Paul
Goble
Staunton, November 18 – Fighting over
monuments to the past has become a regular feature inside the countries of the
former Soviet bloc and among them as well, with decisions to erect or dismantle
this or that statue sparking controversies in many places. But now, such
disputes are spreading far beyond the borders of what was that bloc.
Often these disputes intersect with
conflicts within the countries where the monuments were erected or involve
differences of opinion about the foreign relations of those countries. One such
conflict, which is likely to attract far more attention in the future than it
has so far concerns an Abkhaz monument in the Scottish city of Kilmarnock.
More than 20 years ago, the city
authorities there agreed to the erection of a memorial plaque in honor of those
Abkhaz who died in the 1992-1993 fighting between the Abkhaz and the Georgian authorities. Scotland, which has its own interests in a
separate future, was apparently quite happy to have this plaque erected,
Then on November 8, the Georgian
ambassador in London called for the statue to be removed because it contained language
and symbols at odds with British policy toward Georgia and the breakaway
republic of Abkhazia. Abkhazians and their supporters in the UK and in Abkhazia
protested Kilmarnock’s agreement to take the monument down.
Then Georgian Deputy Foreign
Minister David Dondua said in Tbilisi that “no one had planned to remove or
take down the monument as the Abkhaza claims but only to modify it to bring it
into correspondence with British policy and then put it back in place in the
Scottish city (ekhokavkaza.com/a/28860255.html).
That wasn’t sufficient for the
Abkhazians and their defenders, and officials in Sukhumi and Abkhazian
residents organized a protest, even adopting an appeal to the international
community to intervene on their behalf in this latest battle of the monument
wars (ekhokavkaza.com/a/28860162.html).
Levan Geradze, a
Georgian conflict specialist, says that it isn’t surprising that this has
happened. When the two sides can’t agree on fundamental questions, they often
get more exercised than one might expect on secondary ones like monuments – and
these disputes spread through the diplomatic world and on social networks.
Giya Khukhashvili, another Georgian
political scientist, adds that “polemics of this kind reflect the political
impotence of both sides,” adding that in his opinion the current conflict is
being spurred on by third parties interested in keeping tensions high and
avoiding any serious negotiations.
But participants at a protest in the
Abkhaz city of Gali are clearly furious and say they will be watching closely
to see what happens to their monument in Scotland. If it is not restored
exactly as it was, they say, they will erect “an exact copy in Sukhumi on
Scotland Street” to make their point.
In any case, observers say, it is
already clear that the controversy around the monument in Kilmarnock is nowhere
close to resolution and likely will spark morediplomatic and non-diplomatic
exchanges in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment