An update to the story of acid attacks against Afghan schoolgirls:

The police in Kandahar have arrested 10 Taliban militants they said were involved in an attack earlier this month on a group of Afghan schoolgirls whose faces were doused with acid, officials in Kandahar said Tuesday.

The officials said that the militants, who were Afghan citizens, had confessed to their involvement in the attack on the schoolgirls and their teachers on Nov. 12 and that a high-ranking member of the Taliban had paid the militants 100,000 Pakistani rupees for each of the girls they managed to burn. [emphasis added]

The girls were assaulted Nov. 12 by two men on a motorcycle who were apparently irate that the girls dared to attend high school. The men drove up beside them and splashed their faces with what appeared to be battery acid.

Earlier today, I posted about the savage stoning of 13-year-old rape victim Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, saying that "it's difficult not to become disillusioned with the grim reality that this kind of brutality continues across the globe and that it's more often women and children who bear the brunt of it."

Speaking of women and children bearing the brunt of violence, last week we heard about acid attacks on Afghan schoolgirls:

No students showed up at Mirwais Mena girls' school in the Taliban's spiritual birthplace the morning after it happened.

A day earlier, men on motorcycles attacked 15 girls and teachers with acid. The men squirted the acid from water bottles onto three groups of students and teachers walking to school Wednesday, principal Mehmood Qaderi said. Some of the girls have burns only on their school uniforms but others will have scars on their faces. One teenager still cannot open her eyes after being hit in the face with acid.

"Today the school is open, but there are no girls," Qaderi said Thursday. "Yesterday, all of the classes were full." His school has 1,500 students.

To get a visceral sense of what these women and girls endure, watch this clip:

I want to go back to Vanessa's post about the stoning of 13-year-old rape victim Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow:

It doesn't get worse than this. Last week, 13-year old Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was stoned to death in Somalia by insurgents because she was raped. Reports indicate that was raped by three men while traveling by foot to visit her grandmother in conflict capital, Mogadishu. When she went to the authorities to report the crime, they accused her of adultery and sentenced her to death. Aisha was forced into a hole in a stadium of 1,000 onlookers as 50 men buried her up to the neck and cast stones at her until she died. When some of the people at the stadium tried to save her, militia opened fire on the crowd, killing a boy who was a bystander.

More from the BBC:

A witness who spoke to the BBC's Today programme said she had been crying and had to be forced into a hole before the stoning, reported to have taken place in a football stadium. ... She said: 'I'm not going, I'm not going. Don't kill me, don't kill me.' "A few minutes later more than 50 men tried to stone her." The witness said people crowding round to see the execution said it was "awful".

I wrote about the story on Huffington Post and Daily Kos, expressing hope that "we can all work with the incoming administration to begin creating conditions in which we can banish this barbaric and malevolent behavior from our planet." In response, some commenters expressed doubt that we could curtail such monstrosities, arguing that Darfur is an example of global activism yielding dubious results.

Admittedly, it's difficult not to become disillusioned with the grim reality that this kind of brutality continues across the globe and that it's more often women and children who bear the brunt of it.

Still, when we consider Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow's unthinkable fate, one thing is for certain: though we may never eradicate this type of violence, we can't let our doubts stop us from doing everything we can to prevent it from happening. And in the 21st century, the Internet affords us the opportunity to raise awareness on a greater scale than ever before -- witness the Facebook page dedicated to Aisha and the many blog posts and articles about her. We can only hope that as our world becomes more networked, there's a corresponding increase in our collective ability to protect other innocents like Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow.

It is looking more and more likely that the first case before the International Criminal Court may never come to trial. What happened is this: when building the case against Congolese rebel leader Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (who is accused of some truly heinous acts) the court's prosecutor used classified information provided to him by the United Nations. Nothing wrong with that. But it is a tenet of international and customary law that the accused has the right to review the evidence used against him. This means that the prosecutor is obliged to turn over evidence that may be exculpatory.

The problem here is that the evidence the United Nations provided to the prosecutor was classified, so the defendant has not been able to review potentially exculpatory evidence. In response to all this, Lubanga asked that his case be thrown out. The court initially ruled in his favor, but the prosecutor appealed that decision. Yesterday, the appellate court of the ICC ruled in favor of Lubanga, but ordered a new hearing as to whether or not Lubanga should be unconditionally released from custody. International law scholar Kevin Jon Heller of the excellent Opinio Juris has more on the significance of this decision.

