learntoquestion ltq discussions

Questions to Consider:

1. What are some of the conditions that led to the Armenians becoming targets of persecution and violence in the Ottoman Empire before the genocide began in 1915? Which human behavior theories help to explain their persecution? Are there ways that we should attempt to to stop or disrupt these types of behaviors in society that could lead to genocide?

2. How aware was the world of what was happening to the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire beginning in 1915? What could the United States or any other nation do, realistically, to stop these atrocities? How did World War I impact the genocide and limit intervention? What is the connection between war and genocide?

3. What is gained and what is lost by the recognition of what happened to the Armenians between 1915-1923 as an official genocide? What is gained and what is lost by using the term genocide to call attention to mass atrocities or human rights violations that may be presently occurring?

4. Should genocide, in the legal sense, require specific, irrefutable evidence? Is the potential punishment for orchestrating genocide enough of a deterrent to stop it from happening? Should the world strengthen our ability to respond to genocide while it is occuring instead of after the fact? How could this be done?

Word Count Requirement: 500-750 words

Sources to Reference:

Please refer to the ideas, either using a quote or paraphrasing, from at least two of the sources in your response and please respond in some way to at least two of the question sets.

You are also free to refer to the chapter that you read from Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (Jones, 2006) or the film that we watched in class The Armenian Genocide (PBS International).

Humanitarian Intervention or Humanitarian Imperialism? America and the Armenian Genocide (Laderman, 2020)

Excerpt from Rwanda and Genocide in the 20th centiury (Destexhe, 1995)

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment for the Crime of Genocide (United Nations, 1948)

When to Refer to a Situation as ‘Genocide’ (United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and Responsibility to Protect)

The world was not very aware of what was happening to the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire in 1915. Most if not all countries in Europe were busy thinking about World War I. They were unable to take their attention away from the threat of war and the tensions between each other to instead focus on the Armenians. Especially in the years after, when the war was in full blow, countries in Europe such as France, Germany, Britain, Russia, and more were in total war, meaning that everything in their societies were focused on the war. Production, factories, and all materials were used for making weapons, and people with any job (or jobless) were sent to work in some way to support the war. The Ottoman Empire was able to join the war, but they also had other problems in their empire. There were tensions that had been building for thousands of years, and they all exploded in the Armenian genocide. The United States and other nations did not step in to stop the genocide, partly because they were fighting in WWI and partly because they did not want to make enemies with Turkey/the Ottoman Empire. “ ‘Never draw unless you mean to shoot.’ Even while pursuing this more cautious approach, however, Roosevelt remained convinced that, if the opportunity arose, then the United States should intervene for the Armenians.” This quote is from the Humanitarian Intervention or Humanitarian Imperialism? America and the Armenian Genocide, written by Charlie Laderman in 2020. It has a quote from Roosevelt World War I took countrys’ ability to help the Armenians and made them worry about the enemies that they could make if they did step in. This all probably was known by the Ottoman Empire, and they used it to their full advantage to help them get away with genocide. The connection between war and genocide.

The Armenian genocide was due to the build-up of pressure within the Ottoman Empire. The Armenians for centuries were treated worse and forced to put up with more than the other, non-Armenian citizens. For example, their taxes were higher, they had restrictions on their own education, they couldn’t express their religion, and they had a harder time buying property. These things, along with the other mistreatment that Armenians had dealt with for hundreds of years, finally all erupted into massacres and eventually the genocide. They decided they no longer wanted to deal with this, and some Armenians organized small revolts/rebellions against the government. This was when the Otoman government mainly started the huge massacres, and they decided to blame it on the Armenians, saying that they had to respond to the revolts, and that it was the Armenians’ fault. To try and prevent genocide in the future, Article VIII of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states: “the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide,” showing that the United Nations can, and should, step in if they see that there are acts of genocide or anything else from Article III. They can involve themself if something is happening so that any acts do not turn into a genocide. This means that the massacres in the Ottoman Empire might not have been able to turn into a full blown genocide. The “Us vs Them” theory explains this genocide very well. The Ottoman Empire viewed the Armenians as the “other” and did not want them in their empire. The Ottomans were the “us” and the Armenians were the “them.” They were unwanted in the empire and forced to leave or be killed, or both.

