2007年VOA标准英语-Human Rights Advocates Agree on Principles, Dis

（单词翻译）

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.