Epress.am News from Armenia
What it was that touched such a nerve in Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan? asks former chief editor of Armenian-Turkish weekly Agos Etyen Mahcupyan, in a Today’s Zaman column referring to Erdogan’s choice of the word “monstrosity” to describe a monument symbolizing friendship between Turkey and Armenia by famous sculptor Mehmet Aksoy in the city of Kars.
Why is it, I wonder, that Erdogan is being so “fussy” when it comes to this monument? We can find the answer once again by looking to Erdogan himself. Here is some of what he said at the recent opening of new facilities: “We cannot ignore those who make an effort to cast a shadow over history.” In other words, at the heart of this whole business is the meaning of this monument.
As Erdogan sees it, this monument possesses a meaning which has the power to “cast a shadow over” Turkish history. This judgment is not a bit surprising, because the monument itself references the friendship that should exist between Turks and Armenians and at the same time proposes that these two peoples unite. Instead though, Turkish history asserts that Armenians were traitors and that they were punished for “justifiable reasons” for stabbing the Turks in the back. Thus the message inferred from this monument actually counters the official understanding of history by Turkey, and identity choices that form the basis of Turkish foreign policy.
The irony in this is that these arguments would arise just as the fourth anniversary of Hrant Dink’s murder rolls around. What has emerged, in addition to allegations that the state itself was involved in secrecy and the distortion of facts in the murder case, is that Turkey is quite far from showing sensitivity on the matter of the Armenians.
Perhaps what really deserves to be labeled as a “monstrosity” here is the ideological foundations on which the process of justice regarding the Dink case is based. More and more in Turkey, facing the truth has started to mean the state and the national identity facing up to itself, and it thus appears that this government, starting with the prime minister himself, lacks the strength and even the intention to do so.
To tell the truth, it is quite doubtful that the Armenians themselves even liked the monument in question, but at the same time, Armenian society does believe that underneath the intolerance for this monument lies a general impatience for and intolerance towards Armenians themselves. In this, they may well be right.