Many people were aware that the Armenian Genocide was taking place, but many did nothing about it. Why? There was a world war that was monopolizing countries’ resources and attention. Though the government was occupied, everyday people in the United States took notice of the genocide and “[p]rivate charities and churches took the lead in marshaling relief efforts” (Laderman 8). Realistically, during the war not much could have been done militarily, but politically the United States, as well as other nations, could have cut the Ottoman Empire off by not sending them resources or trading with them. This however becomes a slippery slope as some of the nations allied with the empire needed them to gain military success in the war and restricted trade would hurt their relations as a nation. Other nations likely had already stopped trading with Turkey because they weren’t allied, so much of what could be done already was whether intentionally or not. World War I gave the Young Turkish government the ‘justification’ to commit genocide as treasonous Armenians had played a part in Turkey’s loss to Russia at Sarikamish. The defeat was seen as the Armenians' fault and even though many Armenians did not participate in the war, it was seen as a reason to exterminate them. This is similar resoning to the Herero genocide where a small group of Herero attacked the Germans and it became their ‘justification’ to attack the entire population. World War I limited intervention because as mentioned above most if not all of countries’ resources were dedicated to the war and couldn’t be diverted as it would risk a military and possible war defeat. The connection between war and genocide is a combination of it giving a nation ‘justification’ for attempting to or eliminating a population and other nations being largely unable to intervene. This of course was different in World War II as soldiers actively tried to free Jews in concentration camps which I am not fully sure why it was so different from World War I, but I’m sure it will be explained in the coming units. As outlined in the United Nations definition of genocide, “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” (Article III). All of these actions were committed in the Armenian Genocide and more, so why is it unrecognized as a genocide in some nations? Turkey is in a strategic location and is allied or has good diplomatic relations with many countries and other nations recognizing the genocide could and likely would hurt those relations. On the other hand recognizing the genocide allows the Armenian people to grieve and come to terms with what has happened and move towards forgiveness. Aditionally if Turkey (albeit unlikely) recognizes the acts committed from 1915-1923 as a genocide it could improve relations between Aremenia and Turkey allowing for more peace in the area both militarily and diplomatically.

Since it was first coined by Raphael Lemkin, the term “genocide” has grown drastically in usage to become a term that is now relatively well-known and widespread. This growth is positive in that such a crime is now one that many more people are educated on. They are aware of past instances of this crime and are taught, at least loosely, how to identify it; all of which helps to prevent it from occuring. However, according to Alain Destexhe, “The term genocide has progressively lost its initial meaning and is becoming dangerously commonplace.” ‘Genocide’ has been used as a synonym of “massacre, oppression, and repression” “in order to shock people and gain their attention to contemporary situations of violence or injustice.”

This is why the term “genocide” should not be used loosely. Because of how grave it is, not only as a punishable crime but also as a deeply traumatizing event, genocide is a term that should be used only when there is clear evidence that meets the extensive criteria. Though the violence and injustice that these people aim to call attention to should undoubtedly be recognized as well, using genocide as a word interchangeable with mass murder or oppression devalues it and makes it more difficult to recognize events that are actually genocides. Violence and injustice that don’t qualify as genocide should still be prevented and punished but under a different set of terms, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity. The main difference between such crimes and genocide, according to the United Nations’ definition, is the “element of ‘intent.’”

When an event is deemed a genocide, which the United Nations states “must be done by a competent international or

national court of law with the jurisdiction to try such cases, after an investigation meeting appropriate due process

standards,” then it is essential that it be recognized as such. Recognizing it as such would allow law enforcement to punish the perpetrators, while also granting victims, or descendants of victims, any potential reparations and a sense of closure with a formal apology from the state. None of this would, of course, erase the immense impact of the genocide on the targeted group(s), but establishing such punishments would only do more damage.

In many instances, it feels as if bad people will do bad things, regardless of any potential consequences. Particularly for those in positions of power, the illegality of their actions is often none of their concern, as they are able to be above the law or, at least, receive a much more lenient version of it. This is why many people claim that they have little faith in what potential punishments for genocide could do in terms of preventing it from being carried out, but these should still be implemented as much as possible. In addition to these punishments, there need to be better resources for the survivors of genocide, as well as the descendants and the victims. These resources must include help in rebuilding destroyed homes, stores, etc., reparations for any stolen property, and mental health resources.

