking victims with British or American passports.
179 people have died in the attacks, including 22 foreigners and six Americans.
Encounter specialist cop Vijay Salaskar and Additional Commissioner of Police Ashok Kamte were killed during the siege. Hemant Karkare, head of the Indian anti-terrorist squad, also died.
A Virginia man, Alan Scherr, and his 13-year-old daughter Naomi died during the Hotel Oberoi attack while attending a conference with fellow members of the Synchronicity Foundation. New York Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife Rivka Holtzberg were killed in the Nariman House attack after their two-year-old son had escaped with their Indian nanny.
LISTENING
Pre-Listening questions:
What is typical of terrorists’ attacks?
Can you describe a notion of terrorism in a single sentence?
Which information are you in possession of concerning terrorist attack in Mumbai?
While-Listening Questions:
According to John McLaughlin, what is main goal of a terrorist attack?
Are these terrorist groups connected with Al Qaida?
What does the correspondent of Financial Times, James, say about Oberoi Hotel?
How many dead businessmen bodies arrived to the St, George hospital? Are they Indian?
How many terrorists were there at Oberoi Hotel?
Are there any people left inside the Oberoi Hotel?
After-Listening Tasks
Find one-word equivalents to the following definitions. Use them in the sentences of your own:
someone who is taken as a prisoner by an enemy in order to force the other people involved to do what the enemy wants;
someone who does a job for a short time while the person who usually does that job is not there;
to show, point or make clear in another way;
to disagree with something that someone says;
a person who is opposed to the political system in their country and tries to change it using force, or a person who shows their disagreement with the ideas of people in authority or of society by behaving differently;
a person who is opposed to the political system in their country and tries to change it using force, or a person who shows their disagreement with the ideas of people in authority or of society by behaving differently;
a feeling of fear or anger between two groups of people who do not trust each other;
to move soldiers or equipment to a place where they can be used when they are needed;
to continue to annoy or upset someone over a period of time;
If two things are i___ s___, they reach the same or related stage at the same time.
Discussion:
Do you know how to act if you happened to be a hostage?
Which prevention operations fulfilled in our country in order to detect a prepared and unprepared terrorist attacks?
What do you think about those situations in which people lie about a terrorist attack due to different reasons (for example, just as a joke)?
What will be a psychological state of a hostage who survived after a terrorist attack? Is there any way to help them?
Do you know about any rules and rights of a terrorist attack witness? What are they?
LISTENING COMPREHENSION 2
Shri-Lanka Conflict
Supplementary materials
Further Information on “Refugees” for the Observers group
Every year millions of people have to leave their homes, and often their countries, because of persecution or war. These people become refugees. They nearly always have to move suddenly and leave most of their possessions behind. In the move families often get separated. Many refugees are never able to return to their homes.
Most refugees seek safety in a neighboring country, arriving in large numbers at a time (called a mass influx). Other refugees have to travel great distances to find safety and arrive at airports and seaports far from their native land.
In 1951, the United Nations adopted the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees to which more than half of the countries in the world have now signed up. There is a United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), which oversees the implementation of the convention and assists refugees, mainly with humanitarian aid.
According to the Convention, a refugee is someone who has left their country and is unable to return because of a real fear of being persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The main protection that a refugee must have is the right not to be returned to their country where they can risk persecution or death (right of non-refoulement). This also applies if a government wants to send a refugee to a third country from which the refugee might be sent home.
Governments have the duty to hear the claim of a refugee who wants to find safety (seek asylum) in their country. This principle applies to all states, whether or not they are party to the 1951 Convention. The 1951 Convention also says that refugees should be free from discrimination and should receive their full rights in the country where they go to be safe.
However, countries disagree about who a "genuine" refugee is; rich countries often say that refugees are not victims of oppression, but that they only want a better standard of living. They call them "economic migrants". Governments often argue that refugees' fears are exaggerated or untrue.
Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)
Not every person who has been forced to flee his/her home moves to another country; these are called internally displaced persons (IDPs).The IDPs are the fastest growing group of displaced persons in the world. In Europe the number of IDPs (3 252 300) is higher than the number of refugees (2 608 380), with major concentrations in Bosnia-Herzegovina and countries of the former Soviet Union.Unlike refugees, they are not protected by international law nor are they eligible to receive many types of aid. A widespread international debate has been launched on how best to help all IDPs and who should be responsible for their well-being. The UNHCR provides assistance to some groups of IDPs upon request of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Refugees' role card
Refugees' arguments and options
You should prepare your arguments and tactics; it is up to you to decide whether to put your argument as a group or whether each member, individually, takes responsibility for putting individual arguments.
You can use these arguments and any others you can think of:
Before the role-play, think about the following options:
You are to role-play a mixed group of refugees, so in your preparations each person should decide their identity: their age, gender, family relationships, profession, wealth, religion and any possessions they have with them. |
Immigration officers' role card
Immigration officers' arguments and options
You should prepare your arguments and tactics; it is up to you to decide whether to put your argument as a group or whether each member, individually, takes responsibility for putting individual arguments.
You can use these arguments and any others you can think of:
Before the role-play, think about the following options:
|
WATCHING A MOVIE ON THE ISSUE
Body of Lies
Good solid far-fetched multiplex
action-adventure fare in the Bondian mode,
with awe-inspiring technology and just enough
moral philosophizing laced through it to give
the mind a little something to chew on.
Jonathan F. Richards
Film.com
case officer - an operative who also serves as an official staffer of an intelligence service
asset – a spy
to debrief - to interrogate (as a pilot) usually upon return (as from a mission) in order to obtain useful information
off screen - out of sight of the motion picture or television viewer
surveillance operation - close watch kept over someone or something (as by a detective)
henchmen - a member of a gang
to botch - to foul up hopelessly
to divulge - to make known (as a confidence or secret)
subordinate - belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; secondary
consent - agreement as to action or opinion
to profess – (here) to declare in words
operative - a secret agent
covertly – covered over
to wage – to carry on
SUV – sport-utility vehicle - a rugged automotive vehicle similar to a station wagon but built on a light-truck chassis
to toss – to get rid of; to make uneasy
to take the bait – to take something (as food) used in luring especially to a hook or trap
computer geek - an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity
infiltrator – someone who entered or became established in gradually or unobtrusively usually for subversive purposes
to martyr - to put to death for adhering to a belief, faith, or profession
Roger Ferris - Roger Ferris is a CIA agent working undercover in the Middle East to bring down an Al Queda cell.
Quotes:
1) Roger Ferris: I can't do this anymore.
Ed Hoffman: Yes you can. Now you go home, get a few hours sleep and you call me when you're thinking straight.
Roger Ferris: Your know what, I AM thinking straight, alright, you're not, you can't 'cause you're a million fuckin' miles away.
2) Roger Ferris: We are your friends. We're here to watch you, we are here to protect *you*.
Nizar: [exasperated] You can't even protect yourselves.
3) Roger Ferris: I'm gonna need some really really low-level Al Qaeda contacts, alright? No one too extreme. Picture someone in between Osama and Oprah.
4) Roger Ferris: [having cell phone conversation] You know what? I've had it. I've had it. I can't do this anymore.
Ed Hoffman: Yes, you can. Now, you just get yourself a couple of hours' sleep. And you call me when you're thinking straight.
Roger Ferris: You know what? I am thinking straight. You're not, all right? You can't, because you're a million fucking miles away. I'm here, Ed, every day. And I see the unnecessary travesties of this war... that the rest of you backstabbing political fucking bureaucrats... only look at pictures of. So don't you dare tell me I am not thinking straight! This is not working, all right? It's not working, I'm out.
Ed Hoffman: Ferris? Ferris?
[phone disconnects]
Ed Hoffman: I should pack.
Ed Hoffman – a boss of US intelligence in Iraq in Langley, Virginia.
Quotes:
1) Ed Hoffman: Ain't nobody likes the Middle East, buddy. There's nothing here to like.
2) Ed Hoffman: See, what's changed is that our allegedly unsophisticated enemy has caughten on to the factually unsophisticated truth - we're an easy target. We are an *easy* target. And our world as we know it is a lot simpler to put to an end than you might think. We take our foot off the throat of this enemy for one minute, and our world ceases completely.
3) Hani: Urgency does not call for changing methods that work, for methods that do not work.
Ed Hoffman: Now who pays the bills around here? I would hate to have to have my president call your king, because it's just gonna be embarrassing for all of us.
