Chinese investors are investing in oil from the Sudan despite the genocide in Darfur because they need oil and the West has a lock on most of the sources in the Arab world... and the majority of the world's oil that's still in the ground is in Arab lands. This has nothing directly to do with the Chinese government, aside from their failure to enforce the international boycott, but China has a lot of problems of their own and rarely if ever get involved in other countries' disputes unless they're a party to that dispute. You're confusing individual Chinese people and companies with the Chinese government and/or the Chinese people as a whole.

Individual Chinese citizens do in fact participate in the illegal trade in tiger parts, as well as body parts from other animals endangered and otherwise, at all stages of the trade, from the poachers who kill the animals, to the middlemen who smuggle them, the stores that serve as clearinghouses and the end-users who purchase and use the illicit parts. But China is signatory to all the major international treaties protecting endangered species, in addition to having its own laws against killing or trading in the remains of tigers and other threatened species, and every year investigates, captures, prosecutes and sentences people who have violated Chinese and international laws by participating in the tiger trade. Some Chinese, meanwhile, both in government and private citizens, have advocated for and invested in trying to develop tiger farms to reduce the demand for poached tigers -- this effort seems to be failing, but it at least had the good intention of trying to reduce poaching. You have again conflated individual Chinese people and companies with the Chinese government and/or the Chinese people as a whole.

By your logic the United States would shoulder the principal blame for the world trade in heroin and cocaine.

Speaking of the U.S., it, not China, is the world's worst polluter, as someone else already pointed out.

I can't disagree with you about Tibet. China has no business there; Tibet is a sovereign nation whose people are brutalized, deported from their ancestral homes, and have their own language and culture forbidden them under Chinese occupation. China didn't "liberate" anyone by invading Tibet.

As for what a "superpower" is... historically, that has never been determined by whose morals were superior. It's always been a matter of who was most powerful and most able to force lesser powers to submit to them or at least stay out of their way. England was a superpower once... when they invaded and subdued the peoples of North America, Africa, the Middle East, India and elsewhere, taking other peoples' sovereign land as colonies. Spain, similarly, was a superpower when it made colonies of most of South and Central America, as well as the Philippines and much of North America. The Soviet Union became a superpower by adding to its already-large (but largely useless) territory with the annexation of countries from the Baltic to Central Asia, and by expanding its influence even beyond its swollen borders with combined economic and military might to keep countries from Poland to Afghanistan within its "Iron Curtain." Even the United States, even after fighting a long war for its own independence, was not innocent of this sort of imperialist expansion; the Philippines were "liberated" by U.S. forces but then kept as a "territory" under the same "Manifest Destiny" doctrine that was used to justify the grabbing of many other peoples' lands, some of which remain under U.S. control today. So as far as the historical standard of what makes a superpower, China has earned that title pretty well.

Please stop polluting Yahoo! Answers with racist diatribes thinly disguised as questions. Kids read this site, you know?