英検1級英作文・面接：政治
2021年第1回の英検1級受験時に、英作文・面接対策として自分が書き溜めた原稿を公開しています。
Grammarlyに頼りつつ書いたもので、完全に独学で勉強していたため、不自然な表現や文法的に間違った英文が含まれている可能性もありますので、ご注意ご了承ください。
実績としては、本番は英作文・面接どちらもこのブログで公開している原稿から、使える部分を流用したような格好で解答を行いました。
得点もそれぞれ英作文が745/850で9割近い点数が獲れ, 面接は615/850と合格ギリギリの水準ですが、2分スピーチセクションであまりの緊張から10秒近く言葉が出てこなかった所から原稿の内容を駆使した決死の、華麗なる逆転劇があってのものですので、内容としてはまあ悪くない水準にあると思います。
そう信じています。
英検1級合格を目指す皆様に、こちらの原稿が少しでもお役に立てば幸いです。
-----------------------------------------------
Q.
What are the obstacles to nuclear disarmament?
A.
Although nuclear weapons are an obstacle to the realization of true world peace, there are still opinions that advocate their necessity. The first one comes from the theory of nuclear deterrence. The idea that the presence of armaments and nuclear weapons will maintain a balance in the relationship between countries is a hindrance to the movement toward disarmament.
Secondly, in some countries, the pressure of the military industry may also be a major reason for the slow progress of disarmament. From the perspective of the military industry, which has benefited from the massive national military budget so far, any move toward disarmament would threaten its economic status, and as a result, the government would lose many supporters of the industry and would be unable to move aggressively for disarmament.
Q.
Should all nations have the right to develop nuclear weapons?
A.
I am totally against it. We should not allow more countries to manufacture and possess nuclear weapons. In the first place, the fact that even one country possesses weapons that are too evil for humans to handle is a mistake, and we need to move toward disarmament to correct that mistake. There are not many economically comfortable countries in the world today, and it is ridiculous to spend money on weapons that we don’t even use.
Q.
Should the UN Security Council be expanded?
A.
I do not think there is a necessity to push for the expansion of the UNSC. I have to admit that I don’t have deep knowledge about the background and situation of the UNSC, so my answer will be abstract, though.
In general, it is counter-productive for an organization to become enlarged in terms of speed of decision-making. The UN Security Council needs resolutions for time-sensitive cases such as humanitarian aid and conflict resolution, so unnecessary expansion should be avoided.
If more countries have veto power, there is even a danger that some issues will not be resolved forever. This may be an extreme example, but we have to consider the possibility that the interests of each country will become more complicated, making decision-making an impossible task for the UN in the first place.
Q.
Do you think the UN activities have been successful?
A.
I haven’t followed the details of the activities and their results, but overall, I don’t think it is enough to call it a success. 10% of the world’s population, over 700 million people, still suffer from absolute poverty, and military conflicts and terrorism remain deeply rooted in the world. There are still many people who suffer from the depletion of water and food for daily life, and even in developed countries, there are countries like Japan where the social status of women is inadequate, so I think there are still many issues that the United Nations should take the initiative to address.
Q. What are the root causes of terrorism?
A. I believe that there are two root causes of terrorism, and one is economic disparity. The gap of income between developing and developed countries’ people have been widening so far. The economic disparity and dissatisfaction with the situation actually motive destitute people to wage acts of terrorism.
The second is more deep-seated and difficult to resolve, and I think it lies in religion. The religious creeds are too deep-rooted to each people and culture to compromise and solve problems with friendly dialogue. The gap of opinions and maxims eventually makes violent conflicts including terrorism unavoidable.
Q. Is world peace a remote possibility?
A. World peace is one of ideals that all human beings, even if unconsciously, desire and need.
However, I can not agree with the idea that world peace is achievable.
Firstly, the differences in religious views impede peaceful coexistence. The religious creeds are too deep-rooted to each people and culture to compromise and solve problems with friendly dialogue. The gap of opinions and maxims eventually makes military conflicts unavoidable.
Secondly, disgruntled feelings from poverty incite people to violent actions. With the rapid economic growth in developed countries, the gap of income between developing and developed countries’ people have been widening so far. The economic disparity and dissatisfaction with the situation actually motive destitute people to wage acts of terrorism.
In conclusion, for these two reasons, differences in the religious brief, and economic inequality, I think that world peace is a remote possibility.
Q.
Is there such a thing as a justifiable war?
Can violence ever be justified in support of a political cause?
A.
It may be idealistic, but I think that the idea that there is a justifiable war or justifiable violence is inappropriate. When conflicts occur in political ideology, religious creeds, and stuff like that, both sides strongly believe in their own legitimacy, and in such a situation, violence should be more likely to lead to a negative cycle of retaliation. I personally think that we need to recognize that violence is not a legitimate means. It might be a real last option to protect yourself but anytime is not justifiable at 100%.
