Absolutely right - China needs to act if anything good is to happen; I am not hopeful because I fear China’s ability to understand its own long-term interests matches the U.S.’s ability for same. This is not good. There is ample evidence that Al-Bashir can be influenced by power (e.g. his response to U.S. threats over his harboring Bin-Laden’s minions) but China has to put the gun to his head but the lure of uninterrupted oil is strong. I think i know what would be in their interest but they - so far - disagree. And, as you have said earlier, the U.S. has reduced influence.

The “Economist” is, alas, rightfully sceptical - certainly the Arab League will do nothing and Putin is busy with other things - none of them good, and - China is, as they say, hungry for oil. It is then the charge to all of us to do whatever we can to remind us all that we have said “never again” and try to mean it this time. And hope that the press will pay more attention to the ongoing slaughter.

More needs to be done. As you say there is enough blame to go around but there appear to be those who deserve a greater share than others. This excerpt from a recent Economist magazine piece suggests that the Chinese are among the facilitators of this genocide. Here’s the Economist’s take :

Despite a notional ceasefire in 2004, violence in Darfur has continued and is now rising fast; a peace deal signed in May has collapsed. A new round of attacks on the rebel groups by the Sudanese army, using helicopter gunships and the janjaweed militia, would make thousands more homeless and make it almost impossible for foreign aid-workers to supply even existing refugee camps.

If Sudan’s government continues to block the deployment of peacekeepers, the UN should impose targeted sanctions on the regime, as America already has. The UN should also refer individuals in the government responsible for atrocities to the international war-crimes court at The Hague. But if Sudan’s government seems unmoved by such threats, it is because thus far it has been able to fend off outside pressure with help from China and Russia on the Security Council, and with the support of a dismally supine Arab League.

Resoundingly silent about the fighting in Darfur, the Arab League presumably considers mass murder committed by fellow Arabs to be outside its moral remit. China is a glutton for Sudan’s oil and, along with Malaysia and India, is eagerly developing the country’s oil industry. Russia has a flourishing arms trade with Sudan. Both China and Russia say that “in principle” they support the sending of UN peacekeepers to Darfur, yet both abstained from voting for last week’s UN resolution for fear of offending Mr al-Bashir.

A friendly word
All should be bending Mr Al-Bashir’s ear to encourage him to let the new peacekeepers in. But it is China that could do most to persuade its friend to accept UN assistance and end the killing in Darfur. To soothe his concerns about being bullied by his enemies, China, which has a large army and has sent troops to UN observer missions, could offer peacekeepers of its own. China is not only Africa’s most enthusiastic new investor, it is also bidding for a bigger role in world affairs. But that brings bigger responsibilities too. In Sudan refusing to “interfere”, as it says it is always loth to do, risks making China an accomplice to genocide.