Hani Samaan - head of the Jordanian General Intelligence Department (GID).
Quotes:
1) Hani: You Americans are incapable of secrets because of your democracy
2) Hani: This is unusual. Your Ed Hoffman would rather have less information than share what he has with me.
3) Hani: You know you can always tell who cares about you the most by who comes first to visit you in the hospital.
Aisha - Aisha is an Iranian-Jordanian nurse who lives in Amman. When Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio) is attacked by dogs, she tends to his wounds and gives him his anti-rabies injections. But in a story where everybody lies, Ferris soon becomes infatuated with the only person who seems to be genuine. Up to the point where he even considers leaving the CIA and staying in the Middle East because of her.
Quotes:
1) Aisha: A man is not his job.
Al-Saleem - a powerful terrorist leader of an Al-Qaeda-similar organization.
Bassam - Ferris's translator and partner in Samarra, Iraq.
Garland - a CIA computer whiz.
Omar Sadiki - an innocent architect used by Ferris as a pawn.
Mustafa Karami - Hani Salaam's mole in Al-Saleem's unit, a crucial element in the latter part of the plot.
UNDERSTANDING THE CONTENT
1) How does Hoffman explain the terrorists’ strategy to continue the war on the US and Europe? Why?
2) What does Ferris do in Jordan?
3) What has happened with Al-Saleem “safe-house” operation? What was Hoffman thinking about?
4) How does Hani persuade Karami to be a mole at the terrorist cell?
5) Why does Hani want Ferris to leave Jordan within 12 hours?
6) What’s the way Ferris planned to trace Al-Saleem? How did work out in the end?
7) What did actually happen via Ferris’s kidnapping?
PERSONAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONTENT/IMPRESSIONS/CONCLUSIONS
1) What’s the attitude towards the Muslim people in the region you live in? Do you think police force is supposed to double-check all non-Christian communities or it is a violation of the human privacy?
2) Did you get to know some new things on terrorism and on “war with terrorism”?
3) Do you think the movie depicts the situation in the Middle East as close to the reality as possible or it’s more fiction than depiction?
4) What’s your opinion about the content of the movie, about the artistic merit of the movie?
5) Can you guess about public’s opinion on the movie in the US? Was it popular? Why would famous actors decide to be shot in this movie? Can you guess about their reasons?
6) Give the outline of the characters.
7) After watching this movie which conclusion can you make for yourself? Was it worth watching? Why? Did you notice any weak points?
8) Is the whole situation possible for our country’s secret service? Why? Why not? Do you think some kind of a similar operation is done by Russia’s special agancies?
UNIT 4. WORLD ECONOMY
Do you know much about economics?
Tick the statements True or False, explain why you do think so:
Economics is only the study of money.
Economics is something the governments take care of.
An economist basically decides how money is spent.
STRATEGIC VOCABULRY
Economics –
Microeconomics –
Scarcity –
Free market economy –
Political economy –
Command economy –
Human economic activity –
Basic economics –
Factor of production –
Opportunity cost –
Primary sector –
Incentive –
Subsistence –
BASIC ECONOMICS QUIZ
1. Which statement about the factors of production is correct?
a. Capital is produced by factors of production.
c. Enterprise includes all natural resources.
d. Land is always freely available.
2. Which of the statements below best explains why drought is an economic problem?
a. Rainfall is a free resource.
b. Weather is part of the factor land.
c. The effects of drought involve the government.
d. Water is a scarce resource.
3. Which of the following is NOT a factor of production?
a. A farm
b. A $10 note
c. A shopkeeper
d. A printing machine
4. Commercial companies are reclaiming marshland to construct golf courses. What is the opportunity cost to society?
a. The natural habitat that is lost.
b. The profits of the companies.
c. The expense of installing drainage.
d. The value of the land cleared.
