The issue of whether to use the term genocide to describe the atrocities committed against Armenians by the Ottoman Empire has been a contentious one for many years. One reason why American presidents have been reluctant to use the term is because of concerns about damaging relations with Turkey, which is a key ally in the Middle East. Turkey has long denied that the atrocities committed against Armenians constituted genocide, and has lobbied against the use of the term by other countries.
Another reason why American presidents have been reluctant to use the term genocide is because of concerns about setting a precedent for other historical events. Some have argued that if the term genocide is used to describe the atrocities committed against Armenians, it could open the door to similar claims by other groups. This could create diplomatic tensions and complicate efforts to resolve conflicts around the world.
There have also been concerns about the legal implications of using the term genocide. Some have argued that using the term could lead to legal claims for reparations, which could be difficult to resolve. Additionally, some have argued that using the term could be seen as an endorsement of military intervention, which could have unintended consequences.
Despite these concerns, there has been growing pressure in recent years for American presidents to use the term genocide to describe the atrocities committed against Armenians. Many argue that it is important to acknowledge the historical reality of what happened, and to honor the memory of those who were killed.