Why did Trump avoid the term “genocide”?

US President Donald Trump delivered an annual address on the 111th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, describing the tragic events of 1915 as a Genocide.

“Today we pay tribute to the memory of the countless Armenians who were exiled and brutally killed during the Genocide.

This cruel chapter of human history will remain forever as a testimony of the unbreakable spirit of the Armenian people and the hope underlying Christianity. We pay our respects to the profound strength and determination that Armenians have shown in overcoming the tremendous tragedies of the past and building a better future defined by lasting prosperity, security and peace. We stand by them,” said Trump’s message.

In the address, Donald Trump also spoke about the relations with Armenia and the Peace Council he created, noting that the USA and Armenia will continue working together to build a safer and more prosperous world. “My administration is strengthening our strategic partnership, creating significant opportunities for the Armenian people and promoting long-term stability throughout the South Caucasus region. And now, Americans and Armenians stand side by side in the historic Peace Council, united in our goal to usher in a new era of peace through force,” Trump said.

The Armenian Committee of America has stated that it “strongly condemns President Donald Trump’s continued retreat from America’s recognition and commemoration of the Armenian Genocide.”

According to the commission’s executive director Aram Hambaryan, Trump once again shamefully gave in to Turkish threats, “continuing, for the sixth time, to implement Ankara’s policy of silence against the honest mention of that crime by America, despite the recognition by the White House, Congress, all fifty states and more than a dozen NATO allies.”

“After the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Armenian population of Artsakh by Azerbaijan, in the background of the ongoing occupation of Armenian territories, the mistreatment of Armenian prisoners, and the destruction of Armenian Christian heritage, the United States is obliged not only to tell the truth about the 1915 genocide, but also to stop its complicity in pan-Turkist attempts to end that genocide,” stated the executive director of the American Armenian Dat Office. By the way, in his April 24th address, Nikol Pashinyan mainly used the term “Great Genocide”, using the term genocide in his reference only once. times.

US President Donald Trump’s avoidance of the term “genocide” and the use of the expression “Great Genocide” is, of course, far from being just a linguistic tact. Avoiding the formulation that implies clear responsibility in the domain of international law, Washington pushes the Armenian issue out of the field of legal claims and moves it to the level of ethnic tragedy. This allows Turkey to avoid historical responsibility and continue its current policy towards Armenia without international legal consequences.

The current American administration’s “mediation” efforts between Armenia and Azerbaijan are actually shaping a regional security architecture where the interests of Azerbaijan and Turkey come first.

Trump’s approach implies “peace” at the expense of vital Armenian interests, where Armenia is not considered as a sovereign entity, but as an obstacle in the way of economic deals with the Turkish-Azerbaijani tandem, which must do everything to integrate into that sphere of interests. Such a policy contributes to Azerbaijan’s fundamentalist ambitions by legitimizing Azerbaijan’s preconditions and other demands.

The supremacy of Turkish-Azerbaijani interests by the US subordinates historical justice. By using the term “Great Uprising”, Washington gives a political “green light” for Ankara to continue its pan-Turkist plans, which directly contradict the sovereign development of Armenia. In this context, the American mediation turns into a tool, within the framework of which Yerevan must give up its national ambitions for the sake of energy and logistics projects beneficial for the West.

Ultimately, such a political line leads to the pulverization of Armenia’s international subjectivity. When a superpower avoids legal assessments and adapts to the aggressor’s agenda, it effectively isolates Armenia, leaving it without real alliance guarantees. This is not a mediation of peace, but a preparation for the concession of positions, where the interest of the Republic of Armenia is sacrificed for the sake of strengthening the Turkish hegemony in the region and American short-term pragmatic interests.

—