5. A charity sold tickets at $5 each. A ticket was picked and a prize of $100 was given to the owner of the ticket. A student bought a ticket but did not win. What is the opportunity cost to the student?
a. What could have been bought with $100
b. $5
c. What could have been bought with $5
d. $100
6. Which company operates in the primary sector?
a. Century City: Hong Kong holding company with property and hotel interests
b. Delta Gold: a rapidly expanding Australian gold and platinum mining company
c. Compass East Industries: a Thai ceiling fan manufacturer
d. First Bangkok City Bank: a medium-sized commercial Thai Bank
7. For anything to be used as money, it must be what?
a. legal tender
b. fixed in value
c. readily acceptable
d. in fixed supply
8. The prices of goods remain fixed in the shops of a planned economy, yet in the shops of a neighboring market economy they fluctuate widely. What is the most likely reason for the difference between the two economies is that, in the market economy?
a. there is higher unemployment
b. producers are more efficient
c. buyers and sellers determine prices
d. profits are lower
9. What is more likely to be found in a free market economy than in a planned economy?
a. an even distribution of income
b. an incentive to innovate
c. a wide range of public goods
d. a high unemployment rate
10. The table shows government expenditure as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product for four countries.
Country expenditure:
W 40%
X 36%
Y 50%
Z 33%
Which type of economy exists in these countries?
a. Planned
b. Subsistence
c. Pure market
d. Mixed
BASIC WORLD ECONOMY
Economics is not a word that many students understand. To put it simply, economics is the study of how goods and services get produced (made) and how they are divided up and given to people. By goods and services, economists mean anything that can be bought and sold. Economists study how the things people need and want are made and brought to them. They also study how people and countries choose the things they buy from the many things they want. Economists also study the economic relations between nations.
Countries depend on other nations for goods and services. Economists study these relationships. They look for ways to increase trade and help poor countries improve their economic condition. Nations trade with each other because no nation has all the things it needs for its population. Nations are afraid to produce only the things they can naturally produce well. This is because they do not want to be dependent on other countries in case of war with the other countries. Then trade would be cut off.
Nations restrict trade through tariffs and quotas. Tariffs are taxes placed on goods one nation trades with another. Quotas are limits put on the number of items allowed into a country. Some nations engage in free trade. Free trade is trade with no taxes or tariffs.
Trade within a country is only with one type of money, but if you trade with other countries, you will have to use different types of money. When this happens, businesses use an international banking system to exchange the money. If you are paid in foreign money, it is called a foreign bill of exchange. You then have to take the money to a bank or money exchange dealer and convert the money into what you need.
Until the 1970’s, countries decided what their money was worth. Countries would lower the value of their money to increase foreign sales. In the early 1970’s, some nations adopted a system called a floating exchange. Under this system, a nation’s money value is based on demand for it.
Nations keep records of their financial dealings with other countries. If a country pays out more money than it receives, it has a deficit. If it receives more than it spends, it has a surplus. The United States suffers from huge trade deficits today because it has been unable to sell as much as it needs to buy abroad.
Three fourths of the world’s population live in developing countries. Africa, Asia and Latin America have some of the worst areas of poverty. Developing countries are poor, and the people barely have enough to eat. Many live in shacks and have very few possessions. They are usually farmers but do not have good equipment for farming. People in these countries lack many of the resources needed for a comfortable life. They generally use what they have just to survive.
Wealthier nations give to poor countries to help them improve their economies. For example, the United States gives billions of dollars to needy nations in the form of loans and gifts. They also offer technical assistance to help train and educate other people. Some nations have experienced fast economic growth through their own efforts. The economies of Brazil, South Korea, Mexico and Singapore are some of the fastest growing economies in the world.
READING COMPREHENSION 1
Energy minister will hold summit to calm rising fears over peak oil
The Guardian March, 21 2010
Lord Hunt calls UK industrialists together to discuss government response to any early onset of decline in global oil production
Lord Hunt, the energy minister, is to meet industrialists in London tomorrow in a bid to calm mounting fears about the disruption that could follow a sudden shortage of oil supplies.
In a significant policy shift, the government has agreed to undertake more work on whether the UK needs to take action to avoid the massive dislocation that could be caused by the early onset of “peak oil” – the point that marks the start of terminal decline in global oil production.
Jeremy Leggett, the executive chairman of the renewable power company Solar Century and a leading figure in the UK industry taskforce on peak oil and energy security, said the meeting, to be held at the Energy Institute, showed a welcome new sense of urgency.
