When a 'Massacre' is 'Horrific'—But Not Worth Sanctions
The Financial Times editorial board is shocked— shocked! —by a massacre in Sudan, correctly identifying the UAE's alleged role in enabling the conflict. They call for the US and UK to 'put pressure' on the Gulf state. A noble sentiment, until one recalls that the UAE is a key US ally, purchasing billions in American weaponry. In 2023 alone, the US approved over $300 million in arms sales to the
UAE, a country that hosted the COP28 climate summit (and its CEO, Sultan Al Jaber, also led ADNOC, the national oil company), suggesting a rather robust 'partnership' impervious to minor inconveniences like 'horrific massacres' enabled by their alleged actions. One might wonder: how many 'horrific massacres' does it take for a strategic ally to lose its VIP pass to unchecked arms flows and
diplomatic immunity? Apparently, more than one in Sudan. This isn't just about Sudan's suffering; it's about the selective outrage machine of mainstream media, where geopolitical convenience consistently trumps human rights. Some massacres are 'horrific' enough for a stern editorial, others require immediate, tangible consequences. The distinction, it seems, is less about lives lost and more about
who's losing them, and for whose benefit.