【導讀】1121短期投資-股票short-terminvestments-stock. 1122短期投資-短期票券short-terminvestments-short-termnotesandbills. 1123短期投資-政府債券short-terminvestments-governmentbonds. 1137應收票據-關系人notesreceivable-relatedparties. 1147應收帳款-關系人accountsreceivable-relatedparties. 1188其它應收款-其它otherreceivables-other. 1268其它預付款項otherprepayments. 128~129其它流動資產othercurrentassets. 1293業(yè)主(股東)往來owners'currentaccount. 13基金及長期投資fundsandlong-terminvestments. 1313意外損失準備基金contingencyfund. 1323長期不動產投資long-termrealestatein-vestments

　　

【正文】 Foreign investment plays an essential role in your growth, while your holdings of foreign currencies – and your management of your own currency – are ing to play a vital part in the international moary system. This means that you have a stake in the development and prosperity of the wider world. And your security, too, depends on international peace and stability. Your government shows that it understands this, by the role that it plays in the United Nations, and elsewhere. And increasingly, Chinese citizens are called on to take risks, and make sacrifices, in the interests of global security. It was impressive to see, in our newspapers the other day, pictures of Chinese policemen in blue helmets preparing to join the United Nations mission in Haiti – an island buffeted by both human and meteorological storms, which is literally on the far side of the world from here. So I am here, in part, to express the world39。s gratitude. Clearly you in China have understood, as your saying goes, that we all “share the same breath”. Human misery knows no frontiers, and nor should human solidarity. Indeed, solidarity was one of the fundamental values solemnly reaffirmed, four years ago, by the political leaders from all over the world who met at United Nations Headquarters, and issued the Millennium Declaration. They declared that “global challenges must be managed in a way that distributes the costs and burdens fairly... Those who suffer or who benefit least deserve help from those who benefit most.” They promised to “spar e no effort” to free more than one billion of their fellow men, women and children from extreme poverty, and to make the right to development a reality for all. And they set themselves precise benchmarks by which their success in keeping these promises could be measured, in the year 2020. Those benchmarks have e to be known as the Millennium Development Goals, or “MDGs”. First among them is the pledge to reduce by half the proportion of people in the world living on an ine of less than one dollar a day. Others include the pledge to halt, and begin to reverse, the spread of HIV/AIDS。 and the pledge to integrate the principles of sustainable development into every country39。s policies and programmes, so that our children and grandchildren will not face the threat of living on a pla irredeemably spoilt by human activities, or whose resources are not sufficient for their needs. Will the world reach these goals by 2020? It depends, in great part, on China. Your population is so large, and your economy is growing so rapidly, that your impact on all global statistics is enormous. It is theoretically possible that we might succeed in halving the proportion of very poor people in the world by 2020, simply because China had succeeded in lifting almost all its people out of that category, even if most countries in Africa still had the same proportion. Conversely, many countries might, by 2020, have made great strides in bating HIV/AIDS, or adopting sustainable models of development. But if China had failed to do those things, there would still be terrible consequences for humanity. However, that need not be the path taken, either in this country or in the rest of the world. Both for your national interests and in the interest of the world as a whole, you have a great responsibility to look after your people, and your natural environment. But your responsibility does not end there. The eighth and last Millennium Development Goal is a global partnership for development. This means that developing countries must not be left to develop on their own. They need the help of the richer and more powerful countries – through the removal of unfair trade barriers and subsidised petition。 through the elimination of the debts which oblige so many poor countries to spend more on repaying and servicing their creditors than they can on the social needs of their own people。 and through more generous official development aid – which the rich countries have repeatedly promised to provide. In practical terms, global partnership means that every country where there is extreme poverty is entitled to expect help in fing and pursuing a national strategy to achieve the MDGs by 2020. For the poorest countries, most of which are in Africa, this will be of decisive importance. Without it, they will not reach the Goals. With it, they are in with a real chance. That places a big responsibility on the rich countries – and it is one that China shares. I know you are used to thinking of your country as a developing one, and so it is – probably the fastest developing country the world has ever seen. But the more successfully it develops, the more it too will be expected to show solidarity with smaller and poorer countries that still need a helping hand. By the same token, as China39。s geopolitical weight grows, so does its share of responsibility for world security. As well as global solidarity, the Millennium Declaration expressed a shared vision of collective security, rooted in the United Nations Charter. Yet the events of the past two years have called that consensus in question. Some have doubted whether Article 51 of the Charter, which reaffirms “the inherent right of selfdefence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”, is still sufficient in an age when an armed attack may e without warning, from a clandestine terrorist group, perhaps armed with weapons of mass destruction. They have argued that force must sometimes be used preventively, and that they must be free to decide when their national security requires it. Others have replied that that doctrine is in itself a grave threat to international peace and security – since it might imply