On March 17, the U.S. State Department designated the atrocities perpetrated by the Islamic State against Christians and other religious minorities as "genocide." For more insight into this and other developments in the Middle East, I interviewed Andrew Doran, a senior advisor for In Defense of Christians, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group for Christians in the Middle East. Doran, who previously served on the executive secretariat of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO at the State Department, has published dozens of articles about U.S. foreign policy and human rights in the Middle East.

In part I of a wide-ranging interview, Doran discussed the origins of the current perilous state of affairs in the Middle East and what the international community can do to assist Christians and other religious minorities in the region.

Briefly describe the scope of the problem for Christians in the Middle East.

The Christians of the Middle East, the descendants of the first Christians, still number several million in Egypt to Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iran and Iraq, though they are increasingly targets for militants to extremists. They are victims of discrimination, persecution and even genocide. Many complex factors contribute to their plight, but the two most significant in recent decades have been the rise of Islamic extremism and the alienation of Christians in their historic communities.

The first factor, militant extremism, is largely rooted in the rigidly fundamentalist brand of Islam that was once largely isolated to the fringes of Arabia. The unification of most of Arabia under the House of Saud and the oil prices spike in the 1970s resulted in a lethal combination: extravagant wealth and radical fundamentalism. Untold billions have been spent to advance fundamentalism and terrorism by the wealthy elite of the Gulf region, which led directly to the rise of groups like al Qaeda and ISIS.

This has been a known issue for years, but the U.S. has done little about it. President Obama, as Jeffrey Goldberg noted in his recent piece, has "questioned, often harshly, the role that America's Sunni Arab allies play in fomenting anti-American terrorism. He is clearly irritated that foreign-policy orthodoxy compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally."

The second factor, the alienation of Christians, has followed from the radicalization of Muslim communities. And Western military intervention, particularly in Iraq, has only worsened already difficult conditions. There, we did nothing to protect Christians after creating the harm that led directly to their peril. The Christians of Iraq were an easy target, a scapegoat for being identified with the "Crusaders."

Middle East Christians have seen a sharp demographic decline over the last century. This began with the escalating Turkish persecution of Christians in Anatolia, Mesopotamia and the Levant, which culminated in the genocide against Armenians and Assyrians during World War I. The Armenians present an instructive model. After surviving genocide, one worse than even that undertaken by ISIS, the Armenians understood that they could never exist within the framework of their societies as a minority. Equality and rule of law were concepts that simply didn't exist in Turkey.

To survive, they would have to fight for their independence. They did so, reclaiming some of historic Armenia from the Turks. (If the Armenians had not defeated the Turks at the Battle of Sardarabad in 1918, there would be no Armenia today, and few Armenians.) Obviously, the disparate birth rates between Muslims and Christians is also significant, but persecution and genocide-induced emigration remain the substantial factor.

The last century has been characterized by persecution, displacement and emigration. But Christianity has survived and will, I believe, ultimately survive in the Middle East.

Why is it so important for the U.S. to make an official declaration of genocide?

The U.S. government doesn't declare genocide lightly. Recognizing genocide carries a duty, moral and legal, to respond, even if no one can quite agree on what that response might look like. In the last century, genocides resulted in the formations of havens and even nations, the breakup of fictitious, conglomerate states and intervention by the international community to protect innocent civilians.

So Secretary Kerry's announcement that what ISIS has done to Christians, Yazidis and others is genocide is significant. This followed pressure from the Knights of Columbus, In Defense of Christians and other advocacy groups. Especially persuasive was the genocide report that was submitted to Secretary Kerry, which would not have been possible but for the Knights' tireless work. This helped Congressman Jeff Fortenberry's genocide resolution pass 393-0 in the House last week.

What can the U.S. and international community do right now to help Christians and other religious minorities in the ME and specifically those in areas under Islamic State control?

The first thing the U.S. can do is try to make the international community relevant again, and it should do this first through moral leadership. Secretary Kerry's announcement is a significant step in the direction of America reclaiming its role as a moral leader. The essential purpose of the international community, indeed the raison d'etre of the United Nations, is to preclude and resolve conflict, to promote basic human rights and the dignity of the person and to restore justice where it's been violated.

The U.N. and the international community haven't been functioning properly for years, arguably since the mid-1990s, when the Clinton administration put energy into ending the genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The conflict in the former Yugoslavia, like most post-Cold War conflicts, came about where faux states dissolved and natural borders took shape along cultural and ethnic lines.