Finally, in terms of responding to genocide while it is occurring, activism is likely the most influential tool. Many countries, unless they are already sworn enemies, are reluctant to call out another nation for their wrongdoings, as this could threaten any potential or active treaties and cause harm to their people, which are their top priority. This is why it is necessary that ordinary people, not politicians, push their governments to respond to such crimes, such as by condemning the country that is carrying out the genocide, enacting sanctions in order to pressure that country, and sending aid (ex. food, medical supplies). Politicians will often only care about something when they are forced to, and what better way to do that than strong activists who refuse to allow injustice to continue?

The Ottomans targeted the Armenians due to national insecurity, resulting in lowered cognitive dissonance and heightened desensitization. The Ottoman Empire was known as the ‘sick man of Europe’ due to its internal divide and hemorrhaging of territory. Within one week in 1908, Bulgaria and Crete declared independence due to growing nationalism, and Bosnia and Herzegovina were annexed. By 1913, the Ottoman Empire was a fraction of its original size. The empire had a long and proud history, and was very sensitive to the idea of falling in the 20th century. In Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, Adam Jones claims that “humiliation is one of the greatest psychological spurs to violence,” so the Armenians were made vulnerable to violence by their oppressors, whose self-esteem was lowered to the point of feeling little cognitive dissonance. The Ottomans were less affected by their sense of morality, and therefore were inclined to attack someone they could blame for their hardships. The Armenians were a religious minority and portions of the population had fought for Russia, so especially following the tremendous loss at Sarikamish, the Ottomans saw them as an easy scapegoat. The hatred of the Armenians was bolstered by their demands for more rights, and memories of the Armenian Resistance of the 1890s. Furthermore, the violent backlash from 1894 to 1896 made future violence seem more acceptable. Desensitization to massacre was a large factor in the beginnings of the genocide and the violence that preceded it, and the modern world can prevent this by holding nations accountable for oppression. This ensures that the population recognizes and condemns patterns of violence rather than seeing them as normal and justified facts of life. Another key factor in the oppression was the exclusionary nationalism of the Young Turks. Nationalism is most dangerous when it is blind and unites the population by creating a common enemy, and it can be combated using unbiased and available sources of information, like independent news stations.

Recognizing the massacre and systemic oppression of the Armenian people between 1915 and 1923 as a genocide can build awareness within Turkey and the international community, as well as giving Armenians some small justice by formally recognizing their ancestors’ trauma and eliminating current Turkish propaganda against them. The Armenian community cannot heal unless the world recognizes their history and supports them. Additionally, The Genocide Convention states that “at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity” and “in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required.” This conveys that acknowledging the destructiveness and legitimacy of past genocide, and working together to punish the perpetrators, can lower its future frequency. The downside of formally recognizing the massacre as genocide, however, is that it would violate the UN’s Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect document, which claims that a nation cannot be held responsible for genocide before the installment of the convention. Allowing such a violation unfortunately weakens the strength of the document, and the strength of the legal definition of genocide. The exclusivity of the label holds power because it has legal and political implications.

In the lead up to the Armenian genocide, the Armenian people were a Christian minority and a predominantly Muslim state. Beyond this, their social organization was different from that of the Ottoman empire as a whole, and they had a culture that was completely unique to them. These issues already led to tensions between the Ottoman government and the Armenian community, but these tensions were exacerbated by the amount of land that the Ottoman empire was losing to other groups succeeding, as well as foreign power taking their land. “It suffered numerous outside interventions by European powers, many in support of uprisings by the empire’s Christian minority subjects.” (Landerman) By the time of the first world war, the Ottoman empire was weakening, and other powers saw this as an opportunity to gain land, taking advantage of the fact that there were so many diverse ethnic and cultural groups to pioneer for their independence while also weakening the Ottoman empire. These stressors were taken out on the Armenian minority; the Ottoman government feared that the Armenian people, as well as other Christian citizens of the Ottoman empire, would become independant, so to stop that and maintain the land they held, they committed genocide against the Armenian people. The innate human desire to see oneself as part of an in-group, while others are socially outcast, led to many ordinary citizens taking up arms against the Armenian people, not only joining in on the slaughter but in some ways making it worse. This behavior was displayed in all areas of WWI, the staunch nationalism fostering both cohesion within nations, but also exacerbating the divisions between nations. The us vs. them mentality that was fostered during WWI egged on the slaughter of the Armenian people, and while the backing factors of the genocide existed long before the war, WWI accentuated both the weakinging state of the Ottoman empire, as well as the divisons between the two groups.

