Yes, but an explicit apology forces a benchmark of accountability: if the government apologized to group A for committing B, why are they still committing B to group C?
Some of the known-successful ways to get around said "benchmark" are "this time it's different", "this government is good", "group C deserves it", and "we're not doing B".
How about some supporting evidence?
> It can always be worse, you know.
Yes, it can always be worse, but whether or not a govt has said something is wrong has no predictive power on that issue.
Every post-1900 by-govt mass murder was committed by a "we don't do those things" regime.