Precedent

Blog 8: Categorizing Political Violence

            Genocide is an ugly word. It evokes images of mass murder, of ethnic hatred, and of the helpless being overrun by the powerful. It is classified as a type of mass political violence, and on the whole, is the most shocking and outrageous of them. Just as all terms in the social sciences, the word “genocide” is difficult to pin down with a specific definition. It is important to have a workable and valid definition of the term in order for the international community to correctly respond to victims of genocide. In this blog post, I will use the example of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey to examine the prevailing definition of genocide, in order to assess its validity. A close examination shows that the Armenian Genocide fits exactly the conditions necessary to be classified as genocide under the current definition. This is strong evidence that the definition is, in fact, a valid one.

            David J. Samuels defines three factors that must be present in order to classify an instance of political violence as genocide: 1) Ethnic conflict, especially occurring in the context of an ongoing civil war. 2) The inability or unwillingness of the international community to intervene and 3) A political agenda on the part of the instigators of the violence (Samuels 2013, 279-280). My purpose in writing is to determine if these factors are a valid definition of genocide. Do these factors accurately represent what genocide is? Do they include all possibilities or are there some conflicts that are left out of this definition that should be named as genocides?

Ethnic Conflict

            Genocide can be broadly defined as “a deliberate and coordinated effort to eliminate all members of a particular ethnic, religious, or national group through mass murder” (Samuels 2013, 279). Thus the distinction between two groups is a necessary condition of genocide. More specifically, however, for genocide to occur, there must already be a history of chronic warfare between those two groups. The conditions for genocide do not materialize overnight.

            The mass killing of the Armenian people by the Turks has been called the first major genocide of the 20^th century. It certainly fits the bill in terms of ongoing ethnic conflict. According to the United Human Rights Council, the Armenians in the Middle East were subject to ethnic conflict ever since the 11^th century, when their Christian nation was overtaken by the Muslim Ottoman Empire (United Human Rights Council). These conflicts were only exacerbated when the Empire fell, leaving only the Armenians and Turks still under the rule of despotic sultans and even more despotic revolutionaries. It was in this ethnic stew of conflict that the hatreds that had been stewing for centuries came to a head.

The International Context

            The world in 1914 was a complex one. The major powers were tied up in the throes of World War I, nationalism was at a premium in Europe, and it was the perfect time for the nationalistic Turks to take action to quell the “Armenian Question” once and for all, under the nose of worldwide peacekeepers. The definition of genocide maintains that the international community is either unwilling or unable to intervene. Likely, had they been able to, genocide could have been averted, or at least contained. The example of the Armenian Genocide upholds this factor in the definition of genocide, lending validity and credence to it.

Government Pressure

            The final part of the equation that ends in genocide is arguably the most important. Even when there is ethnic strife and a lack of international aid, there still needs to be a spark to light the fire of genocide. The final element of genocide is political motivation for a government to declare the ethnic cleansing of its subjects. This element was certainly present in the Armenian Genocide of 1915. The triumvirate of Young Turk leaders specifically ordered the genocide, not at the behest of the Turkish population, but to solidify political control in a time of chaos (United Human Rights Council).

            Ultimately, the definition of genocide propounded by Samuels is correct. It paints an accurate picture of the conditions necessary for genocide.

REFERENCES

Samuels, David J. 2013. Comparative Politics. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

United Human Rights Council. Armenian genocide. http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/armenian_genocide.htm (accessed November 8, 2012).