Skip to Content

Support MinnPost

President Obama breaks a promise to call the Armenian genocide a genocide

A man lights candles during a religious service last Friday at an Armenian church in Tbilisi marking the anniversary of mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915.
REUTERS/David Mdzinarishvili
A man lights candles during a religious service last Friday at an Armenian church in Tbilisi marking the anniversary of mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915.

On April 24, 1915, about 300 Armenian intellectual and professional leaders in the Ottoman Empire's capital of Constantinople were rounded up, beginning a three-year killing spree that resulted in the deaths of about 1.5 million Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Turks.

The anniversary of that date, which fell on Friday, is the day Armenians and others observe in remembrance of that genocidal campaign.

The government of modern Turkey denies that these deaths can accurately be described as a genocide, and it pressures its allies not to adopt the word. Turkey claims that the number of deaths has been overstated, and that they occurred more or less accidentally when the Ottomans were trying to move a potentially troublesome Armenian population out of the war zone in the middle of World War I, and that a significant number of Turks were killed by Armenians. The overwhelming majority of neutral historians rejects these claims and agrees that the killings were genocidal. The International Association of Genocide Scholars affirms that "genocide" is the proper term. Other groups have concluded that the killings had the earmarks of genocide, as defined by international law.

Armenians around the world seek to have the G-word applied. Politically active Armenian-Americans seek to have Congress, and an American president, declare that their ancestors were victims of genocide, indeed the first major genocide of the 20th century. A presidential declaration employing the word "genocide" seems to be the top Armenian-specific goal that Armenian-Americans bring into each presidential campaign.

In 2000, Gov. George W. Bush attracted significant political and financial support from Armenians by promising that, if elected, he would embrace the term genocide. After taking office, he reneged -- at the behest of Washington's Turkish allies -- and even used his influence to prevent Congress from adopting a non-binding resolution using the term "genocide."

In 2004, Sen. John Kerry promised that he would call it a genocide. Although I had written previously about the Armenian genocide (more on that below), I first learned of the U.S. political aspect of the issue in 2004 when I stumbled onto a fund-raiser of "Armenian-Americans for Kerry." Kerry got the Armenian support in 2004, but, as you also may have heard, lost the election.

As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama supported that congressional resolution, which is sponsored every year. In 2008, as a presidential candidate, Obama stated:

"As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."

Candidate Obama also referred to his "firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy." He particularly slammed the Bush Administration for shamefully firing its own ambassador to Armenia for, as Obama said, "properly us[ing] the term 'genocide' to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915."

The worm turns
On Friday, President Obama issued a statement in commemoration of the annual "Armenian Remembrance Day." If you read it without knowing the background, you would probably say "Wow, this guy is pretty worked up about what the Ottoman Turks did to the Armenians."

President Obama refers to the killings as "one of the great atrocities of the 20th century." He says that 1.5 million Armenians were "massacred or marched to their death." The events "must live on in our memories, just as it lives on in the hearts of the Armenian people," Pres. Obama implores. Referring to his previous commitments, the presidential declaration goes on:

"I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed. My interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."

"Reckoning with the past holds out the powerful promise of reconciliation," Obama preaches, adding that his "interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts."

He adds that "the contributions that Armenians have made over the last ninety-four years stand as a testament to the talent, dynamism and resilience of the Armenian people, and as the ultimate rebuke to those who tried to destroy them."

President Obama says he reaches out to Armenian-Americans with "a sense of friendship, solidarity, and deep respect."

It's a beautifully crafted statement, full of emotion and a touch of poetry. It is tougher on Turkey than the government of Turkey thinks an ally should be, and Turkey has officially complained that Obama didn't mention all the Turks that died at the hands of rebellious Armenians.

He refers to his own previous statements, which priminently featured the word "genocide." And he uses synonyms, such as the reference above to an effort to destroy the Armenian people. But once you know the background, you can't help but notice that nowhere in Obama's 389-word statement does the word "genocide" appear.

And there's the rub. He promised, explicitly, that he would do it. And when the time came, he broke the promise.

I want to be mature and reasonable about such matters. Turkey is an important U.S. ally of long-standing, borders on Iraq and Iran and Syria (and the independent state of Armenia) and has one of the most developed democracies in the Muslim world. The argument is fundamentally historical, and not everyone cares as much about history as I do. Pissing off Turkey is not something to be done lightly.

But all of those reasons were well-known before Obama made his commitment to recognize the Armenian genocide. Like many Americans, I want to believe Obama represents an important break from the politics of lies and fancy spin, a break that has to do with honesty, integrity and promise-keeping. I still do believe that, but not on this matter.

If he wasn't going to keep the promise, he shouldn't have made it.

The excellent online factchecker, Politifact, which has launched an "Obameter" to track Obama's fidelity to his campaign promises, lists his promise to the Armenians as No. 511, issued an update after Friday's statement that concludes: "Obama's April 24th statement still doesn't meet the terms of his promise, and the Obameter stays at Promise Broken."

