Between Ani and Shushi: heritage as a weapon. Cultural erasure and memory denial: the Panturkist triple offensive
- Alexis Krikorian
- Jul 7
- 7 min read
Updated: Jul 8
Alexis Rochette Krikorian
Of the many alarming signs currently present in the Caucasus, three recent events (which have received little to no commentary in Western Europe) warrant analysis. These events point to a broader strategy of rewriting history, manipulating memory, and unifying symbolically around a neo-imperial project: Panturkism. Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Pakistan are now asserting this regional doctrine.
1. The controversial restoration of the Ani site: cultural erasure disguised as safeguarding
The Ani ruins, a UNESCO World Heritage site, are a major symbol of medieval Armenian civilization. Located in present-day Turkey, the former capital of the Bagratid kingdom was for many years a jewel of Eastern Christian architecture. However, the ongoing "restoration" of Ani's Armenian cathedral by the Turkish authorities[1], which seems to exclude Armenian experts, despite the involvement of international organizations such as the World Monuments Fund, raises questions. Paradoxically, these same institutions continue to use the name "Ani Cathedral[2]" in their official communications, whereas the monument is increasingly referred to in Turkey as the "Fethiye Mosque", just as it was at the time of the Seljuk conquest of Ani. This is illustrated by an article in Daily Sabah, a daily newspaper reputed to be close to the ruling power.
Restorations at the Ani site have been the subject of recurrent criticism from specialists, who have denounced past interventions as a distortion of the original structures and the addition of anachronistic materials. The current "restoration" of the cathedral is part of a tourist staging that systematically evacuates the Armenian roots of the site.
The author can attest that, during his visit to the Ani site in 2014, the adjective "Armenian" was systematically removed from tourist literature about the site in favor of adjectives such as "rich," "Bagratid," or "medieval". Nevertheless, the Armenian cathedral was first referred to as the "Cathedral" (without the adjective "Armenian") and then as the "Fethiye Mosque" (see photo below). Today, according to a government-affiliated newspaper, the Fethiye Mosque is prioritized over the "former cathedral of Ani."
This process can only be interpreted as the deliberate erasure of the Armenian aspect of the site, continuing a policy of cultural negation. This dimension was already evident in 2014 when I visited the site and seems to have been reinforced since then. Let's not forget that Osman Kavala, the founder of Anadolu Kültür and a proponent of dialogue, reconciliation, and the appreciation of Turkey's diverse cultures, including in Ani[3], has been imprisoned since 2017 and received an unjust life sentence in 2022.
While the conversion of Hagia Sophia into a mosque sparked heated international controversy, the restoration of Ani Cathedral has been met with striking indifference, perhaps because it is being done with less transparency than the work in Istanbul. It's time for UNESCO to take responsibility. Ani should be removed from the World Heritage List until an independent assessment of the restoration work is carried out in compliance with international heritage standards.
2. A border post in the name of a genocide criminal? Ankara's doublespeak on "normalization
On June 21, 2025, the chairman of the Iyi Party (Good Party), a nationalist party founded by a former member of the far-right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), tabled a bill to rename the Alican border crossing on the Turkish-Armenian border after Talaat Pasha[4], one of the main architects of the Armenian Genocide in 1915. The project was signed by 28 Members of Parliament.
The project sparked outrage among human rights activists and non-governmental organizations. The Zoryan Institute, renowned for its work on genocide and Armenian memory, published an open letter urging the Turkish authorities to withdraw this initiative, aguing that it is incompatible with any sincere desire for reconciliation. The Institute points out that naming an international crossing point after one of the organizers of the Armenian Genocide mocks the victims and undermines any attempt at dialogue.
In the same letter, the Institute proposes a powerful act of symbolic reparation: renaming the border crossing in honor of Hrant Dink. Dink was an Armenian-Turkish journalist and an advocate for dialogue. He was assassinated in Istanbul in 2007 for speaking out about the Armenian Genocide and working for a more inclusive Turkish society. This modest yet powerful gesture would send a clear signal for openness.