Clearly, the court is young, so there was bound to be rough patches early on. To its credit, this turn of events does show that the various organs of the court (i.e. the Office of the Prosecutor and the judges chambers) operate distinctly from each other, with the judges offering a check on the prosecutor's power. Contra many critics of the court, the prosecutor is accountable. Still, this is pretty disappointing turn of events for those of us who were eager to see the prosecutor prove himself during this first trial.

UPDATE: Wasil Ali of the Sudan Tribune writes in "I don't see any reason for disappointment. The appeal chamber decision is really outdated since it did not consider the events that happened after July. The prosecutor submitted all evidence to trial chamber last week in unredacted format and some of that (93 135 documents) directly to defense. This will comply with what the judges have asked since they wanted unfettered access to it and the ability to review and determine what needs to be shared with defense. My guess that the trial will commence soon. Even the judges last week said that it was submitted "under potentially satisfactory circumstances."

Word is, the president will take North Korea off the list of state sponsors of terror as early as today. The Washington Post reports that this move comes on the heels of threats by North Korea to re-start its nuclear facility at Yongbyon, where International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors were barred from entering earlier in the week.

Meanwhile, the Secretary General released a new report on the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.

Although their veracity could not be independently confirmed, reports from a range of sources continue to cite a high number of public executions. There is allegedly a crackdown on petty economic criminals, whose number has increased owing to the current serious food shortages and difficult living conditions, which have also led to an increase in the number of kkotjebi (homeless children). When forcibly repatriated, nationals who had left the country without State permission continue to face interrogation, mistreatment and sometimes torture, followed by imprisonment and forced labour. Punishment for the family members of defectors has reportedly been used as a deterrent to prevent defection. There have been continued accounts of prisoners being subjected to forced labour, ideological rehabilitation and sometimes torture, many of whom allegedly suffer from malnutrition and chronic diseases. Female prisoners are allegedly subjected to sexual assault and forced abortion. The trafficking of women for the purposes of prostitution and forced marriage also continues to be reported. (emphasis mine)

UPDATE: "No decision has been taken yet," says a State Department spokesperson on the question of removing North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terror. Consultations with the Russian Foreign Minister are pending.

China assumes the rotating presidency of the Security Council tomorrow, meaning it will have the lead role in setting the Council's agenda for the month of October. The last time China held the Council presidency was July 2007--when it helped steer the process of authorizing a peacekeeping mission to Darfur. Since then, though, many human rights activists have been dismayed by China's alliances with Zimbabwe, Burma, and Sudan--and have complained that China uses its influence at the Security Council to protect those regimes.

For much of the last three years, many in the activist community used the Beijing Olympics as leverage to secure China's cooperation on Darfur and on human rights issues more broadly. Now that the Olympics are over, the Enough Project's John Prendergast and David Sullivan argue for a new, more sustainable approach. From HuffPo:

[A] new administration in Washington and activists around the world need to focus on Beijing's investment strategy, demonstrating how its economic interests are undermined by its present foreign policy and offering China real alternatives. A more sober examination is required in order to ascertain how the Chinese government might be motivated to become a more constructive actor in support of peace and human rights. There are two points of leverage: one positive and one negative.

On the positive side, as China increasingly integrates into the global economy, Beijing must play by the rules if it wants others to do so. China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 was based on the calculation that the economic benefits of globalization outweighed the cost of abiding by international norms. But today an emboldened China skirts the rules on everything from underage gymnasts to product safety and intellectual property rights. The U.S. should remind China that defying basic human rights, environmental and labor standards will rebound negatively on its commercial interests, particularly by using multilateral mechanisms like the W.T.O. to impose a cost on China's errant practices.

On the negative side lurks the greatest threat to China's long-term growth potential. By allying itself with some of the world's worst dictators for the spoils of today's resource grab, the bill will be paid tomorrow by rebels and opposition officials who will remember who kept their enemies in power.

The new top UN human rights official reported this morning that civilian casualties in Afghanistan are up by 40% this year compared to the first eight months of 2007. By far, most of the casualties are the result of deliberate insurgent attacks on civilians--the new figures show that the number of civilians killed by the Taliban nearly doubled from last year.

That said, this report comes in the backdrop of a dispute between the United States and the United Nations about a US-led raid last month in the town of Azizabad, which the United Nations said left 90 non-combatants dead. The U.S. military rejects that claim, saying that no more than seven civilians were killed. The rest--up to thirty five people--were Taliban fighters.