I asked Lou Ann Matossian of Minneapolis,  a past president who currently serving as director of cultural and external affairs of the Armenian Cultural Organization of Minnesota, for her reaction to Obama's artful dodge. Speaking as an individual and not for the ACOM, Matossian emailed me that:

"Avoiding the word genocide at Ankara's behest has become a modern form of genocide denial or collusion in genocide denial. For President Obama to do so in our own language, against our community's usage, against his promises, and against our urgent request, is deeply offensive."

The reference to "our own language" alludes to this, in Obama's official statement:

"The Meds Yeghern must live on in our memories."

Meds Yeghern is an Armenian phrase, which translates as "great calamity," Matossian said, adding: " A tornado is a 'great calamity.' A genocide is a crime. The concept of crime implies the concept of justice. 'Genocide' has a meaning in international law. "Calamity" (yeghern) has none."

Obama may have hoped that the use of the Armenian phrase would communicate extra respect. Apparently, to Matossian, it was one more way to avoid using the G-word, that Obama had promised to use.

Matossian concluded: "President Obama has now missed two opportunities to fulfill his promise to affirm the Armenian Genocide as such. [The first missed opportunity was on a state visit to Turkey, when Obama was asked about the massacres and answered without the use of 'genocide.'] The Armenian Genocide resolution now before Congress will be his third opportunity. The President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State all have strong records on this commemorative legislation. The Bush White House lobbied hard against the Armenian Genocide resolution. What will the Obama White House do?"

By the way, I have asked the White House press office for any explanation the White House might want to make of President Obama's official statement. I haven't received a reply. If I get one, I will surely pass it along.

Two last things and I will thank you for your patience and let you get on with your day.

Thing One:

My own strong feelings about the Armenian genocide date from an interview I did for the Strib, in 2000, with Vahakn Dadrian, an eminent historian of the killings. The details that stuck with me were about how the Turks killed the Armenians. Quoting from that piece:

      "The way the Armenians were killed are staggeringly grisly and provide a macabre contrast to the relatively bureaucratic and hi-tech methods that the Nazis would employ 25 years later.

In a policy that Dadrian said was 'unparalleled in the annals of human history,' the Turks 'decided to rely not on soldiers but on bloodthirsty criminals.' Dadrian said 30,000 to 35,000 convicts were released from prison to participate in the slaughter.

With a world war raging, Dadrian said, Ottoman officials were anxious not to waste bullets or powder on the Armenians, so they employed four main methods to kill the Armenians:

  • Many were beaten to death or killed with daggers, swords and axes.
  • Massive drowning operations were conducted in the tributaries of the Euphrates River and the Black Sea. Bargeloads of Armenians were intentionally sunk. Dadrian, quoting [Henry]Morganthau [who was U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman court at the time], said that in places the Armenian corpses became so numerous that the rivers were forced out of their beds, in one case changing   the course of a river for a 100-meter stretch.
  • The method that Dadrian called “the most fiendish” was to pack Armenian women and children into stables or haylofts and then set them ablaze, burning the victims alive. Dadrian estimated that about 150,000 were killed by this method.
  • Hundreds of thousands more died of hunger, thirst or exposure during forced marches in the desert. Dadrian said the Armenians were told they were being relocated but were marched along routes chosen to maximize the chances that none of the marchers would survive."

Thing Two:

With credit to Ben Smith of Politico who found this YouTube video: Samantha Power, a genocide scholar whom I admire who also served as an Obama foreign policy adviser and who now works for the National Security Council, made this video to appeal to Armenian-Americans to support Obama, based on the fact that he was "a person who can actually be trusted."

Get MinnPost's top stories in your inbox

Related Tags:

Comments (9)

It is astonishing to read that President Obama did not use the word "genocide" to describe the Armenian experience 1915-23, when the word “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin to specifically describe the barbarity that befell the Armenians at the hands of the Turks.

Raphael Lemkin, a lawyer of Polish-Jewish descent and a holocaust survivor, coined the word “genocide” to properly characterize the slaughter of the Armenians, explaining that the Turks had intent to annihilate.

Prior to the use of the word "genocide", British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and other world leaders described the events as the "Armenian holocaust."

President Obama who does not speak Armenian, used the Armenian words "Medz Yeghern" (The great catastrophe) thus shielding Turkey of any legal accountability for its crimes under UN and international laws for the prevention and punishment of the crimes of genocide.

Imagine if back in the days of West Germany the US president refrained from using the word "Holocaust" not wanting to offend or sour relations with a strategic NATO ally, thus describing the events of WWII as "Shoha".

I wonder what the Armenian genocide has to do with Minnesota politics and MinnPost? karl

The crucial test will be the (annual) Congressional resolution. If Obama lobbies against it (like Bush), then it's a broken promise.

How many other countries have "officially" declared the Armenian genocide a "genocide", BTW? All of europe? The UN general assembly? It's incredible that this issue (America's official position on the 1915 Armenian massacres) wasn't "resolved" long, long ago by a prior US administration or Congress.

