Daniel Halliday
Aug 26 · Last update 11 days ago.
Why is the Armenian Genocide not recognised internationally?
It’s been over 100 years since the onset of this massacre, and it widely held by academics to be a genocide, however many states and countries do not recognise it as such.
Stats of Viewpoints
Turkey’s bribery and intimidation of academia
0 agrees
0 disagrees
Due to the Turkish denial and Turkey’s reactionary diplomacy
0 agrees
0 disagrees
Due to certain nation’s reluctance to adequately stand up against human rights abuses
0 agrees
0 disagrees
Due to the number of parties guilty of massacres around this time in history
0 agrees
0 disagrees
There is no comprehensive agreement of historical genocide
0 agrees
0 disagrees
Viewpoints
Add New Viewpoint
Turkey’s bribery and intimidation of academia

Some prominent US academics have been accused of trying to spread the ideas of Armenian genocide denial in America. Professor of Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies at Princeton University Heath W. Lowry has received numerous criticisms based around his denial of the Armenian Genocide. He has been called out, along with others, for his involvement in various incidents from writing letters to the US government to trying to reduce scholarly mention of the genocide to accepting Turkish bribes.

Agree
Disagree
Due to the Turkish denial and Turkey’s reactionary diplomacy

Turkey’s official stance on the Armenian Genocide, committed by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, is one of denial. Furthermore Turkey’s criticism of international recognition of the event, and common diplomatic threats and controversies that they instigate following this, have made many states reluctant to officially recognise the genocide. France, Spain, Israel, the UN, authors, human rights activists and even Pope Francis have all been involved in some sort of dispute over the matter.

Turkey is not afraid to throw its political weight around, this can be seen in President Erdogan recent claims to defy US sanctions on Iran, this following threats to resist direct US sanctions over the Turkish detaining of an American pastor and trade with North Korea. When you compare the size of their respective economies, on top of this bombastic diplomatic style, we can see that Turkey occupies a much strong position of international leverage than Armenia. This leads to the gloomy reality, where nations that recognise the genocide may suppress their stance on the matter, in order to avoid harming diplomatic ties to Turkey.

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Nov 8
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
Turkey is not afraid to throw its political weight around, this can be seen in President Erdogan recent claims to defy US sanctions on Iran, this following threats to resist direct US sanctions over the Turkish detaining of an American pastor and trade with North Korea. When you compare the size of their respective economies, on top of this bombastic diplomatic style, we can see that Turkey occupies a much strong position of international leverage than Armenia. This leads to the gloomy reality, where nations that recognise the genocide may suppress their stance on the matter, in order to avoid harming diplomatic ties to Turkey.
Due to certain nation’s reluctance to adequately stand up against human rights abuses

In countries like the US, despite recognition by the vast majority of states, the federal government still maintain a position of denial. This is not only a head in the sand approach to human rights violations, sending out a mixed message over human rights, but it also flies in the face of democracy, as the overwhelming scientific, historical and public opinion is being ignored.

However, many of the nations that do not recognise this genocide may themselves have a questionable human rights record, and therefore not deem the subject as historically significant. For example it would be hard to imagine countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, or China, who regularly disregard human rights laws, taking historical Turkish genocide seriously. Likewise, many other known violent human rights abuses are ongoing, such as Duterte’s support of extrajudicial killing in the Philippines, or even many ethnic hostilities in African countries such as Mali and Sudan. It is hard to see regions such as these calling out Turkey historical war crimes, when they are themselves still engaged in their own.

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Nov 8
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
However, many of the nations that do not recognise this genocide may themselves have a questionable human rights record, and therefore not deem the subject as historically significant. For example it would be hard to imagine countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, or China, who regularly disregard human rights laws, taking historical Turkish genocide seriously. Likewise, many other known violent human rights abuses are ongoing, such as Duterte’s support of extrajudicial killing in the Philippines, or even many ethnic hostilities in African countries such as Mali and Sudan. It is hard to see regions such as these calling out Turkey historical war crimes, when they are themselves still engaged in their own.
Due to the number of parties guilty of massacres around this time in history

To retrospectively go back in history to try to relabel one massacre or famine as a genocide raises many difficult questions around other massacres of this period. It may be the case that governments of countries such as the US, Mexico, England, South Africa, Japan, and Australia amongst others, do not want to recognise any pre-20th century massacres as genocides, as they run the risk of themselves being accused of genocide. This may open other claims made to historical massacres or famines, possibly of much further reaching implications, such as the European colonisation of the Americas.

Agree
Disagree
There is no comprehensive agreement of historical genocide

The term genocide was coined in 1944 and adopted by the UN to describe the racial killing of a people group on such a monumental scale as the Holocaust. There is a firm definition of genocide in international law, but there still is no academic consensus about what constitutes genocide prior to the coining of the term. For example there is the question of deaths from disease surrounding the expansion of European colonies through the Americas, and the proportion of violent to disease deaths caused to the native Americans. As the Armenian genocide happened under the cover of war there is some dispute, albeit mainly Turkish, to what exactly transpired.

Agree
Disagree
Translate