Our thoughts and actions today are dominated by our desire to prevent a genocide in Artsakh. The narrative has degenerated from “self-determination” to “territorial integrity” to “genocide prevention.” “Prevention” is commonly defined as the “action of stopping something from happening or stopping someone.” The act of genocide prevention ensures that genocide does not become a reality. 

In 1948, the United Nations passed a treaty for member states to ratify called the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” It came into force in 1951, and as of 2022, 153 nations have ratified the treaty including Azerbaijan and Turkey, the successor government of the Ottoman Empire. Ironically, genocide is usually committed by member states or as a result of internal conflict. 

Raphael Lemkin’s United Nations General Assembly pass (Photo: Center for Jewish History)

It is important to note that when the convention was ratified, the UN focused both on “prevention” and “punishment.” Early advocates of criminalizing genocide, such as Raphael Lemkin, were influenced by the Armenian Genocide three decades prior to the treaty and the Jewish Holocaust during World War II. Despite the emphasis on codifying the criminalization of genocide and attempting to prevent this lowest form of human aggression, the record has been dismal. Cambodia signed in 1950, yet Pol Pot committed genocide against his people. Genocide took place in Bosnia, though Yugoslavia had ratified the treaty in 1950. Rwanda signed in 1975, yet its government did nothing to prevent the slaughter of the Tutsi ethnic group. In an irony of insulting proportions, Turkey ratified the treaty in 1950 while engaging in an institutional cover-up of the Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocides. Azerbaijan, with one of the worst human rights records on this planet, signed on in 1996 after years of oppressing the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh and before its continuous campaign of human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing in Artsakh. They qualify for an international criminal poster.

The UN has always politicized the labeling of genocide. The Kurds have been slaughtered by successive governments in Iraq, Syria and Turkey, yet it has never been labeled a genocide. If too many genocides are declared, it paints the UN’s prevention objective as unsuccessful. Artsakh is not politically advantageous, so it receives even less attention. Despite what the UN declares, each human life is not treated with equal value. Thousands are dying in Africa, China and Yemen, but the political climate does not favor intervention for these souls.

In the case of Artsakh, the UN continuously fails to prevent atrocities, since it is hopelessly paralyzed by political and ideological division. Even when the UN is on the ground, it is toothless by design. We all recall the movie Hotel Rwanda, in which a brave hotel manager saved many lives from certain death. The film also illustrates the frustration of the UN commanders who were powerless to prevent further massacres. The rules of engagement seem to limit the presence of UN representatives to observer status. When the member states ratified the genocide convention, they declared their intention to govern according to the treaty to both prevent and punish the crime of genocide. States’ track records have made a mockery of this intention, reducing it to a legal reference point with little enforcement. The only exceptions are when “self-interests” motivate intervention.

In the case of Artsakh, Article II c of the convention, which defines genocidal actions as “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part,” is relevant. Azerbaijan has checked every box on genocidal criteria, but section c is particularly germane to the months-long blockade. Denying people food and medicine is a clear indicator of intent to bring about “physical destruction,” yet Armenians are left only with words of rhetorical support from the international community. The UN Convention also supersedes all territorial boundaries since most genocides are committed by perpetrators against their own citizens and are not “internal matters.” The crime of genocide is the most heinous act of humanity. The absence of enforcement, therefore, renders these treaties to be a “paper ladle,” in the words of our beloved Khrimian Hayrig.

The United Nations should consider removing the “prevention” clause since it does little to prevent atrocities and selectively addresses punishment. The strongest prevention efforts occur when the UN or member states commit peacekeeping forces to physically contain the aggressor party. Sometimes the presence of third parties can deter open aggression. In Darfur, Sudan, plagued with a civil conflict for much of the 21st century, hundreds of thousands were murdered and over three million people were impacted, yet the punishment process took years, because indictments are difficult to execute. Usually a coup or counter-revolution displaces the criminal, as is the case of Sudan. While international processes proceed at a snail’s pace, thousands suffer as “victims of genocide.” As Armenians, we know about the suffering and risks in Artsakh, but we must also examine this in the context that most Americans know little about genocides, such as those in Yemen or China targeting the Uyghurs. The message is frustrating, despicable and a sad commentary on humanity, but if we are waiting for the international community to save Artsakh, then there is another tragedy in our future. 

There is a difference, however, between trying and relying. We have an obligation to our people in Artsakh and for the sake of civility to attempt international intervention, but we should never rely on it. My grandparents were there when the French abandoned Cilicia in 1920 after utilizing the heroic Armenian Legionnaires and encouraging genocide survivors to return to their homes. Who defended our deceived people? A mandate that died in the U.S. Senate? Europeans’ words of sympathy? It was the Lions of Marash, as quoted by Kerr, and other brave defenses that allowed some to survive. We counted on the support that was promised. 

Even with countless violations of international law and basic human civility, Azerbaijan has not received one sanction. There is only one way to save Artsakh: create enough resistance to force intervention. Diplomacy alone will not lead to peace, justice or even survival. That time has unfortunately passed. The world of powerful nations is fairly proficient at stopping small outbreaks that threaten their interests. They are not very good at preventing them. Observe: 30 years of constant Azerbaijani aggression with zero implications. The oil and gas flow along with Section 907 U.S. aid. What are those interests that Armenians could exploit? All parties are interested in a stable South Caucasus. It is difficult to maintain influence where there is instability. It has little to do with justice, human rights and promoting democracy. Artsakh is locked in a war of diplomatic rhetoric. The combination of Azerbaijani barbarism and the inability of the mediating nations to take preventative action requires a higher profile for intervention. That “profile” must be provided by the Armenians in the form of resistance to encourage meaningful peace building. We must be the catalyst to alter the paradigm. The people in Artsakh have displayed remarkable resilience. This is the foundation of resistance to tyranny. We must be positioned militarily and diplomatically to assure intervention when the Azeris lose their interest in peaceful dialogue, and we must take advantage of the mediating countries and their intolerance for instability. Instead of relying on them as a subordinated party, we must appeal to their self-interest.

Armenia has stated that it is ready to accept Artsakh in the context of Azeri territorial integrity with the guarantees of the “rights and security” of its Armenian population. Sometimes we focus only on the first part of the statement, but not the second. There can be no reciprocal respect of territorial integrity without the rights of the Artsakh Armenians. Given the current situation, the best outcome would be an international peacekeeping group in Artsakh to prevent genocide. Our energy must be focused on how to motivate those peacekeeping nations to take the step that they have been unwilling to take. There is a substantial difference between hoping for foreign intervention and motivating the parties that have self-interest in intervening. It is not in the interests of Iran, the United States or Europe for instability to continue. Our resistance could provide the motivation for balance. This will require those advocating for Armenians to cooperate and perhaps subordinate partisan goals in the interests of the nation. These are questions we are confronted with as the global Armenian nation faces unprecedented risks. Prevention of genocide in Artsakh and the protection of their rights may require meaningful foreign intervention, but is the responsibility of the Armenians to navigate that journey. In a world driven by morality, the criminal aggression of Azerbaijan would be punished. In the current reality of political duplicity, the Armenians must utilize every option to protect their rights. We owe this to each other.