For example, Obama and Brownback say we should ‘use diplomacy’ to ensure Chinese support of U.N. Sanctions. China is happy to support Sudan because it has deals for oil exploitation with the Sudanese government. If we expect China to stop supporting Khartoum, we need either to offer them something worth more than the oil, or make them fear to oppose us. Either is a difficult proposition, and therefore it is unlikely that diplomacy will prevail.

With the Sudanese Government themselves we have more options. We could offer them signifigant aid packages, and perhaps get them to change, although that has the moral hazard of rewarding genocidal activities with aid. Alternatively, we could threaten to support a new nation of Darfur by arming and training the Rebels and providing air cover for them unless the government changes it’s policies and stops the attacks. This sort of thing of course requires a willingness to follow up should diplomacy fail.

Historically of course the French have been very good at diplomacy. Cardinal Richelieu, for example, was very good at deploying both carrots and sticks to get what he wanted. He never made the mistake of thinking that merely by talking nice things would turn out the way he wanted them to.

There’s a reason that the international language of diplomacy was, for so very long, French.