Did I Get Mentioned in the Wall Street Journal?

12 Responses to “Did I Get Mentioned in the Wall Street Journal?”

1. sudanesereturnee on August 2nd, 2007 1:16 pm

   Drima…

   Happy for you man! You take blogging seriously and I can imagine this new mention of ‘Drima in the Media’ is coool.. congrats.

   NB: A lot of bloggers are not so pleased with WSJ’s login thing. Makes it impossible to link to their articles…

2. Drima on August 2nd, 2007 2:15 pm

   I’m still not 100% sure if I’m mentioned in the article itself or someone mentioned me in a comment.

3. Finnpundit on August 2nd, 2007 3:32 pm

   Drima, no mention, which is too bad. Here’s the text:

   August 2, 2007
   Spectators to Genocide

   Four years, 200,000 dead and two million displaced people later, the United Nations has finally authorized a peacekeeping contingent for Sudan’s Darfur region. Good intentions and eternal hope aside, this latest mission looks ready-made to continue the U.N.’s sorry record on stopping
   genocide.

   The 26,000 troops — a combination of the current 7,000-strong African Union force and a new U.N. brigade — will be stretched to cover an area the size of France. But the bigger handicap of the “hybrid” force is its mandate, watered down by China and Russia, which blocked tougher action. This is what happens when “consensus” is given higher priority than achieving actual security on the ground.

   The resolution approved Tuesday by a unanimous vote of the Security Council goes out of its way to respect Sudanese sovereignty. Fine as that goes, except that Khartoum has consistently invoked “sovereignty” to prevent peacekeepers from interfering in the mass murder of Darfur’s black Africans. The composition of the force itself will be done “in consultation” with Sudan, which has insisted that it stay strictly African — a limitation that, if accepted, would ensure that troops will be difficult to mobilize. African countries have hesitated to fill out the ranks of other African Union missions, and the first troop offers yesterday came from France, Denmark and Indonesia.

   In any case, the troops’ ability to use force will be severely limited by another concession to Sudan. The soldiers will not be allowed to seize weapons from the government-supported Janjaweed killers, the Darfur rebels fighting against Khartoum, or other wandering thugs toting guns. Instead, they will “monitor whether any arms or related material are present in Darfur.” If they find any? Oh, well.

   The resolution also removes sticks to get Sudan to cease hostilities and let the U.N. troops and humanitarian groups do their work. As originally worded, backsliding would have triggered the threat of sanctions. No more. China’s ambassador to the U.N., Wang Guangya, said the resolution was intended “to authorize the launch of a hybrid operation, rather than exert pressure or impose sanctions,” according to a U.N. summary of delegations’ statements. More accurately, the resolution is intended to suggest the U.N. is finally doing something about Darfur and thus shield China from growing criticism that it is protecting Khartoum.

   In the 1990s slaughterhouses of Rwanda and Bosnia, the road to genocide was paved by U.N. peacekeepers. Blue helmets armed with weak mandates stood by powerless or were even exploited by the ethnic cleansers to enable their killing sprees. After watching nearly a million Rwandans murdered in 1994, the West realized that the U.N. mission in Bosnia was also doomed to failure. NATO countries in 1994, the West realized that the U.N. mission in Bosnia was also doomed to failure. NATO countries finally stepped in to stop Bosnia’s war with the credible use of force and diplomatic pressure.

   Now the same U.N. mistakes may be repeated in Sudan. Khartoum won’t tolerate a potent force in the absence of outside pressure — and China and Russia won’t permit the U.N. to apply that pressure. Liberal moralists calling on the world to “do something” in Sudan while also putting faith in the U.N. above all else need to face up to this contradiction. Otherwise, there will be more Rwandas, Bosnias and Darfurs.

4. Drima on August 2nd, 2007 4:40 pm

   Thank you so much Finnpundit. I appreciate that. Well, too bad I guess. Next time. But it’s strange though. I got some hits coming from there earlier today. Anyways, thanks.

5. Roman Kalik on August 2nd, 2007 5:37 pm

   It’s a damn shame indeed, Drima. Though it’s still a good article, which may yet prove sadly and pointedly right. A Chapter 7 resolution doesn’t automatically mean “permitted to use lethal force independently”, it merely opens the door to using such Rules of Engagement. Apparently, such procedures weren’t included here. Quite the opposite. Unless the role definition of the UN force will be changed in the field, they’ll barely be able to defend refugees. And the manpower issue *is* a major problem as well.

6. Drima on August 2nd, 2007 6:42 pm

   Roman, this resolution isn’t perfect. I simply view it as the lesser of 2 evils.

7. Drima on August 2nd, 2007 6:43 pm

   Btw, I’m sure troops from the land of Cheese and Cartoons will be welcomed with wide open arms. Sigh!

8. Roman Kalik on August 2nd, 2007 7:22 pm

   It’s better than the current AU force at least, so that’s an improvement.

   Thing is, Drima, I can already see Khartoum screening out most (if not all) non-African forces, and I shudder at the quality of men African countries will send at short notice, with little to no UN reviewing of the men as said countries will be barely willing to send anyone at all…

9. Finnpundit on August 3rd, 2007 1:48 am

   Drima, if you got hits from The Wall Street Journal people, it may be because they were researching your commentary before the senior staff issued their editorial.

   It’s only conjecture on my part, but who knows? A major, leading publication like the WSJ usually does some ground work before issuing an editorial. This editorial on the UN’s Darfur decision got read certainly by people in Washington, not to mention London, Paris, Moscow, Beijing… and certainly the UN, as WSJ is known to be a leading American critic of the UN.

10. Drima on August 3rd, 2007 2:49 am

    You know what’s funny about this whole thing Finnpundit? It’s the fact that when I started this blog I had no idea about the kind of readership I’ll get.

    US government officials are reading it! Hell, even Jan Pronk and I exchanged some emails before.

    It’s amazing and it’s this recent realization that really makes me want to pump up my efforts. Who thought such people would bother reading the random opinion of some 20 year old Sudanese student?

    You do know that Bush met the guys from ITM right? And you do know that ITM gets read by White House officials right?

    Me loves blogging!

11. Finnpundit on August 3rd, 2007 3:35 am

    Yes, I know about Iraq The Model bloggers visiting the White House. It was really amazing to me, and an eye-opener as to the power of the blogosphere.

12. BRE on August 6th, 2007 10:16 am

    Drima,

    You don’t need the Wall Street Journal to help you gain fame and fortune. You are one of the best known and most highly respected Sudanese bloggers in the world. It don’t get no better than that, Dude (unless Rupert Murdoch offers you a managing editor gig at the new WSJ-Mid East edtion with a six-figure monthly salary).

    I like the design and feature improvements you have made at The Sudanese Thinker. The look is very professional and I am certain that the content remains honest and informative. Good luck as always.

    Ciao,
    Bill @ Jewels in the Jungle

Leave a Reply