November 29, 2011
The application of the term “genocide” to the annihilation and expulsion of millions of Armenians in the late Ottoman Empire has been in the center of the efforts of the Armenian communities worldwide and is apparently key to the Armenian Government’s foreign policy agenda. The term Genocide was coined by the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948. While the retroactive application of this convention raises certain legal issues, it is unclear whether any instruments are available under international law to address these issues and whether the campaigns for Genocide recognition have taken any possible ones into consideration in their long-term strategy.
The Armenian Genocide was universally recognized by the community of nations as a “crime against humanity.” The international community and its leaders have also given other definitions to the 1915 events: “terrible massacre”, “ one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century ”, “Mets Yeghern”, etc. Do these terms have different legal and moral consequences than the term “genocide”? Why is it important that the perpetrators or their successors recognize it as genocide? Why is it important that the community of nations, and especially the leaders of the community of nations, like the United States, recognize the crime as a genocide? Ultimately, what are our expectations- realistic or emotional, defined or intuitive- from the recognition of the Genocide?
 |
 |
 |