Self-righteous Armenian Turkophobia Contemplations with Orkhan/VIDEO

Today, I would like to say a couple of words about the endemic Turkophobia in Armenia. To judge from an extensive review of the nation’s media, opinions expressed by various politicians and the overall public mood, this condition appears to be absolutely rampant and overwhelmingly pervasive. What is also very interesting is that this sentiment, the hatred towards anyone or anything Turkish or Turkic, also contains a worrying element of self-authorised justification.

But contemporary Armenia is also a nation in transition, albeit at the pace of slowly maturing cognac. It is slowly metamorphosing into something slightly different. Since the process itself is arduous and woodworm-riddled with uncertainties, and replete with contradictions and infighting between mutually exclusive concepts as to how the future should be sculpted, its final destination is a mere mirage in an imaginary Daliesque landscape.

We can reason within the perimeters of what is conceivable and projectable. One entrenched cornerstone of modern Armenian identity that must be modified or at least curbed is Turkophobia, which is inextricably interwoven into the psychological carpet of the national psyche, and deemed a vital poison necessary to sustain Armenia’s morale and self-deluded historic memory. Its extent is so self-consuming that it is also self-defeatist.

Armenia displays adolescent qualities conferred upon nations that have not yet come out of age. It has yet to determine the true contours of its functioning mode. Contemporary Armenia, despite fancying itself as being the successor to a great imaginary august civilisation, and being a society representing the pinnacles of the highest achievements of the human race, is, as a nation-state, very immature and in the process of being shaped.

Therefore, some of its adolescent narcissistic traits, such as the absence of a sense of proportion when it comes to its self-identified position in world history, an obsession for perceiving its image in a magnified mirror, and the concept of “mythological predestination” coupled with victimhood and grandiose ambitions which are not remotely practicable, could be seen as permissible. That is, for the time being. Adolescence is irrefutably short-lived.

However, what is not forgivable and cannot perhaps be left to evolve on its own is its self-righteous racism against its historic adversaries, which feeds on an imagined past, replete with inflated horrors. Armenia is in constant need to regurgitate its tragic former days so as to augment its sense of identity, whereby the so-called injustices of bygone times attribute a degree of perverted decency and acceptability to hatred towards Azerbaijan and Türkiye. In this sense, an Armenian who says that “the only good Turk is a dead Turk” is horrifically justified in his own mind, because for him such an outrageously degraded utterance does not amount to stooping to the level of blatant racism, but stems from keenly felt grievances that are rooted in the annals of history.

Last week, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan was on manoeuvres. He, in a suitably diplomatic tone, expressed his sadness on the news of the earthquake in Türkiye and Syria, offered his deepest condolences to the families of the victims and stated that Armenia was ready to provide assistance. Whether his swollen fingers were crossed behind his back and this statement was made with the purpose of looking agreeable and benign in the eyes of the world at large, due to the necessity of adhering to international practice, or borne out of the deeply felt sense of righteousness is perhaps secondary. The mere fact that Pashinyan displayed a sign of civilised benevolence and uttered the right words in relation to the tragedy experienced by a country with which his own nation has had troublesome relations was commendable, at least, on face value.

However, what was not commendable and, in fact, was appalling, was that two MPs from Pashinyan’s “Civil Contract’” party decided to make their views known in such a way that invited revulsion. Hakop Aslanyan and Knyaz Hasanov, whilst exercising their rights to express freely what they truly thought about their leader’s statement, could not help doing a great disservice to his efforts to look half decent. The two MPs in question are perfectly entitled to spit out their genuine feelings and spout their vitriol in time-honoured Armenian tradition. Correspondingly, we are entitled to form our opinion about the malice their feelings evince.

In their naked honesty, Aslanyan and Hasanov, revealed a blatant and sickening version of racism that was detestable 50 or 60 years ago and manifestly out-of-date in today’s world. In Aslanyan’s world, Pashinyan’s gesture was a contrived diplomatic nicety. He expressed the hope that Armenian rescuers would not save any Turk and he refused to express his condolences. He went as far as to boisterously claim that for him “the only good Turk is a dead Turk”, recalling that, back in 1994, he advised his son to follow the self-same precept.

In the destructive earthquake that shook Türkiye, Knyaz Hasanov, another Pashinyan supporter and stalwart of the Old Testament, discerned God’s punishment and openly declared that he would be happy if the Turkish state was destroyed, sparing the Kurdish population, his co-ethnics - the MP in question is of Kurdish origin. He fantasised about a future in which the Kurds of Türkiye, with the help of a certain omniscient superpower, brought the Turkish state to its ultimate end. One can’t help but discern clear support for the PKK, which is a terrorist organisation and brethren to Dashnak doctrine.

Turkophobia is in abundance in Armenia, which is a glasshouse fuelled by hatred. It represents a form of institutional racism, actively preached by the Church and wheezily inhaled by its inhabitants. Armenia is not anywhere near an inflection point in the trajectory of extricating itself from this malaise, for the arc of history is not about to bend. It is, in some ways, a stinking cesspool of a place, evincing envy mixed with loathing for someone better off. And when the opportunity is presented to enjoy a bit of schadenfreude, as we have seen from the statements of Hakop Aslanyan and Knyaz Hasanov, the chances are usually not spurned.

Only a proper shock can jolt Armenia out of its self-defeatist, self-deluded hatred for its two Turkic neighbours. Then, a state of quandary would ensue involving deep and painstaking naval-gazing. The Second Karabakh War was supposed to provide such an opportunity. What is obvious is that its lessons have not been duly learned. It will take time, of course. Perhaps something more catastrophic, if that is possible, will be required to detoxify Armenia’s national soul. All successful nations have reached mature adulthood and left childish things behind. Armenia should too.