Why is it hypocitical to ask governments to stop funding human rights abusers? Many human rights abuses have been committed by US-funded proxies: what's hypocritical about asking for an end to that? Would you find it hypocritical of the US and UK to stop funding proxies who torture, because both the US and UK also seem to have a history of torturing people directly?
The part of my post about 'US & UK training Kenyan troops' came directly from the Daily Mail article I linked:
... Britain and the U.S. provide millions in assistance and training to security forces in Kenya. "The British people should be concerned that their money is being spent on training forces implicated in torture, murder and disappearances'' ...
These ideas also appear in the HRW report:
“All the Men Have Gone”
War Crimes in Kenya’s Mt. Elgon Conflict
... Summary ...
... In a joint army-police operation, the security forces conducted mass round-ups of thousands of men and boys, tortured hundreds if not thousands in detention, and unlawfully killed dozens of others ...
... Recommendations ... To the governments of the US and UK
Suspend police and military assistance and cooperation programs until the Kenyan military and Kenyan police fully investigate and take appropriate action regarding allegations of torture and other abuses by their forces ...
http://hrw.org/reports/2008/kenya0708/I can't imagine what you find hypocritical there. More importantly, I can't see any relevance to the charge of hypocrisy. The charge of hypocrisy is generally leveled in order to decreases the moral leverage of an abuse complaint: thus, in cases where one has
only moral leverage, real hypocrisy eliminates any possibility of exerting influence; however, when relevant material leverage (such as military funding for the abusers) exists, why shouldn't it be used to exert influence to end the abuses? I am sorry you consider that a game, but the people being abused may not consider it a game