International leaders were slow to realize that Yugoslavia had failed and many died while elites worked through their denial. Leaders have been slow to come to grips with reality in Syria and Iraq, but there is something like an emerging consensus that Syria cannot be reconstituted and that something like the Dayton Accords model in Bosnia will be necessary, which I've argued since 2013.

The Christians living in ISIS-occupied territory are few, but they do occupy Christian towns and villages, and these must be liberated so that Christians can return. This will almost certainly mean greater American military intervention, likely at the outset of the next administration. The Kurds will not spill blood to liberate Mosul, and the Iraqi military is simply unreliable. However, it is entirely plausible that ISIS will simply cede much of Iraq and Syria in favor of reconsolidating the caliphate in Libya. If this happens, the immediate resettlement of Christian towns and villages will be a major priority.

IDC recently engaged a senior expert, Stephen Hollingshead, to evaluate the feasibility of resettling Christians on the Nineveh Plain and bringing in Western investors to revitalize those Christian communities. The Christians of the region are nothing if not industrious. This is why they yearn for political stability.

What would need to happen for Christianity to survive in Iraq and Syria and long-term in the region?

Four things need to happen. First, the international community must accept an emerging consensus, which even Gen. Hayden conceded recently: Syria and Iraq are failed states. They were never nation-states, and preserving such fictitious constructs invariably comes at a terrible cost in human life. This requires acknowledging a more complex map of the Middle East, but one more attuned to reality.

Second, havens and protected zones for vulnerable minority groups should be established where governments have failed. If Christians can establish internationally recognized, protected zones, they can not only survive in the region but once again thrive.

Third, the funding and ideological sources of extremism and terrorism absolutely must be cut off. The funds for terrorist organizations and extremist groups have flowed freely from the Gulf States and Iran to terrorist organizations for decades. Yet little has been done, virtually nothing about funding from the Gulf States.

Fourth, American foreign policy must demonstrate a serious commitment to human rights in the Middle East. This will mean standing up to regional hegemons, like Saudi Arabia, which has one of the worst human rights records in the world. To be either Christian or homosexual in Saudi Arabia may be punishable by death. How can we call such a government an ally?

Many have fled, and we hope countries will take in refugees. But there is a strong sense that these ancient Christian populations must stay in their homeland. Ideally, what can be done to ensure that they can live in security and freedom?

The challenges vary by region and by country; in some instances, by province or by village. I've discussed what is necessary in Iraq and, eventually, Syria: End the conflict and establish protected zones for vulnerable groups. In Egypt, what's necessary is the recognition of equal rights for Christians. Enumerating rights, however, is only meaningful if there is the rule of law to protect them. This concept of law goes deeper than the coercive powers of government; there must be a greater sense of the common good, of equality.

An evolved sense of the common good simply doesn't exist in much of the Middle East. Egypt's Christians are often the victims of discriminatory habits, though also of violence. The situation is not comparable to that of Iraq or Syria, where non-state and quasi-state actors control large swathes of territory, but it is still far from the standards of equality that should be demanded of a civilized nation.

Lebanon, a model for democratic pluralism in the region, while comparatively stable is still vulnerable to the surrounding dangers. To ensure long-term stability, Lebanon should shake off the hegemonic powers of Saudi Arabia and Iran and forge stronger ties with Western powers. There is a special role for the Christians in this, especially as the next crop of Christian leaders in Lebanon put behind them the internecine fighting of past generations.

America should take the lead in creating conditions so that humanitarian aid to Christians is no longer necessary. The Christians will not live in refugee and IDP camps indefinitely. They will either return to their homes or they will move to the West. And while Western nations should welcome those in need, whatever their religion, as is prudent and feasible, those nations should also take steps to end the conflict, defeat militants and cut off their resources, liberate occupied regions and begin the difficult process of resettling civilians. Those governments, national and regional, who do not protect the rights of vulnerable minority communities should not receive the support of the American people or their government.

America should press its allies, in Europe and in the Middle East, to take an active role in the resettlement of Christian towns and villages and in their long-term security. This will likely mean observers or implementation forces to oversee resettlement, which can be done at a fraction of the cost of full-scale military intervention. America has, I believe, a duty to help those whom its policies have, directly or indirectly, put in harm's way.

This is Part I of a two-part interview. Part II will appear on Monday March 21.

Daniel Allott is deputy commentary editor for the Washington Examiner