S.T.A.N.D adopted a Eurocentric approach

I am writing in response to Magdalena Jensen’s “argument” on why Mr. Meany was incorrect in his assemsent of the Darfur situation. In the litany of error and generalities that Ms. Jensen makes, I think her main problem is an ill-informed idealism. She believes that the world works together to solve problems, and issues of national interest and soverngty get thrown to the wind. That seems to be the only justification for her essentializing of the Dafuri people and for her entire message, that White, Westerners need to help poor minorities throughout the world. This racist, Eurocentric argument misses the point of Mr. Meany’s suggestions and seems to raise the dead specter of the original justification of colonialism. Some of Ms. Jensen’s larger mistakes are on her solutions. Sanctions don’t work for two reasons, Sudan has oil that Asian governments will buy no mater what (even with US sanctions it has one of the largest growing economies), and sanctions have a low probability of success, e.g. North Korea and Cuba. Next that UN troops, which are still not guaranteed, only a symbolic, empty gesture made (the UN is full of them) will actually solve the problem. 20,000 troops cannot keep the peace in a large region like Darfur and will never even get on the ground. Even the term peacekeepers, implies that UN forces help maintain an established peace, they are not peacemakers, and do not have the capabilities for a prolonged military affair. I guess that Ms. Jensen is borrowing the line from President Bush in Iraq, that more troops means success. How has that idea panned out? I suggest that Ms. Jensen start learning about foreign affairs (the university offers several great classes) instead of relying on pamphlets made by stoned hippies with no concept of how geopolitics works out in the real world.