In Armenia, the ideological tool presented under the name of the “Armenian genocide” has been used for many years as one of the main instruments of regional politics. At the center of this narrative stands the so-called “Armenian genocide monument,” located in Yerevan and officially named "Tsitsernakaberd." The monument was built in 1967 during the Soviet era. This date was not chosen by chance and has a serious political context.
The 1960s were a period when ideological control over national republics in the USSR was strengthened with new mechanisms. Moscow pursued a policy of governance through historical traumas to protect its central authority. The channeling of Armenian nationalism was precisely a part of this strategy. The transformation of the so-called “genocide” idea into state ideology was promoted by the USSR. The goal was to create a leverage of pressure against Turkey.
This fact has also been indirectly admitted by Armenia's current Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in various speeches. Pashinyan stated that the “genocide” topic has been used for many years as a tool of foreign political influence. This admission clearly reveals the ideological nature of the monument. The "Tsitsernakaberd monument" is a political symbol and remains one of the main sources of tension in Turkey-Armenia relations.
After Armenia gained independence in 1991, this ideological line was further hardened. Official ceremonies are organized annually at the state level around the monument. Anti-Turkey rhetoric plays a central role in these ceremonies. As a result, a psychology of confrontation is formed in the region.
Over time, international actors also use this narrative for their own interests. Particularly, the US and some Western circles have turned the topic into a mechanism of political pressure. The United States keeps the “genocide” claims on the agenda more for its own geopolitical agenda than for Armenia's direct interests. In reality, Armenia plays the role of a tool in this process.
In this context, high-level contacts of the US in Armenia attract attention. According to Armenian media reports, US Vice President J.D. Vance arrived in Yerevan as part of an official visit. During the visit, he also “visited” the so-called “Armenian genocide monument.” He was accompanied by his wife, Usha Vance, during this “visit.”
This step is presented as a political gesture within Armenia. In the regional context, however, this "visit" creates a completely different picture.
Such steps undermine the normalization process between Turkey and Armenia. In diplomatic terms, it contradicts mutual trust.
At a time when the opening of communication channels in the region is being discussed, such symbolic steps increase tension.
Particularly, attempts to open a new page in Turkey-Armenia relations are weakened. This process not only harms interstate relations but also negatively affects inter-societal ties.
As a result, the younger generation in Armenia is raised with a one-sided approach to history. This means the systematic sowing of seeds of enmity.
The Pashinyan government should know that the selective presentation of historical facts creates dangerous consequences for future generations.
It must also be emphasized that these events are met with serious dissatisfaction in Azerbaijan. Because the “genocide” narrative is also used directly against Azerbaijan.
Especially when our lands were under occupation, this ideology had turned into a manipulative tool, and even today there are those who approach the issue from the same context. Therefore, with this “visit” by a US official who claims to bring peace to the region, the environment of regional peace and cooperation is being sabotaged.
The South Caucasus has entered a new phase of geopolitical realities. After 2020, the balance of power in the region has changed. New communication lines and economic cooperation opportunities have come to the fore. At such a stage, the preservation of old ideological monuments is, to put it mildly, destructive.
At this point, Nikol Pashinyan's responsibility must be particularly emphasized. Pashinyan often speaks of the concept of “real Armenia.” Real Armenia, however, should not be built on myths but should be formed on rational politics. Therefore, from this perspective, the "Tsitsernakaberd monument" should be re-evaluated.
Armenians should know that the existence of the monument does not serve Armenia's future. On the contrary, it turns it into a hostage of the past.
From an analytical perspective, as a way out of the issue, this monument should be dismantled, and a friendship monument symbolizing regional reconciliation should be built in its place. This step could be the beginning of a new stage in relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Pashinyan should make such a decision after the elections. This will be a real test of his political will. If this step is not taken, the ideology of enmity will continue. Armenia will not be able to emerge from regional isolation.
Because peace is not achieved only with symbolic gestures, but is possible with real decisions. Renouncing myths is crucial for historical reconciliation. Otherwise, the period of tension in the South Caucasus will be prolonged. This does not serve the interests of any party. The existence of this monument is as hysterical as Armenia's territorial claim against Turkey.
Based on the facts above, we can say that the so-called “Armenian genocide monument” is a product of political manipulation far from historical truth. This stone of slander, created during the Soviet era, was later turned into a tool by the West. Its existence creates coolness in Turkey-Armenia relations and deepens the psychology of enmity among new generations.
If Pashinyan truly wants to build a new Armenia, he must free himself and his country from this burden. Only in this case can a real step towards lasting peace in the region be taken.
Elnur AMIROV
