Ahh, but where's the economic benefit in intervening? Even East Timor had a carrot stick to encourage Australia to aid their transition to independence - gas.

The author mentions China's oil interests. More information on this would be interesting - there's your lynchpin. If China's oil interests were to be threatened, I bet they'd be much more keen on an interventionist force.

TRTL - I accept the reality you are trying to portray where there is a lack of haste with which governments act when there is no benefit to be made either economically or via political strategy. What I am unclear about however is whether or not you support this apparent global stance that economy rather than society makes the world go round. As a society it is our expanding craving to consume beyond our means (and way beyond our needs) that is inspiring our governments to often ruthlessly scour the world for resources with which to expand our economies to foster such reckless demands.

Sadly, governments won’t intervene until its own citizens find more benefit in the protection of human rights than the acquisition of a plasma tv or the latest “news” on TomKat or Paris Hilton. Somehow I think that at such a suggestion I know exactly where most people would tell me to stick such a carrot (and you’d have thought the Darfuri have suffered enough torture).

As for China’s oil interests in Sudan, they are a major factor in them not wanting to support a decisive international intervention. I believe they are concerned that there may be an overthrowing of the Sudanese government which could very well result in existing oil contracts being torn up (from memory, 60% of Sudanese oil goes to China, making up 6% of the latter’s intake). Once again a selfish reaction to the problems of others, yet inspired by their desire to meet their citizens’ ever-expanding “needs.”

David - Although I find myself disagreeing perhaps just as much as I agree with things you have written, I cannot help but appreciate the blunt honesty with which you deliver your opinions. I do feel you have a very rational (although maybe a little too clinical) outlook on the world which tells you that the law of the jungle will always abide: the survival of the strongest. This is something I certainly wouldn’t disagree with, and your points regarding cause and effect are most valid.

However to judge the world we live in today in the same light as events which occurred in times of colonising may be misleading I feel. Some aspects of those times may not rear their ugly heads again, although you may be correct in believing it’d just be a case of same excrement, different odour.

My concern is witnessing people analysing conflicts such as Darfur entirely in the black and white with which history paints. I fear that we find it way too easy to be colour-blind to the graphic colours which are painted by the blood and lost sanity of people deemed acceptable losses in the shaping of our jungle.

As I am sure you know, there are people being butchered, raped, tortured and dying of famine and disease in manners which I do not have the talent to describe adequately. The disguising of this crucial aspect cannot be tolerated. This is the kind of war on terror that should be fought, one where the privileged stick up for the less fortunate. This is the opportunity to reshape the world and change history.

Sadly though, the world powers concentrate entirely on their own war on terror which is another example of how cause and effect can have drastic and complex outcomes. It must be hard for them to feel entirely righteous when they just cannot resist the urge to keep their hand in the cookie jar!

Meliorator:

Were the UN to intervene in the Darfur crisis, I would be very happy, though until China decides it's a good idea it won't happen.

China has a policy of being a 'non-judgemental friend' to a wide variety of nations. You need look no further than the editorials in the China Daily to see that.

Now here's the rub. China and the US have two very different international policies.
China has an 'it's none of our business' approach, while the US has an 'it's all our business, especially if there's oil or Al-Qaeda'.

Here we can witness two very different superpowers in action.

Now clearly the Chinese Government isn't best practice. It's essentially a communist executive presiding over a capitalist economy. On the domestic front, it is flawed in the extreme.

I haven't yet made up my mind about their international relations policies. I can't help but wonder what the world would be like if the US had maintained isolationist tendencies. Many will shriek that the muslim caliphate would be out of control, but then again, I tend to think they wouldn't be so hostile to the US if the US hadn't had such an interventionist history. Al Qaeda certainly isn't so pissed off with China.

So would I like China to allow intervention in Darfur? absolutely. Do I think they will? No. Would I like China to behave more like the US on the international stage?

Hmm... I don't think the world is big enough for two superpowers that behave like America.

TLTR

The Chinese have the attitude that its "none of our business" because they want to make sure that no precedents are created that can come back to haunt them.

With their record on human rights they have every reason to fear critical opinion elsewhere in the world, especially if that opinion can be converted into humanitarian-justified action (sanctions or intervention) because of the development of international law permitting nations to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations on humanitarian grounds.

Such international law may develop if "state practice" becomes cemented into precedent. Every time intervention occurs it increasingly becomes state practice. This is why the Chinese use their Security Council veto to stymie every attempt to intervene in humanitarian cases.

Its about covering themselves.

Sorry TRTL, I misaddressed you as TLTR.

I hope I haven't committed some terrible political slur on you!