The Armenian Genocide Resolution

United States President Barack Obama had made a promise during the 2008 presidential elections that he would state the actions that Turkey committed in 1915 were an act of genocide against the Armenian people. However, every year since that promise, President Obama has broken it, always avoiding offending Turkey in order to keep their NATO ally happy and fighting alongside the United States. This is because not only is Turkey the only Muslim majority nation in NATO, making it a more important ally than Armenia, but it the country also has the second-biggest military in NATO (the first being the United States). As the battle in Syria wages on, and ISIS continues to grow along with problems arising in other parts of the Middle East like Iran, the United States is looking to do anything to keep Turkey on their side.

What is left is then a broken promise to show an evident genocide perpetrated by a country in complete denial. Hillary Clinton, another presidential candidate that made the same kind of promise as Obama did, just shows the flagrant hypocrisy that plagues American politics, especially during presidential election season. While it is to some extent understandable that America does not and perhaps cannot recognize the Armenian genocide at this time, it is the way they make it seem like it is a possibility that angers activists and those that with Armenian ancestry. It is one thing when someone does not recognize something as evil as a genocide took place, but when someone, several recognize it, and vow to acknowledge it as president, that is another story.

Essentially what happens is, year after year, Obama raises the hopes of those that wish Turkey would own responsibility for the genocide by simply having the United States acknowledge, forcing Turkey to do the same. However, after each year passes, even on its 100th anniversary, nothing changed. Their hopes were dashed and the President looked like a hypocrite and liar. It makes people believe Obama and Clinton for that matter, said these things to gain supporters and campaign money to vie for presidency.

This was clear in the 2008 presidential election when Hillary Clinton did an about-face on the topic after she made a statement stating as president, she would recognize the Armenian Genocide, claiming she alone stood as a long-stand supporter of the AGR or Armenian Genocide Resolution. To argue that the country's common morality as well as credibility as a voice for preservation of human rights means the country, the President, and Congress should recognize the Armenian genocide was all for votes and support may not be much of a stretch. In July 2010, Clinton, what many considered at the time Washington's top diplomat, paid a visit to the genocide memorial in Yerevan.

She was presented with a golden opportunity to say what happened to lead to the building of this memorial and she did the opposite, making the State Department refer to the visit as a 'private' one. What happened next was even more disappointing. Clinton lobbied Congress to make sure the genocide resolution would never make it to the House floor. Two years later, when asked about the obvious show of side-stepping, Clinton showed why she and President Obama chose to never utter the words. Going back again to the alliance with Turkey being more important than any relationship or alliance with Armenia and the descendants of the Armenians that survived the genocide. "No U.S. president has ever made genocide prevention a priority, and no U.S. president has ever suffered politically for his indifference to its occurrence. It is thus no coincidence that genocide rages on" (Tapper, 2015).

Along with wanting to keep Turkey happy, politics and Congress leaned away from the genocide issue just as they had widely accepted recognizing it when Clinton harked her support for the genocide resolution.

By using the label genocide to refer to the killings of Armenians when she was a senator from New York, Clinton was in keeping with many members of Congress. A resolution to recognize the systematic killing of ethnic Armenians by the Ottoman Empire has become a regular event in Congress (Wafford, 2015).

Kind of like how when popular kids in school say something is trendy and everyone starts copying them, wearing the trendy items. When the popular kids say it is no longer cool to wear those items, anyone caught wearing them is considered in the 'outs' in the school. That is a bit like Clinton and Obama in the sense that Congress made it okay to talk about seeking a resolution for the Armenian genocide, but when pushed come to shove and the United States needed to maintain their alliance with Turkey, anyone even mentioning the genocide resolution would be ostracized.

This was especially true as the Iraq War raged on and America continued to need assistance not just in the Middle East, but also with Vladimir Putin. As the war in the Middle East spread and causes the Arab Spring, Obama also felt the heat to protect American interests and keep as many allies as he could to maintain some semblance of control over the situation, especially along the Syrian border. With Turkey's military size and proximity to the Middle East during a time when the Middle East grew turbulent and chaotic, the American government felt nothing should be done to ruin any support.

The United States has thwarted several times before any means of resolution for the Armenian genocide. In 1980's the American Armenian community were prevented from having April 24th be a day of recognition for the Armenian genocide. " ... in December 1985 the House of Representatives defeated a resolution which would have recognized 24 April as a national day of remembrance of man's inhumanity to man with specific mention of the Armenocide. And again in August 1987 and in February 1990" (Hovannisian, 1992, p. 314). A former senior ambassador that worked under the Reagan administration responded saying he considered these denials the clearest case of repudiation and a national pathology that spread across its citizens meant to re-write history.

The re-writing of history not only suits an important ally's wishes, but also relieves the United States from any kind of responsibility for the past. If the United States continues to deny the Armenian genocide, they can continue to have a peaceful and supportive alliance with a key player. Going back to President Barack Obama, Obama once said people were experiencing an 'empathy deficit', " ... a failure to care, both about others and each other. Caring is not just feeling empathy' it is taking responsibility, acting powerfully and courageously. You have to be strong to care, and to act on that care with success" (Lakoff, 2008, p. 47). Is it not ironic that Obama said this and then decided not to take responsibility for anything in regards to the Armenian genocide much like the United States government did in the past?