This post will not be dedicated to whether or not the word “genocide” should be used in reference to the death of 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Turks at the end of World War I. The Armenians are unequivocal in stating that it was the first genocide of the 20th century. They have many historians on their side.

But the Turks hotly deny this. They state that the deaths were due to the confession accompanying the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. And Turks like to remind audiences that Armenians within the Ottoman Empire sided against the Turks and with the Russians in World War I. When the Ottoman Empire was broken both by loses in World War I and the 1916 Arab revolt, the Turks forcibly expelled the Armenians in their midst. Hundreds of thousands died in the arduous trial in the Syrian desert, many were killed in massacres before and during the forced journey. Most Turks lament the deaths as the result of a brutal expulsion of a people, but they deny that it was an orchestrated genocide. Professor Bernard Lewis, a distinguished professor of Middle Eastern studies and author of “The Emergence of Modern Turkey,” concludes that it was not a genocide.

But I will not debate this point on this post, and will leave that debate to any willing commentators.

The point I seek to make is that the United States Congress should not pass a resolution lobbied for by the Armenian-American lobby that will recognize the deaths as “genocide.” Why?

Because such a resolution is first beyond the remit of Congress. The Constitution does not delegate to Congress the role of historical review. It is not the business of government, but of historians to settle such questions. Is Congress dedicates to taking a stand between all conflicting narratives? If no, then why start now. This is simply not a function of the state. If Armenian-Americans want the deaths of their forebears recognized as a genocide, instead of expensive lobbying they should dedicate resources and effort to launching a campaign aimed at the American people rather than dollars aimed at politicians.

Secondly, the resolution would undermine American interests. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is opposed to it, so was the Bush administration and recently President Obama has dropped his campaign pledge to recognize the deaths as genocide not that as president he no longer can afford the luxury of politicking at the expense of American interests. Turkey has repeatedly stated that if the resolution passes it would undermine relations between the two nations, and Turkey would deny the U.S. use of an air force base for missions in Iraq. Currently, 70% of U.S. cargo headed to Iraq goes through that base. Turkey is a strategic partner for the United States, such a resolution would undermine such a vital relations for dubious gains.

It may be the moral thing to pass the resolution, but morality only cannot be the deciding factor in foreign policy. Rarely would national interest be submerged for a special interest at such great cost than with the passing of the “genocide” resolution.

History will render its judgment, and the Armenians should take solace in that. Congress should put the resolution to the side.

In the end, though, this may not even matter. With mediation from Switzerland, Turkey and Armenian are pursuing diplomatic ties which are expected to be announced toward the end of this month. If Turkey and Armenia reconcile, the resolution may well be dropped by the Armenian diaspora - but that is far from certain.