The mere submission of this proposal, even if it has not yet been adopted, testifies to political doublespeak. It undermines the credibility of any prospect of Armenian-Turkish normalization, and reveals the extent to which the memory of the genocide continues to be instrumentalized for identity-related purposes by certain circles of power. The international community, particularly states that have recognized the Armenian Genocide, must respond. Otherwise this type of provocation will entrench Turkey's denialist policy and strengthen ultranationalist currents in the region. In June 2025, the mayor of Ankara inaugurated a memorial to Talaat Pasha in the Turkish capital[5].
3. Nagorno-Karabakh, scene of a Panturkist summit: the triple alliance consolidates on ruins
On July 4, 2025, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan once again visited Nagorno-Karabakh for a summit of the Economic Cooperation Organization. The summit took place in Stepanakert, the former capital of a Nagorno-Karabakh, which was emptied of its ancestral Armenian population following the Azerbaijani military offensive of September 2023, which itself followed an inhumane and illegal land and air blockade that lasted nearly 10 months and the 44-day war in 2020. Together with President Ilham Aliyev and Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, Erdoğan announced that their respective countries were now:
"Three states, one nation."
The government-affiliated newspaper that reported the news illustrated its article with a photo of three wolves, which are likely meant to represent the three states in question. The wolves are also the symbol of the Grey Wolves, an ultranationalist Turkish militia that is officially banned in France.
The imagery is clear: power, purity, and homogeneity. However, it is less clear that this victory is over a civilian population driven from their ancestral lands like "dogs"[6] and that this show of force legitimizes ethnic cleansing. As in eastern Turkey, Armenian churches in Nagorno-Karabakh are being stripped of their identity or destroyed[7].
This Turkey-Azerbaijan-Pakistan alliance establishes a regional lock-in logic that marginalizes Armenia. This logic denies Armenia's history and attempts to erase all traces of its heritage. The goal is to delegitimize the Republic of Armenia's existence. Azerbaijan claims Armenia is actually "Western Azerbaijan." Consolidating this military, economic, and ideological alliance on Nagorno-Karabakh's soil is a major provocation to Armenians and an affront to the values of international law.
Conclusion: a strategy of obliteration with lasting consequences
From Ani to Shushi, via the Armenian-Turkish border, these three events reveal a coherent Panturkist strategy of cultural and memorial erasure. These are not isolated initiatives, but rather a coordinated state project aimed at rewriting the history of the Caucasus by erasing the Armenian heritage and delegitimizing the Armenian presence on their ancestral lands.
Impunity as fuel. International silence in the face of these provocations only encourages this dynamic. The French example is emblematic: after condemning the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh, Paris sent its ambassador to Shushi, thereby legitimizing the ethnic cleansing[8]. The contradiction between diplomatic declarations and actions undermines the credibility of the discourse on human rights. Switzerland, for its part, has an important role to play with the Swiss Peace Initiative, based on Motion 24.4259, which was adopted by Parliament. This motion tasks the Federal Council with organizing an international peace forum on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The goal is to facilitate open dialogue between Azerbaijan and the representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. The forum will also negotiate the safe return of the historically resident Armenian population[9].
The urgent need for a coordinated response. In the face of this offensive, three levers must be activated simultaneously:
Internationally: States that have recognized the Armenian gGenocide must firmly condemn the plan to rename a border post after Talaat Pasha. UNESCO should launch an independent investigation into the restoration of Ani, and consider suspending its heritage status if the allegations of manipulation are confirmed. The right of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh to return safely must finally be promoted by these same states.
On the Armenian front: the government must intensify its strategic partnerships with France, India and other powers to methodically denounce this Panturquist logic. But above all, it must avoid two fatal pitfalls: stifling internal critical voices and loosening ties with the diaspora, Ankara's avowed strategic objective.
On the diaspora level: as Hyestart has already written, the Armenian diaspora must reorganize itself internationally in the face of ongoing upheavals, and strengthen its capacity for international political mobilization.
A battle for the future. Beyond Armenia, the architecture of international law is being called into question. The "Panturkist triple offensive" tests the resilience of the international community in the face of the planned eradication of a people. How the international community responds to this test will determine if memory can stand in the way of impunity or if we are witnessing the emergence of a new paradigm in which force takes precedence over law.
Democratic plurality and transnational solidarity are the true forces of resistance against this erasure process. They are the last bulwarks against an unnamed rewriting of history.
Comments