The fact that the Armenian genocide was being undertaken by the government in some ways limited the extent to which the world knew about it, since the only way information would get out would be by the intervention of a third party who had no connection to the Ottoman government and no motive to keep the genocide a secret. The news of what was happening to the Armenian people eventually became widespread, and many counties lobbied for support of the Armenian people; this was somewhat fostered by the fact that a majority of the major powers were predominantly Christian states (England, France, the United States) which gave them an innate connection to the plight of the Armenian people in a religious sense. Despite this, it would have been incredibly difficult for any of the powers to have intervened, since their soldiers were all deploying fighting the battles of WWI, most of which were on the Western front, far away from where the genocide was occurring. This prevented any large scale intervention, and discouraged any small scale one which would have made little difference anyway. This lack of intervention was also somewhat fostered by a lack of understanding of what crime was taking place, since the crime of genocide was only recognized as one after the evens of the holocaust. The most important development when it came to recognizing genocide as a specific crime is that before that, it would only count if it occurred during war time. The precluded any punishment for the crime of genocide if it had been committed within the borders of one state. Within this law, the Armenian genocide could only be considered a crime once they expanded their slaughter to the Armenian people living in Russia; similarly, had the Germans not invaded Poland and expanded their murder of Jewish people beyond their own borders, it would not have been a crime at the time ir occurred. “War crimes had been defined for the first time in 1907 in The Hague Convention, but the crime of genocide required a separate definition as this was 'not only a crime against the rules of war, but a crime against humanity itself' affecting not just the individual or nation in question, but humanity as a whole.” (Destexhe)

When examined through this lens, WWII was a positive thing because it allowed the crime of genocide to be recognized and codified in law.

The Armenians were always a minority group in the Ottoman Empire previous to the Armenian Genocide. Although it was peaceful for the most part, there were many inequalities such as political rights and their economic status. The Armenians slowly increased their requests for equal rights and over time there were some rebellions from Armenians, this gave the Turks reason to start the massacre against them. The time that the Turks chose to commit this mass murder against the Armenians was the perfect time to do so. Because of the chaos of WWI, the Turks could not only use that as an excuse in the future, but it also created a way to not have the genocide be very prominent in the news of the current events. There were also national policies that arose at the time of the War for many reason, one such as the “U.S. presidents adopting a “consistent policy of nonintervention in the face of genocide.”--”. (Humanitarian Intervention or Humanitarian Imperialism? America and the Armenian Genocide). This is another way that what was happening at the time of the genocide with the war shielded any possible action to be taken against the killings. However there were many political figures or journalists who would travel to the area where Armenians were being killed and write about the horrors they saw. This was a small window into the reality that Armenians were facing, although there was almost nothing outside nations could do because of the war other than aid the refugees.

After the war was over, some nations started to recognise the massacre against the Armenians as a genocide. These countries mostly had no reason not to recognize what happened as a genocide as they might not have had ties with Turkey. However this was not the case for many places who took a long time, or still haven’t, recognized the genocide. As Turkey is a very nationalist nation and anyone within it or out would be shunned for admitting the genocide occurred, people of Turkey as well as places who traded with them or had alliances with them said nothing. This same nationalistic thinking is what prevented Turkey from being able to control the genocide itself, as they wouldn’t consider themselves to commit acts like that, and this goes against the UN’s ideas that “the principle that genocide is a crime under international law and that they thus have an obligation to prevent and punish it” - (When to Refer to a Situation as ‘Genocide’ (United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and Responsibility to Protect)). Although there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that would help rule what happened against the Armenians as a genocide, Turkey has an argument that it doesn’t fill out all the requirements under the definition of genocide. Even though many would like to see this massacre once and for all be stated a genocide, there are many rules that something has to go to before getting to that point. Although this is upsetting in some cases, it is important that not just anything can be named a genocide in order to preserve the gravity of the word “genocide”.

The Armeninan Genocide has been a drastic part of Armeninan history. The Armenians were mainly comprised of Christians, targeted more than other ethnic groups. “Although the Armenians … regarded as second-class citizens… lived relatively peacefully in their historical home,” they were still considered a threat to the Ottoman Empire. When the Armenians decided to demand political and legal rights, Sultan Abdul Hamid II had believed it to be a rebellion, which led to the Hamidian massacres, of 200,000 Armenians slaughtered. However, then rose Young Turks believed to be a nationalist group that wanted to reunite Turkey as one, which included all minority groups. However, what seemed like the goal to unite, led to the mass executions of Armenians. Turks believed that it was necessary to eliminate the Armenians in order for the nation to be fully Muslim. Nationalism had become more popular during WW1, due and so the Turks believed it would strengthen their nation more after the decline of the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish view toward Armenians is an example of the Us vs Them theory, since the Turks feel threatened by the Armenians, and so they must feel superior about their nation, which is where nationalism ties in with pride for the country.

