CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (A.W.)—On Sat., March 13, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) hosted a one-day conference entitled “America’s Response to the Armenian Genocide: From Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama.” The conference, co-organized by Professors Bedross Der Matossian (MIT) and Christopher Capozzola (MIT), was sponsored by the Faculty of History, the Center for International Studies, the Office of Religious Affairs, and the Program on Human Rights and Justice at MIT.
The conference consisted of three panels representing major historical phases that have shaped U.S. policy towards the Armenian Genocide—World War I, the Cold War, and the post-Cold era. The conference conducted an in-depth analysis of various elements critical to America’s response, such as the emergence of identity politics and the rise of ethnic lobbying groups in the U.S., the development of American-Turkish relations during the early stages of the Cold War, the politics of recognition, and America’s geopolitical interests in Turkey after the start of the war on terror.
In his opening remarks, Der Matossian noted that the House of Representatives passed Res.252 despite immense pressures by the Turkish government and the Obama Administration. He explained that the MIT conference aims to examine the evolving policy of the U.S. government regarding the Armenian Genocide, from Woodrow Wilson’s administration to Obama’s administration. “The legacy of the Armenian Genocide shaped U.S. policy throughout the 20th century as Americans confronted the meaning of genocide itself in the wake of World War II; as they confronted Armenia’s pivotal place in the tense Cold War conflicts; as Armenian Diaspora voices pressed Congress for recognition; and as geopolitics shifted again with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the unification of Europe, and U.S. intervention in the Middle East in the post-9/11 era,” stressed Der Matossian in his opening remarks.
Armenia has been on the agenda of U.S. foreign policy since the 19th century, he said. “This relationship between the American public opinion and policy towards the Armenian Question dwindled from total sympathy” during the Armenian Genocide, he explained, “to a policy characterized by complete indifference justified with such ‘pragmatic’ words as geopolitical interests, the Incirlik bases, the war on Iraq and Afghanistan…and the most commonly used expression, ‘It is just not the right time now.’”
The first session of the panel discussion entitled “Woodrow Wilson and the Armenian Question” was chaired by David Engerman (Brandeis University). Capozzola’s presentation, entitled “Woodrow Wilson’s Views the World—The World Views Woodrow Wilson,” highlighted Wilson as a person, as a politician, and as a symbol. Capozzola stressed Wilson’s role in aiding Armenians during World War I. The fact that Armenians were Christians motivated relief agencies and Wilson to assist them in the Ottoman Empire. Capozzola’s presentation also discussed Wilson’s weaknesses and the viewpoints of his opposition.
Suzanne Moranian of the Armenian International Women’s Association (AIWA) presented “America’s Foreign Policy and the Armenian Genocide: 1915-1927.” She pinpointed the role of American missionaries in the Middle East as “do it yourself diplomats.” The U.S. had a unique task in helping Armenians, and led the world in assisting Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. The U.S. had a desire to transplant American ideology overseas, she noted. Even though until the 1930s there was no U.S. policy in the Middle East, the first movement of missionaries in the Middle East started with the work of 19th-century Protestant Evangelicals. With the rise of Ataturk’s power, however, the U.S. had to cut their bond with the Armenians to be able to side with the Kemalist regime.
Gregory Aftandilian, an independent scholar, presented “Sympathy but Lack of Political Will: The Wilson Administration’s Response to the Armenian Genocide and its Aftermath.” Aftandilian discussed the cooperation between the Wilson Administration and the missionaries, as well as Wilson’s unwillingness to commit American troops to Armenia. Aftandilian stressed that U.S. diplomats were eyewitnesses to the killings of Armenians, and yet, Wilson’s administration did not do much to stop the killings.
The second session of the conference, titled “The Cold War and the Armenian Genocide,” was chaired by David Ekbladh (Tufts University). “From Turkey to the Soviet Union and Back” was presented by Prof. Richard Hovannisian, the dean of Armenian historians in the United States and the holder of the Armenian Educational Foundation Chair in Modern Armenian History at UCLA. During the Cold War, Hovannisian said, the U.S. tried to divert Armenians’ interests from Turkey to the Soviet Union. Highlighting the importance of 1965, the 50th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, Hovhannisian said that was the year when Armenian communities began to come together and create organizations to face Turkish-U.S. advocacy groups. Additionally, Armenian communities in the U.S. started using and applying the knowledge of second-generation Armenians towards joint action.
Author, lawyer, and journalist Michael Bobelian discussed the Truman Doctrine in his presentation entitled “The Truman Doctrine and America’s Abandonment of Wilson’s Principles.” Dennis Papazian from the University of Michigan-Dearborn presented a paper on “Captive Nations as Pawns in the Cold War.” He explained how the U.S. depended on Turkey during the Cold War, and tackled the issue of genocide recognition and the passage of resolutions by the House of Representatives during the past couple of decades.
The last session of the conference was entitled “Post-Cold War Period and the Obama Administration,” chaired by Jens Meierhenrich (Harvard University). Simon Payaslian (Boston University) presented “Genocide Recognition and the Political Economy of U.S. Foreign Policy,” and discussed geopolitics and genocide recognition, as well as the U.S.-Turkey, NATO, and U.S. -Turkey-Israel alliance. Mentioning the importance of bilateral relations between the U.S. and Turkey, Payaslian pointed out the viewpoints of U.S. presidents in regards to the recognition of Armenian Genocide.
