U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a June 30 interview from Khartoum, Sudan, with National Public Radio said that there was no comparison between events in Darfur and Rwanda ten years ago. He said that on examination of the "evidence that is available" events in Darfur do not "meet the tests of the definition of genocide". Secretary Powell
stated:

"The State Department has to weigh all of these matters carefully and what we try to do is to use labels with precision. There are some who, based on what they have heard about the situation in Darfur and their concern about the needs of these people, want to immediately call it a genocide, whether it fits the definition of a genocide or not. I'm more interested in taking care of the people."

The Secretary-of-State also confirmed that his talks with the Sudanese government on the humanitarian crisis in Darfur yielded an agreement "to a list of actions that they will be taking in the very near future, with a timeline, that will ease all restrictions on visas for humanitarian workers, will make sure there is no interruption of humanitarian supplies or relief convoys or vehicles for the monitors who are out there." He said that the "[Government of Sudan] have also committed to get immediately involved in the political process again, because we really have to solve this conflict ultimately politically or else it will break out again, and they've agreed to pursue that more vigorously under the auspices of the African Union."

Excerpts of the interview with the Secretary-of-State are carried below.

(For a full transcript of the full interview see AllAfrica.com, "Powell Says Talks With Sudan Government Yielded Agreement", 1 July 2004 at
[http://allafrica.com/stories/200407010005.html]

***

"Powell Says Talks With Sudan Government Yielded Agreement"

United States Department of State (Washington, DC), June 30, 2004

(Question) Your mission, I take, was to put some pressure on the Sudanese Government. Were you at all pleased by what you heard? Did you get any assurances, any specific pledges, to stop the bombing or to allow relief workers into the country?

(Answer) We did. We had very serious discussions on all of those issues. I made it clear to them that the international community was prepared to take more action and to put more pressure on the regime. We were considering a Security Council resolution if we didn't see changes, and changes soon.

So the government has agreed to a list of actions that they will be taking in the very near future, with a timeline, that will ease all restrictions on visas for humanitarian workers, will make sure there is no interruption of humanitarian supplies or relief convoys or vehicles for the monitors who are out there. They have also committed to get immediately involved in the political process again, because we really have to solve this conflict ultimately politically or else it will break out again, and they've agreed to pursue that more vigorously under the auspices of the African Union.

They did make a specific commitment that they would more aggressively use their police and military forces to deal with the Jingaweit and start to put security in place out in the countryside, security that the people will trust. We don't want to force the people back into the villages. We want them to want to go back to their villages because they are confident that they will be protected once they are out there.

(Question) The U.S., however, is very careful not to use the word, "genocide." Why is the Administration reluctant to call this genocide?

(Answer) Well, why would we call it a genocide when the genocide definition has to meet certain legal tests? It is a legal determination. And based on what we have seen, there were some indicators but there was certainly no full accounting of all indicators that lead to a legal definition of genocide, in accordance with the terms of the genocidal treaties. That's the advice of my lawyers.

(Question) For some, the reluctance to label this a homicide hearkens back to Rwanda.

(Answer) It isn't a reluctance. It isn't a reluctance that, based on the evidence that is available, it doesn't meet the tests of the definition of genocide. It isn't reluctance. I can assure you that if all of the indicators lined up and said this meets what the treaty test of genocide is, I would have no reluctance to call it that. And the fact that we have not called it that is not based on reluctance. This is not Rwanda ten years ago; it is Sudan now.

(Question) I don't want to belabor this, but in diplomacy words do count, and as your -- as State Department counsel looks at this issue and determines whether this -- whether this should be labeled a genocide, does that carry a different weight and responsibility for the State Department and the U.S. if they make that determination?

(Answer) The State Department has to weigh all of these matters carefully and what we try to do is to use labels with precision. There are some who, based on what they have heard about the situation in Darfur and their concern about the needs of these people, want to immediately call it a genocide, whether it fits the definition of a genocide or not. I'm more interested in taking care of the people.

Now, if it was a genocide and it met all the tests and we declared it that, we would certainly increase international pressure. But whether we would be doing more than we are now doing is a question that I can't answer. It doesn't open any real new authorities to me or give me any additional powers or responsibilities that I'm not now executing.