Blog 8: Categorizing Political Violence

Categorizing political violence is a long-disputed topic. Human rights activists want the problems in the world to seem as severe and horrific as possible to promote aid from the international community, and the politicians in the world want to be careful how an event is categorized because it is costly and time-consuming to help every struggling nation. In David Samuels' textbook, Comparative Politics, he offers some fundamental definitions of many highly-disputed terms. I would like to look at his definition of genocide and use a historical event to verify the validity of his definition.

Samuels defines genocide as “a deliberate and coordinated effort to eliminate all members of a particular ethnic, religious, or national group through mass murder” (Samuels 2012, 279). Samuels also mentions some opportunities and interests that form a prime environment for cultivating genocide. He gives three main opportunities: 1) ethnic divisions, 2) ongoing warfare, and 3) permissive international environment (Samuels 2012, 279). He also suggests that the interest of the government during a genocide is that the mass murder is politically useful. Now let's test this definition using a historical event. Continuing with my theme of Turkey, let's look at the “genocide” of the Armenian people in modern day Turkey during 1915-1923.

From the years 1915 to 1923 it is reported that up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed in Turkey (Adalian 2012). This massacre of people began when the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) gained control as the head of government in 1913. The CUP wanted to create a solely Turkish state and began to relocate the Armenian people in Turkey to Syria. Along the deportation routes bands of Turkish soldiers would systematically murder the Armenian people. Many of those who weren't killed by the sword died from starvation and exposure to the elements. Near the end of the deportation routes the Armenians were gathered in concentration camps in Northern Syria and then moved to their imminent death in the Syrian desert.

Does the massacre of the Armenian people in Turkey from 1915 to 1923 constitute a genocide according to the definition by Samuels? I surely think so. The Turkish government's purpose behind relocating the Armenian people was to utterly decimate the Armenian nation from Turkey (Adalian 2012). I definitely think this case qualifies as “mass murder”. Although not all of the Armenian people were murdered directly by the Turkish soldiers, those who died from starvation and exposure were under the deliberate action of the Turkish government. The Turkish government had every intent to completely wipe out the Armenian people from Turkey.

Next let's look at the opportunities suggested by Samuels that lead to genocide. The first opportunity is the presence of ethnic division. Turkey most certainly had an ethnic division. The Armenian people were concentrated in Armenian communities and spoke a different language from the Turkish (Wikipedia). These ethnic lines in Turkey definitely lead to tension and the eventual genocide.

The second opportunity is the presence of ongoing warfare. The case of the Armenian genocide doesn't exactly fit this criteria. The Armenian people generally were peaceful in their push for political change. The Armenians would defend themselves, but they didn't make offensive attacks on the Turkish. They were usually the victims of massacre and not the cause of violent outbreaks. Samuels' definition of genocide doesn't require ongoing warfare, but he suggests that it precedes a genocide. In the case of the Armenian people in Turkey, it was not necessary to invoke the genocide.

The third opportunity suggested by Samuels is the presence of a permissive international environment. The Armenian genocide fits this criteria pretty well but not perfectly. The Turkish government performed the Armenian genocide during WWI, which acted as a shield from the international eye (Adalian 2012). WWI served as a distraction to keep other countries from intervening. Despite this attempt to cover up the Armenian genocide, there were a few countries that tried to intervene. The main contributor was the United States, which raised money to feed the starving Armenians. Although there was some international intervention, it was definitely limited, and no country played a large part in helping the Armenians.

In conclusion, Samuels' definition of genocide is quite valid with respect to the Armenian genocide in Turkey. His only weakness is that his suggested opportunities that pave the way for a genocide are not required conditions. As we see in the case of Turkey, even in countries where there is not continual warfare and a strict permissive international environment, genocide can occur.

REFERENCES

Adalian, Rouben Paul. 2012. Armenian genocide. ANI. http://www.armenian- genocide.org/genocide.html (accessed November 8, 2012).

Samuels, David J. 2012. Comparative Politics. Boston: Pearson.

Wikipedia. Armenian genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide (accessed November 8, 2012).