-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
By Mike O'Sullivan
Los Angeles
21 March 2007
Most nations subscribe1 to shared concepts of human rights, such as the right to free speech and free practice of religion, and the right to shape the decisions of government. But as Mike O'Sullivan reports, discussions on human rights can also be divisive.
When private groups and government agencies issue reports on human rights, they point to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a global standard. Adopted by the United Nations in 1948 following the horrors of World War II, the document speaks of the inherent dignity and equal rights of all members of the human family. The declaration lists essential rights in 30 sections or articles, which deal with such matters as the right to choose one's job, the right to a fair public hearing in the face of criminal charges, and the right to an education.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other private organizations publish annual reviews, often pointing to the same egregious2 abusers of human rights, such as North Korea. The U.S. State Department issues its own report, usually concurring3 on key points.
Larry Cox
Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA, says precepts4 of human rights are clear and widely agreed upon.
"All members of the United Nations have agreed in principle to live up to the standards of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and there have been treaties that spell out in great detail what those obligations are," said Larry Cox. "So yes, virtually all governments have agreed that they should live up to these standards. The problem, of course, is that most governments do not."
He says the offenders5 today include the United States. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have condemned7 some aspects of the U.S. war on terrorism, including the detention8 of people designated enemy combatants without access to civilian9 courts. The groups also point to Abu Ghraib scandal, and say the abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody10 in Iraq suggested a pattern of mistreatment and cruelty.
The Bush administration responded angrily to the charges, saying the United States is at war, that those in detention are treated humanely11, and that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were isolated12.
Joshua Muravchik
Conservative analyst13 Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute believes the two human rights organizations have a political bias14.
"I think that groups like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch both have kind of a leftish ideological15 slant16 that puts a twist on some of their reporting, and that makes them sometimes hypercritical of the U.S., and also makes them very biased17 against Israel," said Joshua Muravchik.
The two groups criticized Israel's invasion of Lebanon last year, saying Israel indiscriminately attacked Lebanese civilians18 and so committed war crimes. Muravchik says the war was sparked by the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, and that the denunciations are selective, based on limited evidence and questionable19 testimony20.
In fact, the two human rights organizations also criticized Hezbollah, which they said committed war crimes by targeting Israeli civilians. Amnesty's Larry Cox says his organization applies the same standards from country to country. He acknowledges that assessing the facts is difficult.
"It is also very difficult because, or course, when a government is attacked or criticized, its first defense21 is to say that you are biased," he said. "So in the old days when we used to attack the Soviet22 Union for its violations23 of human rights, we were often told that we were lackeys24 of capitalists. And in the same week, we might be told that we were communists by right-wing governments. And that still happens."
Joshua Muravchik says, in his opinion, terrorists pose the biggest threat to human rights today, and that in a democracy, these issues can be debated.
Muravchik and Cox note there are areas of agreement across the ideological spectrum25, and that human rights advocates of all political stripes condemn6 the ethnic26 killings27 in Darfur, repression28 in North Korea and Burma, and human rights abuses in a number of other countries.
1 subscribe | |
vi.(to)订阅,订购;同意;vt.捐助,赞助 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 egregious | |
adj.非常的,过分的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 concurring | |
同时发生的,并发的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 precepts | |
n.规诫,戒律,箴言( precept的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 offenders | |
n.冒犯者( offender的名词复数 );犯规者;罪犯;妨害…的人(或事物) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 condemn | |
vt.谴责,指责;宣判(罪犯),判刑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 condemned | |
adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 detention | |
n.滞留,停留;拘留,扣留;(教育)留下 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 civilian | |
adj.平民的,民用的,民众的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 custody | |
n.监护,照看,羁押,拘留 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 humanely | |
adv.仁慈地;人道地;富人情地;慈悲地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 isolated | |
adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 analyst | |
n.分析家,化验员;心理分析学家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 bias | |
n.偏见,偏心,偏袒;vt.使有偏见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 ideological | |
a.意识形态的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 slant | |
v.倾斜,倾向性地编写或报道;n.斜面,倾向 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 biased | |
a.有偏见的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 civilians | |
平民,百姓( civilian的名词复数 ); 老百姓 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 questionable | |
adj.可疑的,有问题的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 testimony | |
n.证词;见证,证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 defense | |
n.防御,保卫;[pl.]防务工事;辩护,答辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 Soviet | |
adj.苏联的,苏维埃的;n.苏维埃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 violations | |
违反( violation的名词复数 ); 冒犯; 违反(行为、事例); 强奸 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 lackeys | |
n.听差( lackey的名词复数 );男仆(通常穿制服);卑躬屈膝的人;被待为奴仆的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 spectrum | |
n.谱,光谱,频谱;范围,幅度,系列 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 ethnic | |
adj.人种的,种族的,异教徒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 killings | |
谋杀( killing的名词复数 ); 突然发大财,暴发 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 repression | |
n.镇压,抑制,抑压 | |
参考例句: |
|
|