To answer your question, let me just give a brief historical background.
I co-chaired a task force in Washington that was to develop a U.S. Sudan policy for the incoming administration, which turned out to be the Bush administration. When we started, most people were saying that Sudan was not of national interest to the United States, that the only interest was its involvement with terrorism and destabilization of the countries in the region, and the humanitarian agenda. I was the only Sudanese or non-American on the task force, chairing.
My position was that Sudan is a country that brings together southern Africa and northern Africa, two sets of civilizations and cultures and races. It could be a conciliatory meeting point or a point of confrontation, which would have ripple effects into the Middle East and into the southern part. Sudan is involved in terrorism because they believe that the west is supporting the south in the war. They're linking with like-minded people--the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Sudan is destabilizing the neighbourhood, again because they think black African countries are supporting the south.
The humanitarian agenda, the humanitarian crisis, is a result of the war. Let us make peace the top priority. The United States, as a global power that has interests all over the world, cannot afford to be disinterested on the grounds that it doesn't have a narrow national interest. It has to have an interest implicit in its leadership and the responsibilities of leadership.
Now, it's not just the United States. There are many countries of the world that play a leadership role. Your country is one. You have the U.K., Norway. They've all played a major role in bringing peace to Sudan, and indeed ending the war in the south ended all these other evils that are associated with it.
I believe Darfur is a case of good intentions leading to not-so-good results. Had we taken Darfur as the latest in a series of conflicts that started in the south and moved to the north, we would have probably engaged constructively in bringing an end to the conflict. China, as a major power that is becoming more and more global, has to recognize that the leadership role has obligations that go along with its interests and become more involved with other countries that have already been engaging in bringing peace to that region. I think the responsibilities of leadership are being made apparent to China.