Sudan-China: Does This Matter?

The question here is not rhetorical, I really would appreciate those more in the know on the subject to imbue this post with their wisdom. I saw this on the BBC website on Saturday and thought it was interesting enough to provoke broader media coverage, but alas, nothing.

Here's the story, from Bloomberg:
"China's President Hu Jintao broke with his government's traditional policy of non-interference in a nation's internal affairs by telling Sudan last week to accept a joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping mission to Darfur, China's ambassador said.

"Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya said, "It was a clear strong message that the proposal from Kofi Annan is a good one and Sudan has to accept it.'' On his second trip to Sudan in less than a year, Hu signed a series of aid agreements with Sudan and visited the 100,000 barrel-a-day Khartoum oil refinery in which the China National Petroleum Corp. has a 50 percent stake. Sudan now supplies China with about 8 percent of its oil, and its output is rising.
Hu didn't use those trade relations to pressure Sudan, according to Wang, who said China "never twists arms.'' Still, Wang said Sudan "got the message.''

and this from the Sudan Tribune:
"The two countries also signed a loan agreement for a new presidential palace project of some 100 mln Yen

China has agreed to give Sudan an interest-free loan of 100 mln yuan and a grant of 40 mln for a variety of projects, Sudanese Finance Minister Al-Zubair Ahmed Hassan said.

"The agreements also included a protocol on pardoning part of Sudan due debts to China amounting to some 470m Yen and 19m dollars."


Here's where I'm confused. I think China telling Sudan to accept UN peacekeepers is a big step, because they are typically against that sort of thing (especially when it comes to their own affairs) and may be Sudan's biggest international investor/trade partner, but I don't know that it sends the right message to say "You should really accept the UN peacekeepers some time; but in the meantime, how about a little debt relief and economic assistance." To me, that is a dubious position.

Here's one take from Washington Post op-ed'er Sebastian Mallaby, yesterday:
"Hu's visit was a statement that, in the Chinese view of the world, the principle of sovereignty trumps even the most appalling human rights abuses...By pursuing commercial ties with Sudan, Hu was implicitly saying that economic development comes first and that political development is unimportant.

But then there is an even more disturbing question: What does China's policy toward Sudan say about the West's policy toward China? The West is engaging with China on the theory that economic modernization will bring political modernization as well; otherwise, the West would merely be assisting the development of a communist adversary. China's Sudan policy is an assertion that this link between economic and political modernization is by no means inevitable, even in the extreme case. You can construct oil refineries, educate scientists, build ambitious new railways -- and simultaneously pursue a policy of genocide."

This position is relatively close to what I was thinking, but is this position off-base or missing the point?