The Turkish government sounded humane toward the Armenians since the Armenians thought “that they were to be transferred to safe havens.” However, “the real purpose of the deportation was robbery and destruction.” No one would have speculated the atrocities that would happen after Turkey’s humane message about “helping” the Armenians. In order to conceal the Armenian genocide, they decided to use prisoners as forces for killing the Armenians, therefore it would be seen that controlling prisoners were the reason why many were innocently killed.

Genocide, stated as “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” Armenians had decided to live in parts of Russia, which at the end of WW1, Turkey decided to cross. Russia did not associate themselves with the Turks, and yet the Turks still decided to cross, not to fight with the Russians, but to exterminate the Armenians living in Russia. It was not because Turkey felt threatened, they just wanted to kill the Armenians at this point. Russia and Turkey are TWO completely different countries.

The intense nationalistic fervor in the period before and during World War I was not absent from the Ottoman Empire. Within it, minorities vied for freedom from the rule and the Turkish majority sought to tighten their hold, even as the empire, known as “The Sick Man of Europe,” crumbled. The early adoption of Christianity by Armenians made it so they were legally infidels, and seen as the “other.” Armenians were educated and fairly prosperous, which was threatening to Turks when they were finally given more rights in 1908. The genocide was a means to halt any possible Armenian ascent of power, and also to seize their wealth accumulated over decades of hard work. The Ottoman government perceived Armenians as “potential fifth columns for European intervention” who would act as “a barrier to the establishment of a more consolidated, Islamic empire” (Laderman 2). They villainized Armenians, using propaganda to paint them as evil and deserving of death. Tajfel’s social identity theory helps explain the Turkish persecution of Armenian people, because the Turks were Muslim; they had in-group bias and exaggerated differences between themselves and the Christians. They were the “us” and the Armenians were the “them.” This became so extreme that they began to see Armenians as less human—less worthy to live—and the genocide was born. WWI brought about the conditions that helped to enable the start of relocations and mass slaughter during the genocide. Other powerful nations were fighting in the war, and it provided an optimal excuse to cover up atrocities being committed. There was a diffusion of responsibility, both among Ottoman Turks and among international powers, where no bystander felt a strong sense to act, as no one else was. There was no consequence for inaction, so they watched Armenians be slaughtered without taking major action to stop. Groupthink affected the Turkish people; even if they wanted to help Armenians, they made decisions based on the belief that dissent was impossible and did not. Today, is imperative that we learn from the past work towards educating young people and fostering environments of individuals who will stop or disrupt behaviors in society that could lead to genocide. This can be done through education on past genocides, and individual resolutions to be an upstander.

Recognition of what happened to the Armenians between 1915-1923 as an official genocide may be detrimental to some nations’ political relationships with Turkey, but it ultimately should be done. This recognition will hopefully build greater pressure against Turks to recognize the atrocities committed, and work to help the Armenians receive recognition and aid in rebuilding their culture. This conflict has many “smoking guns,” cold hard evidence of an irrefutable massacre taken into account by the UN and used to declare the existence of the Armenian Genocide.

The use of the word “genocide” to describe conflicts that have not been confirmed with specific and irrefutable evidence brings debate and ambiguity to the uses of the term. This can act as a detriment to the recognition of past genocides, making the term hold less weight. Genocide is “the gravest and the greatest of the crimes against humanity,” however, it has “progressively lost its initial meaning and is becoming dangerously commonplace” (Destexhe 1). Often coming from a place of care or need, the word genocide has been used more frequently as it will “shock people and gain their attention,” evoking terrible images of past conflicts (Destexhe 2). This word holds great power, and it should only be used when it is proved—when it is taken advantage of, people are harmed. As fridakahlo216 writes, genocide has impacts “not only as a a punishable crime but also as a deeply traumatizing event,” so the utmost care should be taken when using the term. There is no denying that many of the mass atrocities and human rights violations occurring in multiple places around the world today are crimes against humanity that should be punished, but the word “genocide” is not always appropriate when the “element of intent” has not yet been proved. When used in a non-legal sense, the true definition is discredited.

