The freely elected democraticgovernmentof China is given too little credit Sorry, I'll try thatagain.Theaged clique that runs China is given much too little credit, it seems to me, for its sense of humour. Why would that be?

Perhaps the best jokes are lost in translation. Perhaps the famous one aboutthestudentandthetankin Tiananmen Square can only be appreciated in the original. Or perhaps the nominal communists - a gag, surely, in any language - practise a satire too subtle for decadentWesternerstoappreciate. Perhaps we miss the difference between the punchline and the party line.

Last week, for all that, you could have sworn various Chinese spokespersons were practising their stand-up. Their faces were commendably straight, but their words were comedy gold. Taxed over disgusting events in Burma, and questioned about their government's undoubted influence on the madcap junta, they said that China is not in the habit of interfering (pause for laughter) in the internal affairs of other countries.

They talk of little else in Tibet. Taiwan owesitsprosperitytothefriendly encouragement of a gigantic neighbour given to remarking playfully that the island state has no right to exist. Sovereign nations everywhere recognise the benevolence of the People's Republic. Or, as they chuckle in Beijing, else.

China, in fact, is a regular beacon of hope in a human rights crisis. Elections denied,dissidentsoppressed,free speech suppressed, prisoners executed wholesale: the Chinese have studied these matters closely. They know exactly where the Burmese generals have gone wrong. Would Buddhist monks ever march in an unruly mob through the streets of Lhasa? The very idea.

TheChinesecaredeeplyabout human rights. They have spent a lot of time and effort over a great many years trying to ensure that no citizen of their republic is heard to complain. Ever. Aboutanything.Theycareabout human rights almost as much as they care about the Olympic Games and their image abroad. That's why they fail to see the funny side when the former is mentioned in connection with the latter.

We forgive them for it, though, the scamps. If Burma is descending into chaos, if its army has decided to giveitspeopleaforciblelessoninself-defence,whobetterthan China to act as the instrument of the world's conscience? In return we promise - for what is an Iraq between defenders of human rights? - to noticenocontradictions.That's what they call diplomacy.

How was it put, do we think, when the UN Security Council met in New York last week? Did little Britain cough politely and say, "By the way, China. Bit of a mess in Rangoon. You're ideally placed to impose a few standards. What about it? Just ask them to stop killing monks, locking up dissidents, and banning elections, eh? That ought to fix it."?

ByallaccountsWangGuangya, China's ambassador, had the good grace not to laugh out loud. Instead of mentioning the huge interest-free loans to the junta, the $2 billion in arms sales and military training, the roads, railways and dams China has built, and the copious amounts of oil and gas it has graciously accepted in return, he told the one about non-interference.

Elsewhere, India shuffled its feet and stared at the floor, hoping nobody would bring up the ports, roads and rail links it, too, has been constructing in Burma. Russia meanwhile couldn't see the humour when someone invoked the plight of the Burmese people ("an internal matter") in the context of the nuclear plant Moscow is selling to the generals.

We have been here before, of course. Thousands died in Burma in 1988 when the military decided that the bullet was preferable to the ballot box. Aung San Suu Kyi has endured house arrest since 1990 after being foolish enough to win a free election. In January, China and Russia vetoed a US-sponsored UN resolution calling on the junta to stop persecuting its people. Now the impotent West nominates the Chinese as honest brokers.

London, Washington and Paris have denounced the Burmese generals in ringing tones, of course. It was the least they could do. Calls for UN action and renewed sanctions tended, however, to overlook the fact that Western tastes for teak, tourism and oil have been more effective than any amount of repression in keeping the regime in power. Fitted kitchens and backpacking may not seem heinous, but, after Iraq, George Bush and Gordon Brown bring little moral authority even to those commercial sidelines.

France, on the other hand, bears no taint from the war against Saddam. That said, French oil giant Total may count as the single biggest prop thejuntahas.President Sarkozy last week demanded that the firm "discontinue"investment. Total, which has admitted to using Burmeseforcedlabour, blithely said Non.

All of which leaves diplomacy. It is an art with many admirers, usually among career diplomats. Britain's latest government, keen to forget the unpleasant war for which all but one of its members voted, now enthuses over the exercise of such "soft power", the virtues of negotiation, and multilateralism. They are pinning their hopes on the fruits of diplomacy.

Fine.Anysolutionthatdoesnot involve shooting or one of Bush's surgical strikes for freedom probably has somethingtorecommendit.Why should it be, though, that diplomacy is regarded as a kind of self-sustaining, logically and morally autonomous process? Why is every alternative effort supposed to be suspended merely "to allow diplomacy to take its course"? Where is that rule written down? Who wrote it? No quoting the UN charter, please.

In the case of Burma, those in the West who are pursuing diplomacy understand the positions of China, India, Russia and the semi-autonomous republic of Total perfectly well. Disgusted citizens are invited to share GordonBrown'soutrage-lastweek Zimbabwe, this week Burma - but economic interests long ago supplanted any human dimension. In fact, the best we are offered in the name of diplomacy is the hope that China won't want a bad press ahead of the Beijing Olympics and will therefore "act".

THE games do appear to matter a great deal to theChinese. If it seems necessary to tradethelivesofa bunch of monks for a couple of weeksofrunning, jumping and falling over, Beijing might just go for it. And who's to argue?

The hoped-for transaction is utterly bizarre,nevertheless,andinching towards the territory of the absurd. To put it no higher, it confers little dignity on the august process of diplomacy. Think it through. Will China go on to release a dozen of its own numerous political prisoners for every Olympic medal won? As a gesture, you understand. Call it surrealpolitik.

Surreal it certainly is. Perhaps all that diplomacy tells us is that rhetoric is puny in the face of political and economic self-interest. Equally, perhaps, the pitiful spectacle of Burma reminds usthat"internationalinstitutions" require more thought and effort than they have received.

America and Britain had one go at imposing liberty on a troubled country, all guns blazing and don't mention the oil. Let's say for brevity's sake that the results have been unimpressive. But if diplomacy is the alternative, and is intended to save the Burmese from their rulers, its advocates also have some hard questions to answer.

Is China laughing at the sentimental, squeamish West? Or is China deadly serious in treating human rights as a joke? I'm a great fan of irony in comedy. Who's for an Olympic boycott?