UN Court Examines Genocide, World Forgets Its Own Accomplices
While ABC News dutifully covers the UN court addressing Myanmar's alleged genocide against the Rohingya, the narrative often glosses over the uncomfortable truth: many of the same global powers now 'concerned' about genocide conveniently turned a blind eye (or sold weapons) while it unfolded. This isn't just about Myanmar; it's a stark reminder of selective outrage. The international community,
especially Western powers, has a long, documented history of condemning atrocities only when politically convenient, often ignoring regimes allied with their strategic interests—even when those regimes commit horrific human rights abuses, or worse. One might wonder if the same moral compass would swing into action if the perpetrators were, say, a 'strategic ally' with strong lobbying power in
Washington, or if the victims didn't occupy geopolitically insignificant land. How many 'last warnings' (and arms deals) does genocide get before it's finally labeled as such, and by whom? Or does UN intervention only occur when the 'villain' doesn't have an annual AIPAC banquet thrown in their honor?