The question of whether the events that were unfolding in Rwanda from 6 April 1994 should
be formally recognised as a 'genocide' was a deeply problematic one for the international community, to the extent that the term came to be evoked euphemistically as 'the G word.'

The creation of the term by Lemkin, and its definition within the framework of the Genocide Convention, had sought to establish a precise denotational meaning for the purpose of bringing perpetrators to justice. However, in relation to the events in Rwanda, it was the connotations embedded in the term that were seen as significant for both the UN and the US, since a conflict classified as a genocide would intrinsically carry the heavy moral imperative to intervene to uphold the mantra of 'never again.' The conscious manipulation of language was therefore a powerful tool for shaping the UN and US response to the situation in Rwanda.

This paper proposes to complement existing studies on the reticence of the international community to intervene in Rwanda by elucidating the complex linguistic gymnastics characterising the discourse of the US government ministers and UN officials, and the repercussions of those lexical choices.