What diplomatic power did Turkey have over us in the 20s, 30s, 40s, even 50s? None. Yet we never officially declared their genocide a genocide---even after WWI when they were a defeated enemy, or during WWII, when (I think) their government was largely sympathetic to Nazism. I guess the postwar Soviet "threat" and Turkey's "crucial" NATO status took over pretty quickly.

This issue has a very strange, inexplicable history.

But since it's clear we aren't going to deal with our own torture policies of 2001-08, it's understandable that we won't deal with Turkey's genocide policies of 1915.....

Karl and Jonathan, thank you for your interest in this issue.

Minnesota and its major cities are among the 43 U.S. states and scores of municipalities that officially recognize the Armenian Genocide.

The Genocide has also been officially recognized by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, the Parliament of Europe, and 13 European countries, including the Vatican.

In 1985, the United Nations Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities recognized the Armenian Genocide in an official report.

The U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted in 1948, some thirty years after the Armenian Genocide. In 2003, the International Center for Transitional Justice found that the events of 1915 could be said to include "all of the elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the Convention."

Jurist Raphael Lemkin coined the term "genocide" to describe what had happened to the Jews in WW2 and the Armenians in WW1. In 1915, before the "g-word" existed, U.S. diplomatic correspondence referred to the "race extermination" of the Armenians.

Another contemporary expression for the Armenian Genocide may also be of interest. The phrase "crime against humanity" was first used by France, Great Britain, and Russia in a joint declaration of May 24, 1915, against the mass killings of Armenians.

As you can see, Minnesota and MinnPost are in good company.

Source: www.armenian-genocide.org.

Jonathan, you had asked about the total number of countries to have officially recognized the Armenian Genocide.

The official declarations of more than 20 countries, including Canada, may be seen at www.armenian-genocide.org.

The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) unanimously affirmed the Armenian genocide in 2005.

1949 CBS News Interview: Raphael Lemkin Discussing Armenian Genocide

A 1949 interview in which Dr. Raphael Lemkin discusses the Armenian genocide.

Lemkin, who is credited for coining the word "genocide" in 1943 to describe the 1915 genocide of the Armenians and then the Holocaust, has also played an important role in compelling the United Nations to adopt the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948.

Dr. Lemkin talks about the UN Convention and the Armenian genocide. Showing footage of Turkish soldiers brutally chasing and killing Armenians, the moderator says: "Yes, these folks are not playing games. They are running for their lives. Men on horseback. It doesn't matter much who they are. Let's say they are modern cavalry out on orders of their commanders. They are huntsmen out on the chase. Only, the prey doesn't happen to be a fox. The prey is people. These [showing film footage of a group of Armenians] were the victims. They are Armenians and the place is in Asia Minor. Nearly 2 million of them were driven from their homes to perish in the desert or die before they got there.

Why? Well, the reason given was that they were friendly to the enemy of their rulers; that they were a fifth column; that they were spies. Every one of the 2 million of them…."

When asked how he became interested in the Armenian genocide, Lemkin explains: "I became interested in genocide because it happened to the Armenians; and after[wards] the Armenians got a very rough deal at the Versailles Conference because their criminals were guilty of genocide and were not punished.

The trial of Talaat Pasha in 1921 in Berlin is very instructive. A man [Soghomon Tehlirian], whose mother was killed in the genocide, killed Talaat Pasha. And he told the court that he did it because his mother came in his sleep ... many times. Here, …the murder of your mother, you would do something about it! So he committed a crime. So, you see, as a lawyer, I thought that a crime should not be punished by the victims, but should be punished by a court, by a national law."

Thank you for the information and the link.

Aside from being an avenue to force modern Turks to confront their past, what would be the practical effect of an official US recognition at this late date? Why are we so apparently important?

The history is clear, it can't be changed, and the Turks are simply not going to admit that their grandfathers and long past WWI government did it. No one can make today's Turks drink the dirty water, no matter how many countries pass official resolutions.

If one wants to deny reality, one denies; the actual facts are meaningless.

Genocide is the worst crime humanity has given a name.

Forgiving Turks who have not repented is hollow and meaningless.

The Turks have not only murdered humans, destroyed an ancient culture civilization and rewritten history, but they continue to legitimize the act as well as the racist ideology that led to the act.

Denial is not just the simple negation of an act; it is much more the consequent continuation of the very act itself.

Genocide should not only physically destroy a community; it should likewise dictate the prerogative of interpretation in regard to history, culture, territory and memory. As the victims - Armenians - never existed.

So then, when does the Armenian genocide end? Only when Turkish denial ceases.

Therefore, the genocide continues 1915-2009.

So, why is it important that Turkey admits its crimes of genocide? And why is it important that the US government (and the US State Department) acknowledge the Armenian genocide?

Because it could happen again. The Turks so far got a way with a genocide and are likely to try it again with the support of the US.