Martín (PSOE) asserts that the Government intends to “sanitize” its initial stance by reshaping it into an agreement that “lacks substance”.
SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE, 31 (EUROPA PRESS)
The Tenerife Cabildo ratified a motion this Thursday, supported by CC, PP, and Vox, requesting the continuation of the investigation into the Asset of Cultural Interest (BIC) file regarding the ‘monument to Franco’, as per court order, and to implement the measures of the democratic memory law based on the outcome, whether that entails removal, elimination, preservation, or reinterpretation.
The spokesperson for the Nationalist Group, José Miguel Ruano, acknowledged that reinterpreting the Franco monument “is a highly sensitive issue” but maintained that it is permitted by the historical memory law, as has been reflected in the case of the Valley of the Fallen, initiated by the central government.
He indicated that the Cabildo is compelled to commence a Cultural Interest Asset (BIC) file owing to a judicial decision and clarified that his group intends to remain “uninvolved” in the “confrontational” discussions regarding the Civil War, which they believe the socialists aim to instigate.
Ruano expressed the importance of “respecting the rule of law” and awaiting the conclusions of the protection file, highlighting that the Government has yet to make a “specific statement” concerning the future of the group, nor has it provided any indications or exerted pressure regarding the forthcoming BIC.
The Vox spokesperson, Ana Salazar, declared that the island cannot afford to eliminate the sculptural ensemble by Juan de Ávalos, estimated to be valued at around 45 million euros, while also deeming reinterpretation “unnecessary”, as it lacks any identifying features related to the Civil War or dictatorship.
She mentioned that its title is ‘Monument to Peace of Tenerife’ and understands that tourists taking photographs next to the sculpture are not endorsing Franco.
The vice president of the Cabildo, Lope Afonso (PP), noted that the ‘monument to Franco’ is not part of the “road map” of the Government’s pact, emphasising that the initiation of the file is due to a court mandate, but it does not mean that it will be “protected” voluntarily.
In this context, he clarified that if there are “eventually” artistic or sculptural merits, a “consensus” must be pursued within society to attempt to uphold the values of harmony and democratic coexistence. “The alternative is merely low-intensity politics,” he remarked.
Afonso urged for “calm, maturity, and common sense” in this discussion, advising that it should not be approached “with agitation”, and recalled that the file has been reopened because it was handled “poorly” in the previous mandate.
He elaborated that the Government “has not prejudged anything” nor has it taken any administrative steps, asserting that it has merely provided, in any case, a “political opinion”.
The president of the Socialist Group, Pedro Martín, stated that the sculptural group epitomises the “success” of the coup d’état and links Tenerife to the origins of the Civil War, deeming it “regrettable” that CC and PP have proposed a motion that seeks to “sanitize” their “hasty” declaration regarding the intention of reinterpreting the monument.
PSOE: “THEY HAVE DISRESPECTED” THE VICTIMS OF FRANQUISM
He remarked that the Cabildo “is not in a position” to alter the name and, regardless, we must await the completion of the BIC file, while reproaching that “they have not collaborated” with the Santa Cruz de Tenerife City Council.
“They have pursued publicity without considering the sensitivity of those affected,” he pointed out.
Martín added that the catalogue of Francoist remnants is “compelling” and “leaves no room for” reinterpretation, aligning with the views of experts from ULL, in addition to the fact that the monument “can never” be associated with concord. “They have acted disrespectfully,” he explained.
He underscored that the Government has altered its position with a motion that “communicates nothing” and is a consequence of “a misjudgement and a quest for prominence” in order to “secure a headline”, clarifying that laws “are to be followed, not voted on”.