“Government has gone from the BP position – ‘40 years of supply left, the price mechanism works, no need to worry’ – to ‘crikey’,” he said. “BP and others are telling us that, but you lot, Virgin, Scottish and Southern, and others are telling us something completely different. We do not know who to believe. Let’s do a proper risk assessment with industry,” he said.
The meeting is expected to include executives from the taskforce members including Virgin, Arup, Stagecoach, Scottish and Southern Energy, and Solar Century as well as other industrialists.
The decision to hold the talks came after the UK industry taskforce on peak oil and energy security last month issued a provocative report, The Oil Crunch: a Wake-up Call for the UK Economy, in which it warned of the dangers of complacency.
Sir Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin Group, whose rail, airline and travel companies are sensitive to energy prices, warned then that the coming crisis could surpass the credit crunch. “The next five years will see us face another crunch: the oil crunch. This time, we do have the chance to prepare. The challenge is to use that time well,” he said.
The government had previously played down the risks arising from peak oil after the Wicks review in the summer in effect dismissed the idea that global demand for oil could soon outstrip supply.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change confirmed last night that Hunt and a range of energy-policy civil servants would be holding “private and behind-doors” talks at the Energy Institute. But she played down the significance of the session, saying the government had always taken supply issues seriously and met different parts of industry on a regular basis. “We do this all the time; it is just a normal stakeholder meeting,” she insisted, adding that there was no “marked” change in ministerial policy.
The issue of peak oil arose last November when whistleblowers inside the International Energy Agency alleged the problem had been deliberately downplayed over a long period. BP and other oil companies insist that there is little danger of the world running out of oil because new areas such as Brazil, and more recently Uganda, are always opening up to development. BP chief executive, Tony Hayward, believes demand will fall as prices move up., pushing back any major peak-oil dislocation.
But booming demand in China, India and the Middle East has pushed up the price of crude to more than $80 a barrel and UK petrol prices are close to record levels.
Amrita Sen, an oil analyst at Barclays Capital, believes the price of crude could pass $100 this year and reach nearly $140 by 2015. Francisco Blanch, of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, has speculated it could hit $150 within four years.
Leggett says all these scenarios could be much too optimistic. He is convinced that Britain must prepare as quickly as possible for a situation when oil becomes so expensive that international trade is hampered and lobalization breaks down.
Peak oil used to be the preoccupation of a small minority, but a parliamentary group has been set up to follow the issue and an increasing number of industrialists have begun to worry about it.
Ian Marchant, Scottish and Southern Energy’s chief executive, is one who now believes global demand for oil is on the brink of outstripping the ability to produce it. At the launch of the Oil Crunch report, he said: “The west has been far too profligate in its use of oil and the price is going to say: stop it now and start using your oil as a scarce commodity.”
READING COMPREHENSION 2
Crashes are generally said to be salutary reminders of the old wisdom that markets can fall as well as rise. Market commentators habitually berate investors for forgetting this “lesson” later on. But the lesson many people learnt from 1987 is not, in truth, that markets can fall. It is rather that the consequences of a crash do not need to be calamitous, and will probably be only temporary. As the folk memory of 1987 displaces the folk memory of 1929, the popular fear of shares seems therefore to be fading.
The trouble is that the apparent lesson of 1987 – that crashes can be free of pain – is not the only thing that has added to equities’ luster in the decade. That lesson has absorbed at the same time as two other big changed have helped boost demand.
One change is demographic: the large bulge in the number of affluent people in the rich world who are now between the ages of 40 and 60, and who possess a vast pool of personal savings looking for a profitable home. In the past decade, millions of people who had never before done so have invested in the stock market through mutual funds and other instruments, instead of in cash or bonds, and have profited mightily from their decision. The other change is globalization, and the opportunity this has given to the rich world’s savers to spread their risk and increase their returns by investing in the fast-growing economies of Latin America, Asia and Eastern Europe. There could hardly be a happier coincidence. Or could there be?
One reason to feel less sanguine about this week’s anniversary is the growing misunderstanding of the real benefits of globalization. Instead of being seen as an opportunity to diversify investment and therefore to spread risk, globalization has lately become muddled up with the so-called “new paradigm” in America – the seductive doctrine, verging on clap-trap, that says that inflation is dead, that old economic laws have been repealed and that America’s stock markets can therefore keep on growing indefinitely at their present rate. On this view, emerging markets are being seen less as attractive investment opportunities, more as a reason to believe that the globalization of labour and product markets can forever stop workers and firms from raising wages and prices.
