Macron's Strategic Duality in Genocide Recognition

Macron applies different standards to historical and contemporary genocide allegations. For the 1915 “Armenian Genocide” claim, Macron institutionalized France's recognition of these claims through political acknowledgement. In this regard, he established April 24 as a national day of remembrance in 2019, endorsed criminalizing denial (2016) and framed it as France’s moral duty to "look history in the face." This stance treats the claims as historical fact, underlined with Western views and appeals to France's Armenian diaspora. [1]

On the other hand,  regarding Gaza, Macron avoids the genocide label, saying that historians, not politicians, should make such determinations. Instead, he condemns Israeli conduct as "unacceptable," a “disgrace," and a “crime," while prioritizing diplomatic pragmatism, such as ceasefire mediation and conditional aid pressure—over moral categorization.[2]

This duality extends beyond rhetoric to geopolitical strategy. In Armenia, Macron's unilateral recognition positions France as a guardian of 'universal memory,' using symbolic politics for alignment. Whereas for Gaza, his careful wording preserves Franco-Israeli relations. This lets France critique Israeli tactics without endorsing genocide claims. The pattern is consistent: Macron similarly refused to label Russian actions in Ukraine as genocide, arguing legal experts not politicians, should define the term.[3]

Critics argue this approach reflects selective moralizing. Macron dismisses Turkish calls for joint commissions for 1915 events as redundant. Yet his scholar-deference for Gaza/Ukraine seems strategic, prioritizing realpolitik over legal consistency. Türkiye's push for evidence-based assessment regarding 1915 events contrasts with Macron's unilateral certainty on Armenia, highlighting academic vs. state narrative tensions.[4]

French State Institutions: Unified Doctrine, Divergent Execution

France's institutional approach regarding Gaza genocide  claims centers on legal formalism and diplomatic pragmatism, though execution varies. Ministry, courts, and executive branch reject genocide accusations but diverge operationally.

The French Foreign Ministry, led by Macron's Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné,  explicitly dismissed genocide claims as "exploitative for political ends," emphasizing that accusations must meet the intent threshold under the 1948 Genocide Convention. This stance—prioritizing evidentiary rigor over emotive language—contrasts with Macron’s personal critiques of Israel as a "disgrace." The ministry further pledged to submit France’s interpretation of the Genocide Convention to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), reinforcing a rules-based framework.[5]

France conditioned support for Israel on humanitarian compliance—threatening EU cooperation reviews if aid access worsened—while simultaneously granting leaders like Netanyahu immunity from ICC prosecution. This dual-track approach reflects realpolitik: leveraging diplomatic channels for crisis mediation while insulating strategic relationships from legal accountability. Türkiye’s evidence-based, apolitical adjudication calls emphasize scholarly neutrality over geopolitics.[6]

While Macron deployed charged terms like "disgrace" and "crime," institutional actors adopted measured language. The Foreign Ministry framed violations through legal principles ("distinction, proportionality"),and the judiciary maintained procedural neutrality. This divergence underscores a structural tension: Macron’s moral appeals versus the state’s institutional preference for consensus-driven, legally anchored positions.

France’s stance—rejecting genocide labels while pursuing conditional diplomacy—mirrors Türkiye’s emphasis on academic and judicial due process. Yet Ankara’s push for transparent historical arbitration through bodies like the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission remains a point of methodological contrast, revealing differing institutional philosophies in addressing contested narratives.

AVİM’s Framework and France’s Convergent Trajectory

The Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), regarding genocide claims, champions a legal-academic methodology that prioritizes evidentiary rigor over political declarations, demanding strict adherence to the UN Genocide Convention’s requirement of proven "intent to destroy" a group. This approach, grounded in Ottoman archival analysis, contends that 1915 events involved wartime relocations—not systematic extermination—and rejects parliamentary genocide resolutions as illegitimate, advocating instead for joint Turkish-Armenian historical commissions. Simultaneously, France under Macron has progressively aligned with core aspects of this framework, particularly in contemporary conflicts.

French state mechanisms increasingly reflect AVİM’s principles through concrete institutional actions. The judiciary, for instance, has pursued investigations into individual complicity—such as cases involving French-Israeli citizens blocking aid to Gaza—while deliberately avoiding state-level genocide adjudication, a stance that aligns with AVİM’s longstanding preference for judicial processes over politically driven resolutions. Similarly, legislative constraints have validated AVİM’s critical view of parliamentary overreach, exemplified when France’s Constitutional Council annulled President Macron’s 2016 Armenian genocide denial law, thereby underscoring the institutional limits of legislative bodies in arbitrating historical claims—a position AVİM has consistently championed. Furthermore, France’s diplomatic formalism now mirrors AVİM’s methodology, particularly through its submission of Genocide Convention interpretations to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which effectively institutionalizes the scholarly-juridical processes AVİM advocates for resolving contested historical narratives.

France’s evolving stance on the “Armenian genocide” claims also reveals important methodological parallels with AVİM’s approach. Macron’s failed attempt to criminalize Armenian genocide denial highlights the fragility and legal vulnerability of politicized recognition, thereby validating AVİM’s longstanding call for evidence-based historical commissions rather than unilateral legislative action. In addition, the Foreign Ministry’s recent tendency to frame historical disputes in more measured and legally precise terms stands in contrast to Macron’s earlier moral certitude. This shift reflects AVİM’s emphasis on contextual and nuanced analysis, including consideration of factors such as World War I-era Armenian revolts and the suffering of Muslim populations, further narrowing the gap between French and Turkish approaches to contested historical narratives.

Transformation in Genocide Discourse

The comparative analysis of Emmanuel Macron’s approach to genocide allegations and AVİM’s methodology reveals a consequential shift in how states and institutions engage with historical and contemporary atrocities. Macron’s tactical duality—unilateral recognition of the “Armenian genocide” versus scholarly deference on Gaza and Ukraine—initially highlighted a tension between moral symbolism and diplomatic pragmatism. However, France’s gradual alignment with AVİM’s legal-academic framework signals a broader epistemological recalibration. This convergence transcends methodology; it reflects an evolving understanding of how knowledge about genocide is constructed, validated, and deployed.

This shift also underscores an epistemological synergy. AVİM’s Framework, grounded in legal empiricism, demands proof of "intent to destroy" and contextual analysis (e.g., WWI Armenian revolts, Muslim casualties).  It rejects politicized history. France’s Trajectory by annulling Macron’s Armenian genocide denial law, restricting parliamentary overreach, and deferring to courts on Gaza implicitly endorses AVİM’s epistemic rigor which treats genocide as a category for scholarly-juridical arbitration, not as moral grandstanding. Nonetheless,  this convergence remains incomplete since France retains symbolic recognition of the Armenian genocide claims while adopting AVİM’s formalism for current conflicts.

Despite such shortcomings, this new French trajectory marks the following critical advancement: states and think tanks increasingly treat genocide as a juridical-epistemological problem, privileging verifiable evidence over the expediencies of symbolic politics. This shift in attitude is, in our judgment, in line with AVİM’s long-standing view that the path to historical reconciliation lies not in edicts but in the unflinching scrutiny of evidence.

*Picture: https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1460081/its-not-a-presidents-place-to-say-this-is-a-genocide-macrons-remarks-on-gaza-spark-controversy.html