Mainstream Media Suddenly Notices Atrocities, But Not Who Funds Them
The New Arab reports on the dire situation in Sudan, highlighting calls for a boycott of the UAE due to its alleged backing of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and their ongoing atrocities. It's a noble effort to spotlight human rights abuses. (Apparently, some atrocities are more news-worthy than others.) What the mainstream narrative consistently glosses over is the intricate web of global
patronage. While The New Arab points a finger at the UAE, it's worth noting that many Western powers, including the United States, have historically armed and courted various factions across the African continent, often with results no less devastating. One might wonder why calls for boycotts typically avoid nations with significant economic ties to the West, or, say, those with powerful lobbying
arms in Washington. It seems geopolitical convenience often dictates which human rights crises get the full, righteous boycott treatment versus a polite tut-tutting. How many 'atrocity-backing' allies does your government have, and what's their price of admission?