The nature of this kind of warfare makes distinguishing between combatant and non-combatant exceedingly difficult. But succeeding at nation building in Afghanistan means winning the support of the Afghan people. Unfortunately, this task is made much more difficult when Afghan civilians become victims of collateral damage or mistaken identity.

Whatever the case with the incident in Azizabad, it is indisputable that the coalition is responsible for some civilians deaths. In discussing the new report, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay points to a way that coalition forces might help mitigate the consequences of an errant bomb or misidentified Taliban insurgent:

"There is an urgent need for better coordination between Afghan and international military forces to enhance the protection of civilians and the safety and welfare of war-affected communities," said Ms. Pillay.

"It is also imperative that there is greater transparency in accountability procedures for international forces involved in incidents that cause civilian casualties," she said, adding that there should also be a rapid and independent assessment of damages and a fair and consistent system of condolence payments to survivors and relatives of victims.

We clearly don't have much sway over how insurgents like the Taliban treat non-combatants. But we can influence our own governments to do the right thing by compensating innocent victims in conflict. In as volatile a place as Afghanistan, it is in all our interests that NATO makes a good faith effort to do so.

(photo from flickr)

These have been a rough couple of weeks for suspected war criminals. First, Sudanese President Omar el Bashir finds the International Criminal Court's sights set on him. Now, one of the world's most wanted men is arrested by Serbian authorities. Halleluja!

Radovan Karadzic, indicted war criminal, was arrested yesterday outside Belgrade. He is awaiting extradition to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Hague.

Karadzic was the political mastermind behind the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 1990s. He is also alleged to have orchestrated the Srebrenica massacre, in which 8,000 Bosnian men and boys were killed in a few short hours after Dutch UN peacekeepers were over run by the Bosnian-Serb militia. Karadzic's partner in crime, General Radko Mladic directed the Srebrenica killings. He remains at large.

Karadzic has been on the run for thirteen years--and it was always suspected that Serbian authorities were protecting him. So why was he nabbed yesterday? It seems that a combination of international pressure and internal politics made the arrest possible. In June the coalition backing the moderate and pro-west Serbian President Boris Tadic won a decisive victory in parliamentary elections over hard line nationalist elements. Tadic quickly moved against the hardliners, purging them from positions of influence in the government. The move against Karadzic can be seen as a kneecapping of Tadic's political opposition and shows just how politically marginalized the hardliners really are.

Second, the international community--chiefly the European Union and the United States--have made Serbian cooperation with the ICTY the sin qua non of relations with Serbia. The pull of the European Union--and the recognition that unless Serbia cooperate with the ICTY it will never enjoy benefits of membership--was the larger force reason behind Karadzic's arrest. With yesterday's arrest, Boris Tadic showed the international community he can deliver. (To be sure, Mladic still remains at large. But with the veil of government protection now firmly cast off, one wonders for how long.) The international community should respond in kind -- and I suspect they will.

Rich Byrne has more.

The International Court of Justice (sometimes called the World Court--and not to be confused with the International Criminal Court) is a forum where United Nations member states can hash out legal disputes in a neutral setting. The cases can range from the somewhat banal (like a dispute between Ukraine and Romania over Black Sea maritime rights) to the highly contentious (like Bosnia accusing Serbia of committing genocide in the 1990s).

One of the more contentious cases before the court is Mexico's action against the United States to stay the execution of Mexican nationals being held on death row. The case of one of these Mexican nationals went all the way to the Supreme Court this year. In 1993, Jose E. Medellin confessed to raping and killing two teenage girls in Texas and was sentenced to death. The catch, though, is that under the 1963 Vienna Convention, foreign nationals have the right to notify their consulate when detained. Medellin was not given that right, so Mexico sued the United States at the International Court of Justice on his and other nationals behalf.

In March, the Supreme Court ruled that Medellin's execution can go ahead, despite the World Court's ruling. (Technically, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bush Administration had no right to tell the state of Texas to re-open the case, per the ICJ's direction). Mexico, however, has not given up. The case is still pending at the ICJ and yesterday the court once again ordered the United States to stay the execution of five Mexican nationals on death row.

Julian Ku of Opinio Juris explains some of the technicalities of yesterday's ruling and makes a prediction of his own:

The U.S. Supreme Court will reject any efforts to enforce this ICJ order. Texas will also ignore it and go ahead and execute the said Mexican nationals. In this way, the U.S. will act in admitted violation of its international law obligations under Article 92 and the ICJ Statute, thus further exposing the ICJ's orders as having no domestic legal significance and of relatively little moral significance either. Congress has other things on its mind, and there won't even be a bill introduced to try to give effect to the ICJ order. The presidential candidates won't even be asked about their views on this order. But I suppose Mexico's lawyers have to try everything they can, and I can't fault them for pulling out all the stops, no matter how hopeless.

