Genocide Allegations Are Not a Political Football

Why Turkey’s application to join South Africa’s ICJ case trivializes the charges against Israel.

An overview of the court during a hearing at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague on Apr. 8. ROBIN VAN LONKHUIJSEN / ANP / AFP

Turkey’s recent effort to join South Africa’s genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over Israel’s conduct in the Gaza Strip highlights a double standard that is all too common when it comes to the politics of genocide.

The Turkish state has little credibility being an arbiter of what constitutes genocide when it has spent the last 100 years denying the role of the Ottoman Empire in the 1915-16 Armenian genocide, during which more than 1 million Armenians were killed or died of starvation or disease, according to genocide scholars, as they were pushed by the Ottoman Turks out of Anatolia. Turkey refuses to acknowledge or apologize for these events to this day, despite recognition of the genocide by countries such as the United States, France, and Germany.

Ankara’s participation undermines the intent and moral seriousness of South Africa’s charges and highlights the unfettered hypocrisy that characterizes genocide allegations made by many governments. Turkey formally denies that the events of 1915-16 constitute genocide; its participation in many ways weakens the current ICJ case by giving Israel an opening to question the legitimacy of the charges.

For far too long, various governments, from the United States to Turkey to Israel, have leveled (or downplayed) genocide allegations in pursuit of various political objectives. But genocide is not a political football to be tossed around. It is a serious allegation that should never be used for political expediency. But sadly, that is what it has become.

Since the founding of NATO, Turkey has exploited its membership in the alliance to both curry favor with the West and avoid any culpability for its actions. It has used its crucial role within NATO as a bargaining chip to its advantage.

It is one of the reasons why U.S. presidents from both political parties have turned a blind eye to Turkey’s denial of the Armenian genocide by arguing that the country’s proximity to the Soviet Union was strategically valuable to the national interests of the United States. When the Cold War ended, the argument turned to Turkey’s importance as a “free” and “democratic” society in a sea of Islamic fundamentalists.

And over the last 20 years, U.S. presidents have largely overlooked Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s rising authoritarianism and egregious regional behavior on the grounds that having Ankara as an ally is strategically important for Washington. This type of transactional diplomacy not only is dangerous but also gives cover to leaders like Erdogan, who feel that they can say or do whatever they want with impunity.

It is unconscionable that Israel, a country founded in the wake of genocide, would deny the Armenian genocide. But that is largely what Israel has done for years—and it is politically motivated. Despite maintaining extensive ties with Turkey, until recently when trade between the countries was suspended, Israel has used the Armenian genocide to needle Ankara when they clash, as they are now over the conflict in Gaza.

Opportunistically referencing a genocide to shame a rival—as Israeli officials did for the first time regarding the Armenian genocide after Turkey decided to support the ICJ case—has no place in international relations. Governments either support a policy of denial or oppose it. There should be no equivocation.

Cherry-picking what represents genocide also sends the wrong message to would-be aggressors who see such vacillation as a green light to act with impunity and evade legal accountability.

It is how former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was able to direct the killings of hundreds of thousands of people in the Darfur region in the early 2000s and escape justice—despite being indicted and wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for committing crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. Because various governments did not recognize his acts as genocidal or failed to abide by the ICC indictment, Bashir was for years able to travel freely around the world to visit countries including China, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia as well as Rome Statute signatories such as Jordan, Kenya, Nigeria and, most notably, South Africa—all of which failed to arrest him.