Must we call genocide “genocide”?
The Armenian genocide? Or The Armenian mass killings? And does it matter?
In a debate that seems to recur every few years, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs voted today to condemn as “genocide”, the mass killing of Armenians during and after World War I. Like in 2007, the last time an Armenian Genocide resolution came up, the Administration (then Bush, today Obama), sought to halt the vote – both times to no avail.
Unlike with the situation in Darfur, the hesitancy to use the word “genocide” stems not from worries about the responsibilities to which the use of the word would commit the United States, but from simple geopolitics. Turkey, while acknowledging that as many as 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of Ottoman Turks, has always denied that the deaths were part of a planned orchestrated campaign – a prerequisite for calling them “genocide.” And fearing the genocide label would tar their national reputation, Turkey has long fought the official declaration by other governments of the events as such. Because of this lobbying, only twenty countries, to date, have recognized the Armenian genocide.
This is not a partisan issue. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have sought to recognize the genocide, driven by both moral and political forces: the desire to condemn genocide and the need to represent the interests of a key political constituency, Armenian-Americans. And both Democratic and Republican administrations have tried to halt such efforts in order to protect the Turkish-American partnership.
The public philosopher, thus, faces a common dilemma discussed here before: how to balance between values and material interests. Does the good gained by recognizing a genocide as such outweigh the harm that such an action would do to U.S.-Turkey relations. Which begs the question: what is the good gained by recognizing a genocide?
Clearly recognizing genocide has extrinsic or derivative value; that is, value not from its self but from something related to it. The power that the word “genocide” carries can deter others from committing similar acts and punish those who do commit such acts. Calling something a genocide may pressure other actors to intervene to stop it and give special protections (such as refugee status) to those who are part of the victimized group. These and other benefits give the recognition of genocide extrinsic value.
The more interesting question, however, is whether recognizing genocide has intrinsic value; that is, value for its own sake. Though I am inclined to answer “no” to this question, I am definitely open to arguments otherwise. Once we have established the full value of recognizing genocide, we can compare this value gained to the value lost from strained relations with Turkey and make a decision about whether to recognize the genocide or not. I’m not prepared to make a determination either way, but I know there are many readers much more opinionated than I. Anyone care to chime in?
-Marc
Photo by Flickr user karaian used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
Related posts:
- Some call it lobbying
- No visa for oil
- Arrrrrr….pirates and principles
- Swine flu and global justice
- Do two wrongs make a right?
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
