How can Genocide be Stopped?
At times, the crime of genocide can be so clearly identified, yet at other times, for various reasons, proving that genocide occurred is extremely difficult. In the Armenian Genocide, around one million Armenians were killed by the Turks, and when you look at the state of Turkey today, the effects of the genocide are still felt so heavily. It is believed to be against the existence of Turks as a whole to even acknowledge that the genocide happened. Even though it has been proven that a genocide truly did happen, how did the Turks get away with denying almost all of it?
There are two distinct reasons why this happened. The Turks used the ongoing World War I to excuse the deaths of the Armenians, and because genocide became seen as a legal crime after the Geneva Convention, the Turks could not be punished for a crime that did not exist. World War I was a chaotic time for countries across the globe, and acted as a distraction for the true atrocities that were occurring. America, however, was very much aware that this genocide was happening. Christian groups worked with the Red Cross to raise money and awareness to help the Armenians. America was not able to punish the Turks, or truly help the Armenians because they were occupied with helping the Entente Powers during the war. Alliance systems such as this are another reason why genocide goes unchecked. For example, today, America does not speak up about the Armenian genocide in order to keep political ties with Turkey.
The key that lies between a genocide being proven or not is a simple word, "intent." According to the United Nations Office, the evidence of the case must be carefully and thoroughly examined, as making the distinction between a war crime and genocide is a complex legal decision. If this is the case, we must ask, is there any way that a Genocide can be stopped before it starts? Intent being so hard to prove creates a lag between the crime happening and the decision on whether it constitutes charges of genocide, not to mention, deciding who in particular is responsible for this crime. From the government officials to private citizens, navigating who should be punished is not a task that can be accomplished in a timely manner. If we cannot stop this atrocity before or while it is happening, we need to strengthen how it is approached after the fact.
Genocide is sometimes called the "crime of crimes," so if it is truly to be perceived as such, should it not constitute the "punishment of punishments?" The Genocide Convention lays out many different parameters of what counts as genocide, like in Article II, "Complicity in genocide." However, there are no specifications of the consequences that happen if these criteria are met. If the penalties faced for committing this crime are truly scaled to the right extent, genocide should ideally never happen in the first place, but here is the catch. The rest of the world is not capable of carrying out these consequences. After the Armenian Genocide, the Turks essentially lost World War I, but still were barely punished, only having a few international officials. If the Turks had won the war, they would have exponentially more power. How could nations with less power possibly enact a penalty on them? The Geneva Convention and all of the progressions made after World War I were a step in the right direction. Recognizing that there is a real problem happening, and putting a name to this horrible crime is the only way it can even begin to be combatted. Nevertheless, can the brutal cycle of power, alliances, and war truly ever be shifted so that genocide ends for good?