羞辱没有用，要跟中国谈利益
北京对苏丹喀土穆政府的支持不会因西方的压力而减弱。西方必须有建设性地争取中国的支持。
必须明白，中国支持背后的动机不是种族。而是中国对能源的渴望，以及达尔福尔油田对中国经济增长的长期战略重要性。
直接与喀土穆谋求政治解决办法无法取得成功。要控制喀土穆政府并解决这场人道危机的危机办法就是直接争取中国自身经济和战略利益的支持。
西方必须创造这样一个背景：在这样的背景下，达尔福尔法治的增强可以更好地服务于中国自身的利益。目前，中国以自己的方式处理安全问题：如果叛军得势或者巴希尔政府被推翻，在油田里工作的数以千计石油工人是有防卫能力的中国军队。
为了制止这种代理僵局，西方必须拿出一个不会威胁到中国石油利益的、实现苏丹稳定安全的合法形式。
西方的重点应该是把外交和经济工作有条理地联系在一起，有建设性地争取中国的支持，而不是试图妨碍、制裁、威胁或者严肃的军事干预——中国会把这些视为对它油田控制权的挑战。
这是可以做到的——因为对朝鲜核野心的处理已经提供先例。在2006年，美国支持扩大中国在国际货币基金组织的表决权，以反映它在世界经济中的分量。财政部长鲍尔森推动的交换物是一个“希望”，让中国在国际货币基金组织拥有更多权力，可以刺激中国允许其人为低估的货币往市场汇率浮动，帮助美欧的出口。
中国的货币开始浮动。人们没有公开提起的是，提供国际货币基金组织更多表决权也有助于促使北京给朝鲜施压，减少对平壤的经济援助。这种办法奏效了。
如果布什政府打算寻求留下正面遗产，以封闭著称的国务院、财政部、美国贸易代表可以悄悄向中国提供有意义的奖品，鼓励中国在达尔福尔危机上发挥更积极的作用。
例如，美国和欧盟农业补贴的温和变化都会令中国很感兴趣，因为那可以让它的出口食品更具吸引力。而那些津贴被普遍认为是过分的。美国贸易代表已经敦促大力削减津贴以复兴贸易谈判——这种削减可被应用于阻止大屠杀的经济制动杆。
在贸易和货币谈判、和平技术转让、科学合作、环境控制技术、生物科学及各方面的技术援助方面，我们有类似的机会。有目的的谈判可以让中国的经济利益与西方的达尔福尔日程统一起来。
试图通过羞辱来赢得合作，尽管感觉正义，但不会取得成果。只有当我们积极考虑中国自身的经济利益，以及它对能源的迫切需要，西方才能够找到它寻觅的人道主义解决办法。（原标题：扭转达尔福尔中国之手的唯一办法；作者：Mark Lange）
译文为摘译，英文原文地址：http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0430/p09s01-coop.html
英文原文：
The only way to alter China's hand in Darfur
San Francisco - China won't be shamed into submission on Darfur.
"Genocide Olympics" branding is a waste of time that is being paid for with lives. The media loves a good street circus – this month, Jonathan Alter declared the Olympics "the world's last lever" to settle Darfur, as if TV stunts and Olympic ceremonies propel geopolitics.
But Beijing's support for Sudan's Khartoum government won't be blunted by Western pressure. The West must constructively enlist China.
Khartoum's thugs spur ethnic hatred to incite the janjaweed militias toward something that looks like genocide. But it's important to understand that what motivates and funds this murderous regime and its weaponry isn't ethnic. It's China's desperate need for energy and the long-term strategic importance of Darfur's oil fields to China's economic growth.
Consider that China owns the largest oil concessions in Darfur. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir is financing the slaughter of tribes with claims to the land above Sudan's largest reserves. He eliminates an inconvenient people with weapons and oil money from China, so he can ship more oil to China. On-camera, suppressing a smile, Energy Minister Awad al-Jaz said, "With the Chinese we don't feel any interference in our Sudanese traditions or politics or beliefs.... There is no other business but the business."
That cold context – and the fact that China has invested billions in exploration, production, pipelines, and weapons plants – underscores the implausibility of every option being endorsed by the Western punditariat.
Since China wields veto power on the United Nations Security Council, no serious multilateral sanctions, arms embargo, or effective military intervention can happen. A NATO or US-backed no-fly zone would inevitably mean occupation, since securing refugee corridors from the janjaweed can't be done from the air. It would also polarize the region, further align the US against both Muslim and Chinese interests in Africa, and escalate tensions without addressing China's fundamental motivations.
Darfur has become a five-year slaughter because of the failure of the West to devise serious incentives for China to bring Khartoum and the rebels to the table. Direct approaches to Khartoum to find a political solution have been a travesty and cannot succeed. The only way to get the Khartoum government under control and resolve this humanitarian crisis is to enlist China's economic and strategic self-interest – directly.
The West must create a context in which China's self-interest could be better served by reinforcing the rule of law in Darfur. Right now, China handles security on the ground in its own way: Thousands of the oil workers in the fields are Chinese military capable of defending installations there, should rebels gain momentum or the Bashir regime be overthrown.
To stop this surrogate standoff, the West must vest Beijing explicitly in a legitimate form of stability and security in the Sudan – one that doesn't threaten its oil interests.
Rather than attempts at embarrassment, sanctions, threats, or a serious military intervention that China would interpret as a challenge to its control of the oil fields, the focus should be on tying diplomatic and economic efforts together coherently, to enlist China constructively.
This can be done – because it has been done, in dealing with North Korea's nuclear ambitions. In 2006 the US pushed to get expanded voting rights for China in the International Monetary Fund, to reflect its weight in the world economy. The quid pro quo Treasury Secretary Paulson promoted was a "hope," as he gently put it, that more power in the IMF would motivate China to allow its artificially low currency to float to a market exchange rate (helping US and EU exports).
China's currency started to float. What wasn't mentioned publicly was that the offer of more IMF voting shares was also used to help get Beijing's aid in squeezing North Korea, by reducing its financial assistance to Pyongyang. And it worked.
If the Bush administration is looking for a legacy making move, the famously siloed departments of State, Treasury, and the US Trade Representative (USTR) could quietly offer meaningful incentives for China to play a more active role in resolving the Darfur crisis.
China has a significant interest in even modest changes to US and EU farm subsidies, for example, to make its food exports more attractive. Those subsidies are widely considered excessive. USTR has already urged "ambitious cuts" in subsidies to revive trade talks – cuts that could be applied as part of an economic brake lever on mass slaughter.
We have similar openings in trade and currency negotiations, peaceful technology transfer, scientific collaboration, environmental control technology, bioscience, and technical assistance on any number of fronts – some or all of which, negotiated deliberately, can align China's economic interests with the West's agenda in Darfur.
Attempts to gain cooperation through humiliation feel righteous, but won't deliver results. Only when we positively address China's economic self-interest, and its desperate need for energy, will the West find the humanitarian solution it seeks.
• Mark Lange is a journalist and a former presidential speechwriter.