The world is still in debate over the recognition of what happened to the Armenians as a genocide. While it may seem obvious, many countries and individuals are considering the consequences and benefits of doing so. It should be taken into consideration that the use of genocide is very serious and is not meant to be said lightly. On one hand, if the Armenian murders are officially seen as a genocide, then the history of Armenians will be fully realized while they recieve some of the justice that they’ve deserved for the past century. On the other hand, this declaration is not only a serious topic that requires a deep understanding of the consequences that Turkey will face and address, it may also sour relations between countries (which is a concern for some people). However, if these murders are officially declared a genocide, then it would set a precedent for all future events and conflicts as it demonstrates that any country can be punished and held accountable for their actions during times of war and/or peace. Unfortunately, even with rules and punishments in place, human rights violations will continue to occur behind closed doors. In modern society, more people are enslaved due to contracts and socio-economic statuses compared to the peak of slavery in the 19th century. This reality serves as evidence that international laws are not enough to prevent violations due to the potential conflicts around the globe if punishment is pursued.

These dilemmas beg the question, “what should be done?” Let’s take the United States, for example, during the early 20th century where the Armenians were being targeted for murders, relocations, and abuse. While it is true that the greater World War was at the forefront of attention for all countries, the United States was able to provide relief funds for Armenian communities through the altruistic efforts of private churches and charities. However, it should not be forgotten that “America’s official response was restrained . . . [because] condemnation . . . would compromise American neutrality in a conflict . . . most Americans wished to stay out of” (Laderman 3). As a result, the prevention of future Armenian killing became a lower priority despite the general distaste for the Turkish attrocities. In an ideal world, U.S. intervention could have lessened the devastating effects of the Armenian genocide regardless of maintaining a neutral stance during the war. Additionally, realistically, Germans during WWI were at the front of the battle, meaning that their focus would be more towards fighting other European countries and protecting their territory rather than focusing on helping their allies.

In the end, regardless of the conclusion that is officially stated on the legality of the Armenian genocide, the rich and vast history of an entire group has been permanently damaged due to the actions of another country. Many people will continue to remember and acknowledge what happened during the 20th century as one of the largest violations of human rights, and strenghten their efforts on reforming and committing to social movements and justice for the current generation, and those that come after, to follow.

The Armenians became targets of persecution from the Ottoman Empire because not only were they a different, minority religion, but they were also ancient people, so they had their own preestablished religion, language, history, and culture. The Ottomans wanted a whole, united kingdom, like they once did at their peak. SO, they tried to get the Armenians to conform to the Ottoman ways of life and religion. When they refused, the Ottomans decided that the only other option was to eradicate them completely.If other, stronger countries had decided to intervene when the attacks against Armenians began, then the entire genocide could have been prevented.

In Humanitarian Intervention or Humanitarian Imperialism? America and the Armenian Genocide by Charlie Laderman, it says “..., signaling that the United States was becoming a great power with global responsibilities and its government would no longer remain aloof from events beyond its hemisphere. [...] Winston Churchill would recall that the Armenians’ plight ‘stirred the ire’ of people across the English-speaking world, while Herbert Hoover declared that the ‘name Armenia was at the front of the American mind.’” When the problems between Armenians and the Ottoman Empire began in 1915, the issue was widely talked about, and was something that everyone knew about. The US was one of the most powerful countries in the world, and they certainly had a stronger and more intense military presence than the rapidly declining Ottoman Empire, so they could have used force to try to stop the Armenian Genocide. The US and other big countries in Europe and Asia were occupied fighting each other in World War I, so they didn’t try to stop the genocide through force, as the loss of soldiers, ammunition, and supplies would effect their role in the larger war.

The governments of the world needs to decide whether or not they will intervene when a clear genocide is taking place. It may be a risky solution, but if the strongest countries in the world decided not to be selfish and prioritize human life over money or relations, many genocides that have taken place and will take place could’ve been stopped.

In Article VII of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, it says “Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.” It is totally and completely fair that the individuals or individuals planning or enacting a genocide will be tried in the state in the area of where the attack was committed. If the individuals were tried in the country of their origin, they may receive a lower or softer sentence, because of the bias of the court. But, if they are tried in the victim country, they will receive a fair trial for the brutality of their crimes.