(Image: The Peace Palace in the Hague, seat of the ICJ. Credit: The Hague Justice Portal)

Via Monsters and Critics, Egyptian police apparently opened fire on a gang of human traffickers helping Eritrean and Sudanese refugees escape to Israel through the Sinai Peninsula. What's the significance? In recent months there has been a marked up-tick in the number of Eritreans entering Egypt illegally and seeking asylum. Egypt, in turn, has come under criticism from the United Nations High Commission on Refugees for forcibly repatriating Eritreans, despite their asylum claims. Meanwhile, UNHCR is trying to interview Eritrean asylum seekers to assess their claims for refugee status, but so far UNHCR officials have not be given access to all detention facilities housing Eritreans.

With Egypt being such hostile territory for Eritrean asylum seekers, a growing number have sought refuge in Israel. Writing in Ha'aretz Nurit Wuhrgaft tells the story of one intrepid young asylum seeker who made it all the way from Eritrea to Be'er Sheva in southern Israel.

It took him eight months to reach Sudan. He found his way there with the help of strangers and crossed the border without a problem. "I knew I was in another country only when I reached a village and heard the people there speaking Arabic," he says. In Sudan, he was taken in by fellow countrymen who fled Eritrea years before and settled there. During his month-long stay in Sudan, he contacted relatives who had fled years ago to Malta, and they sent him a little money for food. He used the money to pay a truck driver to take him to the capital city of Khartoum and to buy a train ticket to Cairo. In Cairo, he met some of his countrymen who warned him that he might be arrested there and even expelled back home. They suggested he join them on a trek to Israel, where, they promised, his life would be safer. P. agreed even though he had no idea where he was going. The difficult journey, traveled partially by foot, took only three days. When they crossed the border, they were detained by soldiers who took them to Be'er Sheva. "They were nice to us," he says of the soldiers, fired only in the air, were polite to us, took us in their car to Be'er Sheva and there they dropped us off and left." P. and his friends wandered around the city and asked how to get to the United Nations offices. A student put them in touch with Yohannes L. Bayu, director of the African Refugees Development Center. "I saw people after many hours of walking, exhausted, hungry and despairing," says Bayu. He mobilized the small community of Eritreans in Israel to help them find a temporary place to live, organize a collection campaign and raise money. They also gave the newcomers sheets and blankets, which were used to create makeshift beds.

Over at his blog, On the Ground, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is incensed that the Bush administration has, for the seventh consecutive year, decided to withhold any funding for the United Nations Population Fund. He's not alone, as voices on the Hill are already registering their outcry. Why would the U.S. object to helping fund an organization that provides reproductive health services for women across the world (not to mention assistance in development, human rights, and gender equality initiatives as well)? Kristof explains:

The reason given for withholding the U.S. funds is that the Population Fund (universally called UNFPA, after its old acronym) supports forced abortions in China. Even if that were true, it would be ridiculous to withhold funds for UNFPA activities against maternal mortality in Africa because of its work in China. But in any case, UNFPA has been a major force against compulsion of any kind in China, as the U.S. blue-ribbon committee that investigated the charges found. In the areas in China where UNFPA set up a model program, there is no compulsion and the abortion rate is lower than in the U.S.

It seems that the administration is assuming that, simply because China has a one-child policy -- and because yes, like everywhere else in the world, some women in China do get abortions -- that abortions there must be non-voluntary, and that the UNFPA, merely by operating in the country, is guilty by association. This logic is clearly flawed, its assertions are wholly unsubstantiated by the evidence, and, perhaps worst of all, it contradicts the findings of the U.S. government's own investigative panel. Moreover, as Kristof suggests, depriving UNFPA of support for any of its work -- even in places like Africa, where President Bush has trumpeted his development efforts, such as PEPFAR, as a staple of his legacy -- out of either political or ideological posturing makes for nonsensical policy.

Cross-posted on On Day One.

UPDATE: Tamara Kreinin, the Executive Director of the Women and Population program at the United Nations Foundation, issues a strong statement on UNFPA funding (read it below the fold).

UPDATE II: As commenter Tyler LePard notes, the news only gets worse. Check out Craig Lasher's post over at RH Reality Check for more.

