The Armenian Genocide and Bystanderism (due Friday, January 30)

[PaperAirplane]

Based on the readings, I would say that the United States was not completely a bystander. Many of its people, like the ambassador Morgenthau, and all the different churches and foundations that donated money to support the cause, and the newspapers that chose to publish stories about the genocide really wanted to do something about what was going on.

The US government was the bystander. President Wilson and the government were bystanders because although they had lots of information and evidence that the Armenian genocide was happening, they considered that having a neutral position in the war and a peaceful relationship with Turkey was more important than saving a whole race from extinction. However, our country had really solid reasons why it didn’t want to intervene. The US wanted to protect its people from having to lose people and resources in the wall; it didn’t want to serve as a target of attack from the Turkish, and we had our own problems to take care of as well.

After looking at the genocide from President Wilson’s point of view, I can understand why we didn’t want to help. But I think we could have at least tried to bring some aid to the Armenians. Morgenthau suggested that at least some Armenians could be saved by flying them over to the US, and having them live and work in America. But that plan never worked out. The US government could have at least publicly recognized it, and with its power, maybe try to influence other countries to act.


I think all nations should take a stand against genocide whenever they see it happening. If genocide occurred within our own country, and we couldn’t solve the problem ourselves we would ask for help. The same goes for any other nation that is the victim of genocide. Does it mean that we always, absolutely have to step in? Ideally, yes. But in real life, it doesn’t happen that way. There will always be circumstances that hold us back, like the ones that our government faced when the Armenian genocide was happening.

[geckohero]

Did we act as bystanders? Yep. You betcha. The worst part of this reading for me was to think about the plight of Morgenthau, who repeatedly cried for justice and was repeatedly order to do nothing. However the position of the United States was extremely complicated. While the US was not involved in the war until 1917, if we had intervened in the Ottoman empire then it would have been interpreted as joining the Triple Entente and we would have been dragged into the bloody mess that was WWI. It isn't clear whether the US could have stepped into the Armenian genocide without causing more loss of life overall (i.e. in the lives of soldiers of both sides). So I really don't know what the US should have done, but it definitely should not have blown of Morgenthau the way it did.

So things were complicated (they still are about the Armenian Genocide). Generally I do not believe in absolutes, so while making intervention the national policy sounds wonderful I can understand why governments are wary of it. I think that governments tend to be too cautious about stopping genocides, however the responsibility of a government is towards its citizens, not towards foreigners. Therefore I think that the UN should be a much more powerful organization that is responsible for general humanity or "citizens of the world." But until that happens, we should learn from our slowness in acting during Armenia, during the Holocaust, and act quickly to stop such atrocities because some things are bigger than governmental laws and policies, some things are just the right thing to do.

[Bluntly Honest]

To answer the question, yes the U.S. did act as bystanders. Going back to the Strohmeyer case, the U.S. saw a crime happening, was fully aware of what was going on, and let it perpetrate because of other reasons.

The problem of could/should is a problem determining on what we see first. It's easy to look back, now in the 21st century with our 20-20 vision, and criticize the past leaders for not having done anything. But as a leader takes a oath into office, he/she becomes obliged to his nation first, and the world second. I don't blame the Europeans for being wary of war or the Americans of being further entrenched in European conflicts. We could have immediately declared Turkey, but thinking of the geography, we would not have fought a very effective war.

Well it seems obvious that the U.S. and other nations should step in when a population is being systematically destroyed. However, in reality, since every country looks out only for itself, we should not rely on these arbitrary and idealistic ideas. The role I would advocate for the U.S. and other "powers" is to let nations be. I find the nuclear debate and guns debate very similar to this issue. I think people want to convince themselves that humanity doesn't suck, but the fact is, people are the worst. We lie, steal, cheat, backstab, any dirty trick in the book, we're capable of. So, instead of trying to assume the U.S. is morally above any nation, or that we would all listen to the rules in an arms debate, we should just assume the worst and give every nation weapons. Many of you will argue "Ooh, but then that would encourage war." I will argue that yes, it does, but if you don't give everyone a fair shot, then you encourage massacre. And personally, I believe my alternative is better and more realistic.

If any of you are applying to the Seevak fellowship, you know that they have that quote they have on the main page: "On some positions, cowardice asks the question, 'Is it expedient? And then expedience comes along and asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' Conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right." As elevating as this quote is, this quote is very rarely true; it takes quite a lot to inspire someone to overcome their fear, their economic priorities, and their concern for public opinion, nevertheless a nation.

Every nation has a concern for it's issues, and will only help others when its convenient. When should we do then? Arm every nation and let them grow independent. Our own government is based on a system of checks and balances, an ingenious system. The world will only be fairer and safer when every nation has the capacity to defend itself.