US to UN: screw you, we've got better

A new report, by a seemingly decent journalist, details the US's attempt to intervene in Sudan. As I hoped and expected, the AU will likely take a major role in this effort.
This is because, once again, the Security Council is stuck between two opposing viewpoints. The US wants to go in, as evidenced by:

"What we have to do on an accelerated basis is to maximize the African Union presence," (U.S. Ambassador John Danforth) said. "I'm for action now. Action is getting the AU (African Union) in there and having sufficient funds for the relief of these desperate people - that's action."

China, on the other hand, says:

"I think that any use of the means of sanctions, or the threat of sanctions, is difficult for my government," (China's U.N. Ambassador, Wang Guangya) said. "I don't think that sanctions will be helpful under the present circumstances."

China's guy is telling a half-truth. China doesn't want sanctions because Sudan exports some oil. A tiny amount, but some. China, as of the last few years, is one of the worlds largest importers of oil, and they need to keep prices down to prevent their growing industry from crashing (that 'crash' has been expected for about 6 months, and may actually be ending right around now, but that end is a "soft landing", which means simply a deceleration of growth. A "hard landing", however, is a depression, which China may not be able to afford. Thus, China is being very careful with economics, and wants to avoid instability whenever possible). Thus, China doesn’t want sanctions on Sudan because of oil.

Now, who would have guessed that Bush is the opposite of someone who allows the slaughtering of tens of thousands for oil? On top of that, Bush (or, at least, Danforth) is willing to spend a ton of money on the AU, so that the morally right thing will be done, without any consideration for some oil.
However, sanctions would have almost no effect on Sudan. The Sudanese government is consolidating power by slaughtering an entire ethnicity which includes some rebels, and those rebels are a larger problem than international displeasure (the European Union has proven very easy to please, making international efforts even more difficult). Sudan can always gain better standing in the international community after it wipes out the native blacks, though the genocide is taking a very long time.

So, it looks like the US will fund the AU’s excursion into Sudan. In my opinion, this is a lot better than waiting for the UN to kick in. The AU can probably do its work without sanctions, so China will be happy (unless Sudan’s oil industry is threatened, in which case China would get paranoid again and raise hell, hoping that they can force the AU to leave Sudan). And, if things get really nasty, the US can probably pull some strings so the mid-east will compensate for any reduced oil output from Sudan, while the US sends replacement military hardware to the AU (that’s only if the AU actually fights the janjaweed).


So, assuming that the US gets the AU to intervene, and provides the necessary funds, will the AU actually fight the janjaweed, rather than mimicking the UN’s useless peacekeeping forces? I don’t believe there is a precedent to check. But, this question may determine what happens with Sudan over the next several years.