"The United Nations Foundation joins the international community in expressing its deep disappointment that the administration has decided--for the seventh straight year--to withhold the $39.7 million authorized by Congress to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the world's leading voice on sexual and reproductive health and rights.

"In a statement notifying Congress of the administration's decision to withhold funds from UNFPA, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte once again cited UNFPA's program in China as a violation of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, which bars funding for programming that "supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive or involuntary sterilization."

"UNFPA does not--and has never--supported coercive or involuntary sterilization. In fact, the decision to withhold funds from UNFPA is inconsistent with the reports from the State Department and several other blue-ribbon investigative teams, which included descriptions of UNFPA's work as "a force for good" in China.

"Working in 150 countries, UNFPA is on the front lines reducing maternal and infant mortality, decreasing HIV/AIDS rates, and protecting women and girls from rape and violence, particularly during conflict situations. The $34 million that the United States has withheld each year is close to 10 percent of UNFPA's regular income. The amount withheld every year could have helped UNFPA prevent 2 million unintended pregnancies, 800,000 abortions, 4,700 mothers' deaths, and more than 77,000 infant and child deaths. Approximately 181 industrialized and developing countries, including all the countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, contribute to UNFPA. The United States is the only country to withhold funding for political reasons.

"The UN Foundation is looking forward to working with the next administration to restore funding for UNFPA and to strengthen the U.S.'s role as a global health leader. During the 2000 UN Millennium Summit, the United States pledged to work to respond to the world's most pressing development challenges, including poverty, gender inequality and disease. It is past time that the administration acknowledges how fundamental UNFPA is to addressing these global challenges and that the U.S. funds UNFPA's work.

To mark the International Day In Support of Victims of Torture, Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called on all UN member states to accede to the Convention against Torture and the Optional Protocol, which allows international visits to places of detention. From the UN News Center:

"[t]he foundation of international human rights law strictly prohibits torture "under any and all circumstances. And yet, 60 years since the adoption of the Declaration, torture persists, devastating millions of victims and their families," he said, adding that the Day was "a call to speak out and take action on their behalf and against all those who commit torture and all forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment."

For much of the last decade, the number of refugees and displaced around the world has been steadily decreasing. But last year, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees assisted the highest-ever number of refugees and displaced in the organization's history. Today, there is a total of 11.4 million refugees outside their countries, as well as 26 million others displaced internally by conflict or persecution at the end of 2007.

The reason for the sudden increase is the conflict in Iraq. So, in honor of World Refugee Day, Ken Bacon of Refugees international writes us a guest delegates lounge post in which he explains why it is imperative that the United States take on with urgency the Iraq refugee crisis.

A few weeks ago, John flagged a Refugees International report on the plight of Eritrean refugees in Ethiopia. (The two countries have been in a state of conflict for the past decade). However, it seems that Ethiopia is not the only place that displaced Eritreans are vulnerable. The United Nations High Commission on Refugees reports that in recent weeks large numbers of Eritreans have sought refuge in Egypt. Problematically, Egyptian authorities have begun to systematically deport them. From the UN News Center:

The top United Nations human rights official said she was "alarmed" by reports that Egypt has deported some 700 Eritrean-asylum seekers in the past few days, and called on authorities to halt any further forced returns.

"People who could well be at risk in their home country should never be sent back before their asylum claims have been properly addressed," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said in a statement.

"Egypt should respect its international obligations not to send home anyone who could face torture or other serious forms of ill treatment, as may well be the case with those who have apparently been deported in recent days," she added.

Life just became a bit more difficult for the world's most vulnerable populations.

Speaking at the beginning of a major UN summit on HIV/AIDS, Secretary General Ban Ki Moon challenged national immigration laws that place travel and visa restrictions on people with HIV. He did not mince his words:

"I call for a change in laws that uphold stigma and discrimination, including restrictions on travel for people living with HIV... [60 years after the Universal Declaration on Human Rights] it is shocking that there should still be discrimination against those at high risk, such as men who have sex with men, or stigma attached to individuals living with HIV."

In this week's Economist, there is a curious 'Executive Focus' classified ad to recruit the next United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Canadian jurist Louise Arbour is resigning from the post she has held since 2004, and the United Nations is preparing to fill the spot. The ad, though is not being paid for, nor endorsed, by the United Nations. Rather, the non-profit advocacy group Avaaz bought the ad as part of its campaign to increase transparency in the selection of top officials at international institutions.

