National Security & Defense

Why Obama and Kerry Fear the ‘G’ Word

(Anthony Behar/Pool/Getty)

It’s not often that life gives you a second chance (or a third, or a fourth). But that’s exactly what Congress did today for President Obama when the House passed a resolution applying the word “genocide” to ISIS’s atrocities against Christians in the Middle East. The decision presents President Obama with a picture-perfect opportunity to do something bold, decisive, and morally right in foreign policy, and to help restore his tarnished legacy. This opportunity is probably his last.

It’s not clear exactly what is being done to Christians in the Middle East right now (an excuse similar to that made by world leaders in the late 1930s when Jews were being rounded up and killed in Nazi Germany), but what we do know is grim. In 2003, over 1.4 million Christians lived in Iraq. By the summer of 2015, there were fewer than 275,000. Most were eking out a nightmarish existence in camps in Kurdistan. The numbers are similar among Syrian Christians: approximately 1.25 million in 2011, fewer than 500,000 today.  

Of the missing millions, some have been kidnapped, tortured, and held at absurd bails. Some have been sold into slavery or forced into “marriage” with ISIS fighters. We know many are dead, but we can’t determine how many.

RELATED: Fearing the ‘G’ Word, the State Department Turns Its Back on Middle Eastern Christians

When ISIS moves into a town, the houses belonging to Christians are marked with the Arabic letter nun, or N (for “Nazarene”), painted in red on their doors. Christians then must choose whether to flee or wait for their fate. Those who flee must choose between trying to survive in the wilderness and making their way to U.N. camps, where Christians live in fear of jihadists who infiltrate the camps to kill “infidels.” Many Christians in the Middle East have simply disappeared, their fate as mysterious as that of the Jews of Europe in 1945 before the Allies discovered the death camps scattered across the Third Reich.

In 1948, in the wake of World War II and the Holocaust, the United Nations drafted the Treaty on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. It defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.” Such acts include killing, causing serious mental or physical harm, causing conditions of life that will destroy the group, preventing childbirth, and kidnapping children. According to the treaty, United Nations member states, including the United States, must take action against such conditions. The goal was to ensure that nothing like the Holocaust would happen again.

RELATED: Persecution of Middle Eastern Christians Deserves ‘Genocide’ Label

A noble idea, but it hasn’t worked. Since 1948, genocide has clearly been committed multiple times, with no response until it was too late. American presidents in particular have made deliberate policy decisions to not call genocide “genocide,” even in the face of plenty of evidence, because they didn’t want to be responsible for acting. For example, during the Rwandan genocide in 1994, radical members of the Hutu tribe set out to exterminate their rival tribe, the Tutsis, as well as any Hutus who got in the way. The Clinton administration chose not to apply the word “genocide” openly until long after the evidence merited it. Only after 800,000 Rwandans had been slaughtered in 100 days and the bloodbath had run its course did officials finally start to call it genocide.

#share#For a while the Clinton administration protested ignorance, but recently declassified documents tell a different story: CIA reports reaching the cabinet, and most likely the president himself, before the crisis had reached a climax confirmed the existence of a Hutu plan for a “final solution” to the Tutsis, a phrase grimly reminiscent of Hitler’s plan to kill all Jews. Barely two weeks into the 100-day nightmare, a CIA brief sent to the president, the vice president, and hundreds of senior officials reported that rebels were trying to “stop the genocide, which . . . is spreading south.” As always, though, everything depended on what the meaning of the word “is” was.  

RELATED: Notice the Genocide

No American president has ever applied the word “genocide” to a current event or situation. The way is now paved for President Obama to become the first. On January 27 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed (117 votes to 1) a resolution to hold ISIS responsible for genocide against Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities. The European Parliament adopted the resolution on February 4. The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee declared genocide on March 2. The British Parliament appears to be leaning toward a similar declaration. All President Obama has to do is jump on the bandwagon.

But he hasn’t.

#related#Of course, we know why. For more than seven years, President Obama’s foreign policy has been a toxic blend of strong language and weak action. (Remember the “red line” in Syria? Neither does Assad.) The foreign policy of the Obama administration tends toward talking a big game and then conveniently forgetting to show up. That would be a lot harder to pull off if he called the genocide of Christians by ISIS what it is. So naturally he’s avoiding it, like the Clinton administration before him.

Congress has spoken. Obviously, President Obama feels that he is under no obligation to consider Congress’s opinion on pretty much anything, but this time he should think long and hard and not ignore it. If his secretary of state, John Kerry, agrees to designate ISIS’s atrocities genocide, that could force the administration to act with the European Union to take military action against ISIS soon. President Obama may want to avoid that policy, but his failure to confront the genocide and name it would be the nail in the coffin of his foreign-policy legacy. If the 20th century taught us anything, it’s that ignoring genocide doesn’t make it go away. If we won’t call it what it is, our children will do it for us, and we’ll have to answer the difficult question of why we wouldn’t do it ourselves.

Most Popular

Film & TV

Netflix Debuts Its Obama Manifesto

This week’s widespread media blitz heralding Netflix’s broadcast of its first Obama-endorsed presentation, American Factory, was more than synchronicity. It felt as though U.S. publicists and journalists collectively exhaled their relief at finally regaining the bully pulpit. Reviews of American Factory, a ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Capital versus Tucker Carlson

Advertisers do not advertise on Tucker Carlson’s show to endorse the views of Tucker Carlson. They advertise on his show for the same reason they advertise elsewhere: a captive audience — in Tucker’s case, the second-largest one in cable news — might spare thirty seconds of attention that will, they hope, ... Read More
Natural Law

Are Your Sexual Preferences Transphobic?

Last year, a study exploring “transgender exclusion from the world of dating” was published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Of nearly 1,000 participants, the overwhelming majority, 87.5 percent, irrespective of their sexual preference, said they would not consider dating a trans person, ... Read More