Probably because "recognition" of genocides is mostly a political instrument rather than a correction of historical record based on new proofs. The recognition

Probably because "recognition" of genocides is mostly a political instrument rather than a correction of historical record based on new proofs. The recognition depends mostly on the political relationship between the "recognizer" and the perpetrator. For example: The Armenian genocide: As long as Turkey is an ally of US, US fails to recognize any wrong doings and takes no action. The holocaust: Germany was not an ally of US at the time; US recognizes the genocide and takes action. The various french "activities" in algeria and africa in general: US fails to recognize anything. France is an sovereign (=they have nukes) ally. Al-Anfal "campaign" in Iraq: US fails to recognize the actions of Iraq (unofficial US ally against Iran at the time) but remembers a decade later when Saddam falls into disgrace and action is taken in 2003. Second Chechen war: Russia is not ally of US but it is too "sovereign" for any action to be taken.