[allAfrica.com] [Africa_2004] Darfur: Why US Military Action is Unlikely The East African (Nairobi) NEWS September 13, 2004 Posted to the web September 15, 2004 By Kevin J. Kelley, Special Correspondent Washington, DC THE UNITED States' declaration of genocide in Darfur appears unlikely to lead soon to international military intervention, due to both US and global political factors. While using the potent term "genocide" to describe the killings of an estimated 35,000 to 50,000 black Africans in western Sudan, US Secretary of State Colin Powell sought simultaneously last week to downplay its urgency and significance. "No new action is dictated by this determination," Mr Powell told the US Senate. "So let us not be preoccupied with this designation of genocide," he added, suggesting that the US declaration does not indelibly mark Sudan as a pariah state. "Before the government of Sudan is taken to the bar of international justice, let me point out that there is a simple way for Khartoum to avoid such wholesale condemnation. That way is to take action." In his September 9 presentation, Mr Powell also acknowledged that Sudanese authorities have in the past two months met some of the US demands pertaining to Darfur. Among these "positive developments" on Khartoum's part, he said, are the start of political talks with rebel groups, support for the deployment of African Union ceasefire monitors and improvements in humanitarian access to Darfur. And while Mr Powell repeatedly denounced the actions of the Sudan government and its allied Arab militias in Darfur, he did briefly and mildly criticise the black African guerrilla groups that initiated an armed rebellion last year. "The rebels have not fully respected the [recently negotiated] ceasefire," Mr Powell said, adding, "We are disturbed at reports of rebel kidnappings of relief workers." The immediate practical effect of the US "genocide" declaration is to elevate the place of the Darfur crisis on the international agenda and thereby to heighten political pressure on Khartoum. In accordance with the 1948 Genocide Convention, the United States is now asking the United Nations to investigate violations of international law in Darfur. Such a process could eventually lead to Sudanese government officials and Arab militia leaders being arraigned before an international tribunal. But neither the UN Security Council nor the broad international community appears ready to move in that direction. There is virtually no possibility that the Bush administration will send US troops to Darfur prior to the November 2 presidential election. And in part because of Washington's costly military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is also little chance of American intervention in Darfur later this year or in 2005. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, is claiming, however, that he would take forceful action on Darfur. Speaking last week to one of the largest African-American religious groups, Mr Kerry said the United States should lead an international military deployment to disarm Arab militias and protect civilians in Darfur. "If I were president, I would act now," Mr Kerry told the National Baptist Convention. "We simply cannot accept another Rwanda." The shadow of Rwanda can be discerned in the Bush administration's decision to apply the term "genocide" to the killings in Darfur. President Bush clearly wishes to avoid accusations that he ignored the lessons of Rwanda. Electoral considerations are also influencing Mr Bush's policy on Darfur, just as they underlie Mr Kerry's call for American military intervention. Republican leaders hope to win a larger-than-normal share of the African- American vote on November 2. Secretary Powell's strong language on Darfur can be seen as partly intended to demonstrate the Bush administration's concern about a vulnerable black African population. Similarly, Mr Kerry's more militant stance in part reflects Democratic determination to continue winning close to 90 per cent of the African-American vote. Mr Bush is also keen to please evangelical Christian groups that have repeatedly condemned the Khartoum government. These Bush allies are most concerned about the plight of Christians in southern Sudan, but they are likely to welcome the president's efforts on behalf of the black African Muslims who are the victims of the Sudanese government's and Arab militias' alleged genocide. At the same time, the more hostile American attitude enunciated by Secretary Powell is sure to displease US oil interests, which are also typically aligned with the Republican Party. The declaration of genocide makes it unlikely that American oil companies will soon fulfil their ambitions of starting operations in Sudan's rich oilfields. The United States now also risks jeopardising the progress it has helped achieve in peace negotiations between Khartoum and southern Sudan rebels. The Islamist government may decide to retaliate against the US attack on its international standing by moving to undermine Mr Bush's own efforts to be seen internationally as a peacemaker, not just as a warrior. Indeed, the "genocide" finding could well return US-Sudan relations to the low point from which they had begun to rise following the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.   =============================================================================   Copyright © 2004 The East African. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). =============================================================================