It is hardly surprising that emerging markets have recently lost some of their appeal as means of diversifying risk. Since their peak in 1993, when their share prices jumped by an average of 75%, bad news has marched through most of these new markets. In 1994-95 the collapse of the Mexican peso lowered returns from most of the Latin America, and recent months have toppled one currency after another in East Asia. Several of Eastern Europe’s currencies now look vulnerable too. As a group, over the past dozen years, emerging stock markets have under-performed Wall Street. In principle, this does invalidate the case for investing in these markets in order to reduce overall risk. In practice, it is yet another reason why, having digested what they think is the lesson from a decade ago, investors are now in grave danger of driving Wall Street far too high.
For a second, bigger, reason to worry is that the apparent lesson of 1987 is wrong: crashes are hardly ever benign. It is true that the crash of 1987 did little lasting damage. But a stock market slump in Japan in 1990 knocked the stuffing out of its banks and led to a period of stagnation from which it has still to emerge. The crash of 1987 was relatively painless because, unlike the Bank of Japan, the American Fed moved quickly to reassure banks and stave off a slump in investment and demand by easing monetary policy.
At today’s valuations a similar drop in New York would destroy some $2 trillion of wealth. There is no guarantee, if this happened that the Fed would be able to repeat its damage-averting trick in the present looser monetary conditions without setting fire to inflation. In that case, history would repeat itself as tragedy, and plummeting investors would find no helpful coil of elastic wrapped around their feet.
Ex. 1. 1) What was the striking thing about the crash of 1987?
2) What are crashes generally considered to be?
3) Why are new markets not so appealing?
4) Why was the crash of 1987 relatively painless?
Ex. 2. Find the following expressions in the text and write them out. Give their definitions.
Stock market crash; interest rate; to berate somebody for…, to boost demand; a vast pool of personal savings; mutual; fund; in cash or bonds; to profit from; to increase smb’s returns; to feel less sanguine; to diversify risk; to lower returns; to topple one currency after another; to invalidate the case; to knock the stuffing out of its banks; to reassure banks; to present looser monetary conditions.
Ex. 3. Complete the sentences:
1) trouble / apparent lesson / thing / equities / lustres / decade.
2) change / globalization / opportunity / savers / risk / returns / investing / fast growing economies.
3) reason / sanguine / anniversary / misunderstanding / benefits / globalization.
4) emerging markets / appeal / diversifying risk.
5) invalidate / investing / markets / reduce risk.
6) crash of 1987 / painless / American Fed / reassure banks / stave off / easing monetary policy
7) valuations / drop / destroy / wealth.
8) Crashes / salutary reminders / wisdom / markets / fall / rise.
Ex. 4. Learn the following word combinations with financial terms:
currency – 1)…, 2)… .
currency of account - …
currency of bill - …
agreement currency - …
common currency - …
convertible currency - …
counterfeit currency - …
decimal currency - …
forced paper currency - …
hand-to-hand currency - …
land based currency - …
managed currency - …
ration currency - …
Translate into Russian:
Many slang words have short currency. 2. The rumour soon gained currency. 3. Do not give currency to idle gossip.
Shares –
shares advanced from … to …
shares are down –
shares are stationary –
Shares of labour –
shares without par value –
share of stock –
oil share –
incentive share –
transferable shares –
wage share –
Translate the following into Russian:
She went shares with me in the business. 2. Let me go shares with you in the taxi fare. 3. What share did you have in their success? 4. You must take the share of the blame. 5. You are not taking much share in the conversation. 6. £1 shares are now worth £1.75. 7. The Financial Times shares index went down five points yesterday. 8. He would share his lost pound with me. 9. He hated having to share the hotel bedroom with a stranger. 10. I will share in the cost with you. 11. She shared (in) my troubles.
Match the definition in the left column with the term in the right:
A |
B |
a number used to show how prices have fluctuated… b owner of business c document proving ownership of shares d one on which a fixed dividend is guaranteed before payments are made on others e on which dividends are paid according to profits after payment on preference shares |
1. share certificate 2. share preference 3. share holder 4. share index 5. ordinary share |