This corresponding blog, sponsored by Avaaz and run by the Financial Times UN correspondent Mark Turner, profiles the top candidates and offers running commentary on the selection process. Check it out.

Refugees International has released a new policy recommendation calling attention to the plight of Eritrean refugees, as well as Ethiopians of Eritrean origin, who have not been fully integrated into Ethiopian society and are often targeted as undesirable "foreigners." This problem underscores the tension of the countries' border dispute and the festering antagonism between the two governments that precipitated the recent withdrawal of UN peacekeepers from the region. As RI's briefing makes clear, the ones suffering are those caught in the middle:

Nearly everyone RI interviewed told a story of ongoing separation from loved ones, exacting a considerable personal and psychological toll. Travel between Eritrea and Ethiopia is prohibited, there is no interstate phone system, and Ethiopians have reportedly been jailed for communicating with persons in Eritrea via the internet. "Family separation is the problem," one man said. "I am a nation-less person. Eritrea does not consider me as Eritrean. Ethiopia does not consider me as Ethiopian. My brother tried to go to Sudan but was caught and jailed. My sister is in Kenya. I've had no news from her in 5 years."

The full policy recommendation is worth reading. Neither Ethiopia nor Eritrea is innocent here, and both need to take steps to secure the rights and dignity of those driven to a condition of essential statelessness.

A couple of recently released UN reports reveal the lingering security and human rights concerns in Iraq.

In its human rights report, issued on Saturday, the UN mission in Iraq cautioned that, while violent attacks have decreased in Baghdad, the security situation in the rest of the country remains precarious.

In another report, a group of experts established in 2005 to investigate the use of mercenaries found that private military contractors (PMCs) often operate without sufficient accountability, posing yet another danger to human rights in countries like Iraq.

Presenting its report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the working group said that private security companies in such conflict-wracked countries as Iraq, Colombia and Afghanistan are recruiting former policemen and members of the military from developing countries as "security guards" in their operations.

Once there, those guards in fact become "militarily armed private soldiers," which is essentially a new way to describe mercenaries, who are often responsible for serious human rights abuses, the working group stated.

Even without mention of the name Blackwater, the implied subtext of this report remains the incident last September, in which 17 Iraqi civilians were killed by personnel of the infamous U.S. contractor. As voices from The Wall Street Journal to The New Republic have opened their arms to the possibility of using PMCs in places like Darfur, the working group's report serves as a reminder that contractors can often undermine the very security they are meant to ensure.

As reported by The Washington Post, UN humanitarian chief Louise Arbour is planning to leave her position this upcoming June. Arbour has clashed repeatedly with the Bush administration, criticizing some of its counterterrorism policies and being scolded in turn for her perceived silence to the more egregious human rights violations of "totalitarian and abusive governments." Working with both upstanding democracies and unsavory dictatorships, Arbour's travails illustrate the fine line that the UN must walk between idealism and practical operation:

Arbour acknowledged that she has taken a more diplomatic approach to promoting human rights in places such as China and Russia, saying she has chosen a strategy of private engagement "that is likely to yield some positive results" over one that "would make me and a lot of others feel good." She said that as a U.N. official she is constrained by the reality of the organization's power centers, including China, Russia and the Group of 77, a bloc of more than 130 developing countries. In that context, she said, "naming and shaming is a loser's game."

Arbour's point reminds me of an inversion of a famous maxim of Theodore Roosevelt that Sudan analyst John Prendergast frequently uses to characterize the Bush administration's Darfur policy. By limiting its action to sharp rhetoric, Prendergast contends, the U.S. has effectively pursued a policy of "speaking loudly and carrying a toothpick." Vocal condemnation of countries' human rights policies, as deplorable as they may be, is not the only way to induce a change in behavior, and Arbour is simply articulating the necessity of working within the UN system. When faced with the alternatives of unilateralism or inaction, this remains a laudable goal, even if some aspects of the UN, such as the Human Rights Council -- over which, incidentally, Arbour's office exercises no control -- fall short of the ideal level of reform. Instead of merely pointing its fingers at the transparent violations of notorious human rights abusers, the U.S. should work with the UN to effectively address these issues -- and should focus on cleaning up its own act as well.

In a nonbinding resolution, the UN General Assembly has called for a moratorium on the death penalty.

Among the countries joining the United States in opposition to the European-led measure were Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Opponents argued that the resolution undermined their national sovereignty. Two similar moves in the 1990s failed, and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the new vote was "evidence of a trend toward ultimately abolishing the death penalty