Commentary
Thomas de Waal
{
"authors": [
"Thomas de Waal"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "russia",
"programs": [
"Russia and Eurasia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Türkiye",
"Caucasus",
"Armenia"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Armenians in U.S. Double-take as Obama Balks on Using ‘Genocide’ in Commemoration
Friday marks the 100th anniversary of the mass killing of 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Turks, but President Obama won’t be using the term ‘genocide’ to describe them.
Published on Apr 22, 2015
Source: KPCC AirTalk
Friday marks the 100th anniversary of the mass killing of 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Turks, but President Obama won’t be using the term ‘genocide’ to describe them.
The White House broke the news Tuesday in meetings with Armenian American groups, contradicting a promise then-Senator Obama made while campaigning for president in 2008 to “recognize the Armenian Genocide.”
Maybe nowhere in the U.S. does this news hit harder than in Los Angeles, which is home to the largest Armenian population outside of Armenia or Russia. The White House says the decision was made in order to keep relations with Turkey, a NATO ally, stable in the hopes of cooperation on Middle Eastern conflicts.
Did the White House make the right decision, politically, in not using the word ‘genocide?’ What would the impact be on U.S.-Turkish relations if he did? What does this decision mean for U.S. foreign policy?
About the Author
Thomas de Waal
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
De Waal is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, specializing in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.
- Europolis, Where Europe Ends
- Taking the Pulse: Is It Time for Europe to Reengage With Belarus?Commentary
Thomas de Waal, ed.
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Japan’s Security Policy Is Still Caught Between the Alliance and Domestic RealityArticle
Japan’s response to U.S. pressure over Hormuz highlights a broader dilemma: How to preserve the alliance while remaining bound by legal limits, public opinion, and an Asia-centered security agenda. Tokyo gained diplomatic space through an alliance-embracing strategy, but only under conditions that may not endure.
Ryo Sahashi
- Kenya’s Health Deal Is a Stress Test for the America First Global Health StrategyArticle
U.S. agreements must contend with national data protection laws to make durable foreign policy instruments.
Jane Munga, Rose Mosero
- The Iran War Is Making America Less SafeCommentary
A conflict launched in the name of American security is producing the opposite effect.
Sarah Yerkes
- Digital Dissent in Morocco: A Sociological Analysis of the Generation Z MovementCommentary
From anime heroes to online gaming communities, Morocco’s Gen Z is building a new protest culture. What does this digital imagination reveal about youth politics, and how should institutions respond?
Abdelilah Farah
- Taking the Pulse: Is it NATO’s Job to Support Trump’s War of Choice?Commentary
Donald Trump has demanded that European allies send ships to the Strait of Hormuz while his war of choice in Iran rages on. He has constantly berated NATO while the alliance’s secretary-general has emphatically supported him.
Rym Momtaz, ed.
