UK Foreign Office Discovers 'Genocide' Is a Very Flexible Term
A whistleblower alleges the UK Foreign Office scrubbed 'genocide' warnings from Sudan risk assessments, reportedly to protect the UAE (which has been accused of backing the RSF paramilitary group responsible for atrocities). This follows historic patterns: the UK, alongside the US, abstained on a UN Security Council resolution for arms embargoes during the Rwandan genocide, 1994, citing
'implementation difficulties.' This isn't oversight; it's a feature. Apparently, some genocides are less inconvenient than others for global powers. When the 'national interest' (or a key ally's reputation, according to the whistleblower) is on the line, suddenly the word 'genocide' becomes a PR problem, rather than a rallying cry for intervention. How many 'never agains' must be selectively
applied before the phrase loses all meaning?