Natsios' Plan B and the Challlenges of Blogging Darfur
Plan A was an attempt to get Khartoum to open Sudan's borders to either United Nations peacekeepers or a hybrid UN/African Union. Plan B? Well, it's what U.S. special envoy to Sudan, Andrew Natsios says that Khartoum will face if they don't agree to Plan A by January 1.
I'm a bit to sleepy to stop myself from doing it so I'm going to take this moment to admit something to you: blogging exclusively about Darfur on a day-to-day basis has proven to be quite frustrating. First hand reporting isn't possible until my ticket to Sudan from the Travelocity fairy comes in the mail. So almost every tidbit of information comes from a handful of news agencies. When those reports are about what's happening in the Darfur itself, they come across as if they're one or two steps removed to the situation on the ground. It's the same thing over and over again. More people died today... Bashir strikes a belligerent tone... Locals report Janjaweed aided by Sudanese armed forces... The other kind of news that comes in is about the U.N. in New York or how Kofi Annan met with this world leader or that one. The reporters responsible for those pieces often seem to be more focused on getting the lastest mini-scoop than on telling me why what just happened has any sort of significance in the context of the larger crisis.
Take what I wrote about in the pretty weak first paragraph above. My source for that is a 4:38 PM Agence France-Presse story via Yahoo! News that picks up on a Natsios quote to make it seems as if a line in the sand has been drawn for Khartoum. And if they cross it, the dreaded Plan B shall be set into motion! But another AFP story from 6:15 this morning reports that the Sudanese government had agreed in principle to a joint UN/AU force -- a fact not mentioned in a story from the very same agency reported some ten hours later. If it were true, if Khartoum really did agree to let the U.N. in to keep an eye on Darfur, it would be a major deal. It's proving hard to know what's true and what's not, what's important and why from 6354 miles away.
I'm a bit to sleepy to stop myself from doing it so I'm going to take this moment to admit something to you: blogging exclusively about Darfur on a day-to-day basis has proven to be quite frustrating. First hand reporting isn't possible until my ticket to Sudan from the Travelocity fairy comes in the mail. So almost every tidbit of information comes from a handful of news agencies. When those reports are about what's happening in the Darfur itself, they come across as if they're one or two steps removed to the situation on the ground. It's the same thing over and over again. More people died today... Bashir strikes a belligerent tone... Locals report Janjaweed aided by Sudanese armed forces... The other kind of news that comes in is about the U.N. in New York or how Kofi Annan met with this world leader or that one. The reporters responsible for those pieces often seem to be more focused on getting the lastest mini-scoop than on telling me why what just happened has any sort of significance in the context of the larger crisis.
Take what I wrote about in the pretty weak first paragraph above. My source for that is a 4:38 PM Agence France-Presse story via Yahoo! News that picks up on a Natsios quote to make it seems as if a line in the sand has been drawn for Khartoum. And if they cross it, the dreaded Plan B shall be set into motion! But another AFP story from 6:15 this morning reports that the Sudanese government had agreed in principle to a joint UN/AU force -- a fact not mentioned in a story from the very same agency reported some ten hours later. If it were true, if Khartoum really did agree to let the U.N. in to keep an eye on Darfur, it would be a major deal. It's proving hard to know what's true and what's not, what's important and why from 6354 miles away.
RSS
Commentary
bob says:
U8RfJc hi nice site thx http://peace.com