The West has been involved in “humanitarian imperialism” for centuries. In the US is goes back at least as far as the Spanish-American war, when the US used atrocities committed by Spain in Cuba as a pretext for colonizing Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. Or when England used Abolitionist rhetoric against the (legitimately horrible) Islamic slave trade as a pretext for colonizing Africa. Or even further back into the 18th century when Europeans justified slavery on the grounds that they were saving African’s souls.

Humanitarianism is such a powerful rhetoric because it mobilizes people’s genuinely heartfelt desire to do good in the world. Consider the current rash of child-kidnappings in Haiti to be sold to adopting parents in the US.

The idea that Americans look to Africa for a sense of redemption, is very striking.

Susan Rice herself is a Brookings Institute high flyer and a keen interventionist , as well as AU mission rejector in favour of UN led mandate:
http://www.brookings.edu/interviews/2006/1117africa_rice.aspx

Scott Gration also seems to have hawkish credentials in that he was an architect and also chief administator of the no-fly zone operation ( the latest battle cry of the save darfur) to replace troops on the ground , which is usually something such groups advocate when republicans are in power.

Obamas policy team seem to be also a clean sweep of highly hawkish elements.( see paragraph 3 on the link below):

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/03/20/who-is-scott-gration.aspx

it seems the NSC has a weighting in policy input stronger than the State dept.

The presence of Gration has a 2 pronged detail that makes any genuine policy shift in the Obama administration unlikely.
Firstly Gration was given the darfur role as an afterthought when he could not get the NASA role he was originally slotted for , which means the role of envoy is a low priority apointment and not a central plank of dialogue.
The other prong is that Grations area of expertise ( no-fly zones and air strikes)is the ideal portfolio for what military interventionists are advocating.
See , for example , the six point plan of “attack” being advocated in this bizarre piece of neo-con bitter ender wish list.

( Scroll down until you get to the chapter beginning “What is to be done?”)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22771

Most worryingly is the shower of lauding heaped on Samantha Power after he states his 6 point plan of action.

Clients like the recently deceased Omar Bongo in Gabon are increasingly looking to China for help to resolve conflicts in African hot-spots like Sudan.

China is now in a position to use its 97% domination of the Rare Earth Metals market which gives it superior means of development in green energy sources,high-tech and defence technology.

Both Russia and the US covet REMs and the US also has to fear that the Chinese investment in US Treasury bonds will soon be used by Bejing as another instrument of diplomatic and geopolitical influence against them.

The increasingly shrill cries from Zionist lobby groups like SDC should be registered as evidence that Washington is losing badly on points in the new Great Game against China.

Africa is only one focal point for the superpower rivalry described which is of course global in scope.Yet the death of Bongo the Francafrique client in Gabon over 41 years will be mourned not just in Paris.Bongo was friend to jailed former Washington publicist Jack Abramoff who offered to arrange a White House meeting with Bush in 2003 for $9m.

Under the auspices of the China-Africa Cooperation Forum and a 2004 bipartisan agreement under which China agreed to invest in infrastructural development of railways,roads and deep-water ports in Gabon,Bongo had become a key Chinese ally.

There may be a salutary lesson for Sudanese leader Bashir in Bongo’s demise.You can be a Western client or a Chinese one but not both!

Especailly preceptive is how the role of Chad is prominently mentioned as it shows the conflict is a regional one requiring a pan-regional solution and not the sole responsibility of Khartoum as Save darfur look to suggest for purely US aligned interventionist reasons.

One slight variable that could have been stressed that will make Obamas review lobby unproof is that Save darfur are already re-aligning from pushing the “boots on the ground” policy to raising awareness that stability and better relations with Khartoun will be a Boon for China and its deals and operations in the region.One can already begin to spot a touch of ” If you want to contain China then darfur is where you start” flavour in the save Darfur language since Obama came to power.
The citing of Bashir at the ICJ can be seen as a move in that direction in that is forms a de-facto veto on any serious attempt at a pan-regional solution.

This , in effect , means that the term “break” should be more accurately read as “posture change” from the unattainable boots on the ground , to going down the trade and sanctions route with a pre-emptive filibuster built in to prevent any attempts to genuinely resolve the conflict.