Stop the presses, folks, the University of Wisconsin is — gasp — against genocide! Two weeks ago, the Board of Regents unanimously voted to pat themselves on the back and announce to the media their thoroughly uncontroversial stance. The unanimous vote forces the University to divest all funds currently supporting Sudan's genocidal government. A truly admirable action, right? Well, it would've been except they conveniently forgot to mention an important fact: UW doesn't have any funds in Sudan to divest! In an August 18th press release, Regent Charles Pruitt showers himself with praise for his "humanitarian" actions and humbly states it was "the right decision." Yet the Board of Regents didn't quite have a decision to make, as the United States banned investment in Sudan nine years ago. Pruitt's self-serving gesture is a slap in the face for the people of Darfur who are preoccupied with staying alive and need real, not symbolic, action. Darfur once captured the attention of the world, peaking with a high-profile march in Washington D.C. that supposedly united liberals and conservatives in a fight against genocide. Well-meaning students founded "Action in Sudan" clubs around the world and countless kiosks were painted with fliers for candlelight vigils and demonstrations. However, Sudan's government knows a thing or two about playing the public relations game. Sensing a need to divert international attention, Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir announced a non-binding peace treaty with one of the many rebel groups in Darfur. Despite Sudan's history of ignoring such resolutions, the BBC expressed "joy and relief" at news of the peace accords and sent their foreign correspondents elsewhere. While the volley of rockets between Israel and Hezbollah dominated headlines in July and August, Sudan silently restarted a far more violent genocidal campaign in Darfur. As September comes to a close, all eyes are back on Sudan. Lacking financial support, proper training or any semblance of legitimacy, the seven thousand African Union troops currently monitoring Darfur will be disbanded on Sept. 30th. Within days, government-sponsored militias will return in large numbers to fill the vacuum, continuing atrocities that the world once pledged to prevent at all costs. With 200,000 dead and two million taken from their homes, Darfur has already suffered through the worst genocide of the 21st century. Can further suffering be prevented? Interestingly enough, the key to helping Darfur is hidden in the far-off cities of Beijing, Moscow and Doha, where President al-Bashir trades Sudanese oil for the money and guns that keep his government in power. China, in particular, is the primary obstacle to United Nations intervention, preventing numerous U.N. Security Council attempts to intervene in Darfur by voting time after time to let genocide continue unabated, lest Sudan's national sovereignty (read: China's oil tap) be violated. With car ownership skyrocketing among the 1.4 billion Chinese, state-owned oil companies are willing to ignore mass murder when establishing trade deals. Sudan's government, choosing to rule through violence, eagerly trades their natural resources for Chinese military equipment to use against the people of Darfur. The symbiotic relationship naturally extends to the nations' state-controlled press agencies. Sudan's top officials shower the Chinese with praise who then return the favor by slyly permitting the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people. As Sudan's Energy Minister Awad Ahmed Jaz so eloquently puts it, "The Chinese are very nice, they don't have anything to do with any politics or problems." Looking to save face without saving lives, China responds with empty statements expressing a vague desire to end "Darfur's suffering," so long as the action carries the impossible approval of the Sudanese government. Sudan, engaged in a well-publicized genocide, has nothing to lose in terms of reputation. Al-Bashir and his regime in Khartoum are undoubtedly aware they have earned multiple life terms in prison, and thus are unlikely to bow to verbal threats calling for an end to their violent campaign. Just as it does no good to pick the picket of a suicide bomber approaching his target, divesting from Sudan is far too little and far too late. China, on the other hand, remains a productive member of the international community and has made cautious steps toward discussing U.N. involvement in Darfur. The effort to end genocide in Darfur must target Sudan's ties with China and call for pressure on Beijing to put pressure on Khartoum. After all, President Hu Jintao of China writes the checks that keep al-Bashir in power and sells the guns that silence the people of Darfur. Without this financial and military crutch, Sudan's government would be unable to carry out genocide, much less maintain control over the 10th largest country in the world. The Board of Regents' divestment from Sudan is nothing more than a meaningless press release — an attempt to cash in on the suffering of millions with hopes of scoring some positive press amidst increasingly vocal complaints of rising tuition. The "Save Darfur" movement must immediately abandon plans of divestment to refocus on Beijing and call on U.S. officials engaged in trade talks to apply serious diplomatic pressure. The genocide will only be over when al-Bashir and his authoritarian government have been deposed and face charges for crimes against humanity. The most immediate goal, the arrival of U.N. peacekeepers, may not be a cure-all to the conflict in Darfur, but it is an important first step in giving long-suffering people the basic security needed to rebuild their long-ravaged lives. Daniel Tenenbaum ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science, international studies and history.