eue – Übersetzung – Keybot-Wörterbuch

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Français English Spacer Help
Ausgangssprachen Zielsprachen
Keybot 5 Ergebnisse  www.dfait.gc.ca  Seite 5
  Information culturelle ...  
Résumés de presse : http ://pressdigest.phoenixuniversal.com; Centre d’information Walta : www.waltainfo.com/; Afrique en direct : www.africaonline.com/; Renseignements sur l’Afrique : www.africaintelligence.com/;Réseau d’information au service du développement : www.devinet.org/; Services d’urgence d’Éthiopie : www.telecon.net.et/~undp-eue/; Réseau FEWS : www.fews.net/; Réseau d’information régional intégré des Nations unies : www.irinnews.org/; FAO : www.fao.org/; Programme alimentaire mondial : www.wfp.org/.
Press Digest: http://pressdigest.phoenixuniversal.com; Walta Information Center: www.waltainfo.com/; Africa Online: www.africaonline.com/; Africa Intelligence: www.africaintelligence.com/; Development Information Network: www.devinet.org/; Emergencies Unit for Ethiopia: www.telecon.net.et/~undp-eue/; FEWS NET: www.fews.net/; UN Integrated Regional Information Network: www.irinnews.org/; Food and Agriculture Organization: www.fao.org/; World Food Programme: www.wfp.org/.
  Information culturelle ...  
Ils pourraient avancer pour preuve l’influence qu’a eue l’ancien régime soviétique en créant une sorte de société sans argent, dans laquelle les gens devaient échanger des biens et des services pour survivre; dans ce genre de système, plus vous connaissiez de personnes, plus « riche » vous deveniez grâce à votre pouvoir d’acquérir des biens de consommation très convoités.
Some people might argue that the kind of merging of personal with the work life is unprofessional, perhaps even corrupt. These people would point to the influence of the old Soviet system which created a sort of cashless society in which one had to barter goods and services; in this kind of system, the more people you knew, the more "rich" you were in your ability to acquire coveted consumer goods.
  Trouver sa place dans l...  
Pensez à cette observation de Jeff Immelt lors d’une entrevue que j’ai eue récemment avec lui : « Je suis arrivé à GE en 1982. Au cours des 20 premières années… le consommateur américain était le véritable moteur de l’économie mondiale. Or, cela n’était que partiellement vrai, n’est-ce pas? Cette situation était en partie attribuable au crédit auquel il n’aurait probablement pas dû avoir accès, et les maisons qui étaient construites n’auraient probablement pas dû l’être. Mais c’était là la réalité… Bien sûr, le consommateur américain sera toujours important. Mais pour les 25 prochaines années, il ne sera probablement pas le moteur de l’économie mondiale. Ce sera le milliard de gens qui rejoignent la classe moyenne en Asie, ce sera ce que les pays riches en ressources feront avec leur nouvelle richesse… Ce sont les règles du jeu. »
Remember Charlie Wilson’s maligned comment that what was good for General Motors was good for America? For an increasing number of the world’s most successful businesses, that just isn’t true anymore. The fortunes of big, international companies with Canadian roots like RIM or my own Thomson Reuters are only loosely tied to those of the country as a whole. Even America, which was once vast enough to be the main market for its national champions is receding in importance for some of its iconic firms. Consider Jeff Immelt’s observation when I recently interviewed him: “I came to GE in 1982. For the first twenty years... the American consumer was the definitive driver of the global economy. Now, part of that was false, right? Part of it was credit that they probably shouldn’t have had and houses were built that probably shouldn’t have been built. But that was the fact... So, now, well, the American consumer will always be important. But for the next 25 years it’s probably not going to be the engine of global growth. It’s going to be the billion people joining the middle class in Asia, it is going to be what resource-rich countries do with their newfound wealth... That’s the game.”
  La menace des idées gén...  
Je me rappelle une conversation que j’ai eue il y a quelque temps avec une personne bien renseignée à Ottawa (qui ne travaille pas aux Affaires étrangères) et dont je préserverai l’anonymat. Je lui ai dit que dans mes loisirs j’essayais de voir si quelqu’un au gouvernement s’était livré à une sérieuse analyse politique de la situation en Afghanistan avant que nous décidions d’y engager nos forces.
I am reminded of a conversation I had some time ago with a well-informed person in Ottawa (not in Foreign Affairs) who shall remain nameless. I said to him that I was making a hobby of trying to find out whether anyone in government had done a serious policy-analysis of the problem in Afghanistan before we decided to commit our forces. I knew, of course, that important diplomatic interests were at stake. A significant Canadian deployment would strengthen our position in NATO. It could repair some serious damage in Washington. More specifically, our political leadership, sustained by apparatchiks in the PMO, may have thought it a tolerably acceptable alternative to action on the ground in Iraq, a view that might conceivably have been shared, albeit with a measure of disappointment, in Washington. Broadly speaking, in short, our like-minded friends were all for it, and it was in our interest to coalesce with like-minded friends. But the real question, it seemed to me, was whether the job itself was do-able, and for commentary on that, a comprehensive analysis of conditions in the field would seem to have been required. Obviously we could import, and then accept, the assessments of others if we found them persuasive. On complex matters of this sort, in any case, nothing is ever certain. But uncertainty is a matter of degree. Did we try as best we could to gauge the hazards in advance? Did we know what we were getting into?