Rouben Adalian of the Armenian National Institute presented a paper on “Morality, Policy, and Diplomacy.” The problem of genocide is recurrent, he said. It is not only a problem of the past, but also of the future.
Marc Mamigonian of the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR) discussed “Turkish-Armenian ‘Reconciliation’ and the Road to Obama’s ‘Medz Yeghern.’” highlighting the views of the Obama Administration towards the recognition of the genocide.
Hovhannisian then gave the keynote address, entitled “Humanitarianism versus Pragmatism: The United States and the Armenian Question”—a detailed and informative timeline of U.S. foreign policy from Woodrow Wilson to the “forgotten genocide,” the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide and the events following it, the passage of various resolutions concerning the Armenian Genocide, and to the Obama Administration and U.S.- Turkish relations to date.
Lala Demirdjian
Latest posts by Lala Demirdjian (see all)
- MIT Conference Explores America’s Response to the Genocide - March 27, 2010
- Sisters’ Academy in Lexington Bids Farewell to a Productive Year, Welcomes Another - August 22, 2009
- ‘Vem’ Reborn out of Necessity - August 11, 2009
Turkish genocide of Armenians also has afflicted Greeks, including my parents. I have documentation in an article I’ve written. I’d welcome Armenians reading it, and recognizing they have a fellow victim and ally in the Greeks. – Silvia Beres in Eugene, Oregon.
George, where can I get your story??
Hye, it is my hope that in all these exemplary discussions it has come forth that today, and as it shall have been in all these years – that the overwhelming issue is the word Genocide. When after the first Genocide of the 20th century, the Turkish Genocide of the Christian Armenian nation was not faced and justice not pursued by the civilized nations of the world then all the Genocides that followed, all the murders, kidnappings, tortures of the most heinous contrived by the Ottoman mentality (babies slaughtered, women violated, men all faced decimation, kidnappings, and the rest of the population forced to march to the deserts until their death. Survivors, with memories of their family losses, with memories of Genocide their Christian nation were scattered to the civilized nations of the world but to come together and pursue the Armenian Cause – Hai Tahd. Turks assumed they had finished the Armenians – thus taking the Armenian lands as their own, taking all the refinements and culture of the Armenians as their own – for these descendents of the hordes who came down from the Asian mountains had not any of their own. Turks needed a homeland, culture and chose to eliminate the Armenians from Armenia, and called it a Turkey. To this day, the Ottoman mentality exists against not only the Armenians, but the Greeks, the Assyrians, the Kurds, and more. Thus the Genocide of the Armenian nation has not yet ended… the Armenian Genocide began in the 19th century and continues today, exists even now into 2010.
Sadly, Genocides have not been eliminated by the civilized societies of the world – today, 2010, Darfurians suffer a Genocide for years! Worse yet, the Sudanese perpetrators are taking the stance that they never committed a Genocide of the Darfurians! And why not? The Turks even say that Muslims donot commit any Genocides! The Turks have ‘gotten away’ with their murders, tortures, and worse for nearly 100 years – so too, why not shall the Sudanese also not ‘get away with murders’ of Darfurians – ala a Turkey!
Seems the world’s civilized peoples continue to tolerate such as the Turkish and Sudanese leaderships actions – hence the issue at hand over all these years is still with the civilized nations – who still ignore ending the cycle of GENOCIDES. Animals kill only for food. The Genocide perpetrators slaughter, torture and worse – their own kind – humans. Even more, to unarmed, innocents lead to their slaughter and leave the survivors with vile memories – never to be forgotten!
Hence, Turkey and the Sudanese and all the perpetrators of the Genocides of the 20th century are the ‘winners’ and all the victims, the innocents, men, women, children, elderly, all those lives, are the ‘losers’ – in a world who will not end the cycle of Genocides. It appears still today, humanity has not yet acquired the ‘guts’ it shall take for any leaderships in civilized nations to take on the bullies who are perpetrators of any Genocide… Politics and more are the issues. Unbelivably, morality, humanity, appear to be lost in our world. Thus, Genocides shall continue… Sadly. And yet, whenever, wherever, whomever shall perpetrate another Genocide, unopposed, whether they be a foe or an ‘ally’ – but who shall next be the victims of the next of yet another unopposed Genocide – for one is waiting to happen, and why not? Turkey and now Sudan, deny their Genocides before all the world – lying to the world, to the world who does nothing to end the cycle of ANY Gencides!
Murders, rapes, tortures, child molestation and more are not ‘allowed’ to be pursued in all civilized nations – but yet, mass murders, rapes, tortures all these civilized nations do ‘allow’ when the issue is labeled – Genocides.
Hence the perpetrators win – thus all humanity, the world over are the losers! Manooshag
ThankYou all , My grandparents were survivors of the genocide and I still cry.
I would very much appreciate a copy of your parents story. They have much in common and more needs to be understood. I value these histories and will welcome the opportunity to read yours if you would email it to marlmarty@aol.com. Thank you…
Turkish genocide of Armenians also has afflicted Greeks, including my parents. I have documentation in an article I’ve written. I’d welcome Armenians reading it, and recognizing they have a fellow victim and ally in the Greeks. – Silvia Beres in Eugene, Oregon.