Tweet
WHAT HAPPENED IN GEORGIA?
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments22254.html
Published: 12:42:46 - 17/06/2011
Obviously, the visit of the Armenian Catholicos to Georgia was not
helpful to the solution of the Armenian and Georgian controversy over
churches. It caused more tensions instead. Or, at least disclosed
the fundamental controversies between the sides.
First the Georgian press reported the signing of a joint communiqué on
granting official status to the Armenian Apostolic Church in Georgia
and the Georgian church in Armenia.
Two days later, the head of the information system of the Holy See Fr.
Vahram denied the signing of the communiqué in Facebook, followed
by denial of the Georgian church. Why did the sides refute the
misinformation of the Georgian press with delay?
Apparently, it was not misinformation. It was a matter of getting
ahead of the events. Perhaps, the Georgian press was convinced that
the communiqué was going to be signed and reported the signing when
it was still under discussion. It is not ruled out that the Georgian
church had assured the Georgian press that the Armenians were committed
to signing.
And the press reports were denied two days late because the Armenian
and Georgian church leaders continued the discussion or debate on
the text of the communiqué, and when the disagreement was final and
the discussion ended, the refutation followed.
Although, it should not be ruled out that it is a case of being
inattentive or slow. It is possible that the information system of
the Holy See missed the press report and commented on it when the
strong reaction to it came in Armenia. Surprisingly, only in Facebook.
Facebook is OK, but why only in Facebook?
There is another possibility. It is not ruled out that the Armenian
Apostolic Church agreed to sign a communiqué with the Georgian
church to have at least a result of the visit of the Catholicos,
and ensure that the visit does not end in aggravation or disclosure
of the controversy. After all, it is not quite pleasant when a rare
visit ends without a joint document.
Besides, the Catholicos may have thought that the communiqué is
not legally binding, is a memorandum on intentions between churches
rather than states, and the proposed draft could be accepted to save
the ~Sface~T of the visit. It is not ruled out that the Armenian
clergy thought it did not need the Chalcedonic churches in the north
of Armenia which are generally ignored, and there would be nothing
terrible about transferring them to the Georgian church. In other
words, it is possible that the Armenian Apostolic Church proceeded from
its corporate interests, if it can be referred to so, at that time.
However, probably official Yerevan intervened after learning about the
content of the document and barred the Armenian Apostolic Church from
signing a legally binding document. In the result of this, perhaps,
the Communique failed.
Another course of developments is also possible. The fact is that the
visit of the Catholicos to Georgia did not solve the problem of the
status of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Georgia, and it is highly
doubted that it solved the issue of preservation of the Armenian
churches there, even though the Georgian government made commitments.
After all, the Georgian government has never committed itself to
the opposite, and it is not the first time it has committed to
reconstruction and preservation of the Armenian churches.
The key issue is when the Armenian community in Georgia will eventually
start acting more efficiently regarding these issues.
Armenians in Georgia are about 10% of the population of Georgia. About
300-500 thousand Armenians live in Georgia. It is hardly possible
to expect effective solutions of the issues of Armenian churches,
Armenian movement and Javakheti unless the Armenians find a pole for
self-organization, and establish effective relations and debate with
the Georgian government as Georgian citizens.
Due to its geographic dependence on Georgia, Armenia is usually
cautious in claiming solution of these problems in Georgia. The
situation is delicate. Armenia needs to be bolder regarding this
issue, otherwise Georgia will abuse Armenia~Rs dependence. However,
it is a fact that Armenia is tied to its dependence on Georgia.
Meanwhile, the situation of the Armenian community in Georgia is
different. They are citizens of Georgia and can pursue their rights
and set demands before the Georgian government. And Armenia should
not try to act as a mediator to any agreement or make commitments
to the Georgian government to controlling and curbing the Armenians
of Georgia.
However, the ability of the Armenian community in Georgia to
self-organize remains the key issue. If the community makes no progress
toward self-organization, hardly any progress will be reported toward
the solution of the Armenian-Georgian problems.
Moreover, the community must be interested in having possibly fewer
or no mediators between itself and Georgia because the Georgian
government may manipulate mediations as an intervention, deviating
from the discussion of the key issues.
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments22254.html
Published: 12:42:46 - 17/06/2011
Obviously, the visit of the Armenian Catholicos to Georgia was not
helpful to the solution of the Armenian and Georgian controversy over
churches. It caused more tensions instead. Or, at least disclosed
the fundamental controversies between the sides.
First the Georgian press reported the signing of a joint communiqué on
granting official status to the Armenian Apostolic Church in Georgia
and the Georgian church in Armenia.
Two days later, the head of the information system of the Holy See Fr.
Vahram denied the signing of the communiqué in Facebook, followed
by denial of the Georgian church. Why did the sides refute the
misinformation of the Georgian press with delay?
Apparently, it was not misinformation. It was a matter of getting
ahead of the events. Perhaps, the Georgian press was convinced that
the communiqué was going to be signed and reported the signing when
it was still under discussion. It is not ruled out that the Georgian
church had assured the Georgian press that the Armenians were committed
to signing.
And the press reports were denied two days late because the Armenian
and Georgian church leaders continued the discussion or debate on
the text of the communiqué, and when the disagreement was final and
the discussion ended, the refutation followed.
Although, it should not be ruled out that it is a case of being
inattentive or slow. It is possible that the information system of
the Holy See missed the press report and commented on it when the
strong reaction to it came in Armenia. Surprisingly, only in Facebook.
Facebook is OK, but why only in Facebook?
There is another possibility. It is not ruled out that the Armenian
Apostolic Church agreed to sign a communiqué with the Georgian
church to have at least a result of the visit of the Catholicos,
and ensure that the visit does not end in aggravation or disclosure
of the controversy. After all, it is not quite pleasant when a rare
visit ends without a joint document.
Besides, the Catholicos may have thought that the communiqué is
not legally binding, is a memorandum on intentions between churches
rather than states, and the proposed draft could be accepted to save
the ~Sface~T of the visit. It is not ruled out that the Armenian
clergy thought it did not need the Chalcedonic churches in the north
of Armenia which are generally ignored, and there would be nothing
terrible about transferring them to the Georgian church. In other
words, it is possible that the Armenian Apostolic Church proceeded from
its corporate interests, if it can be referred to so, at that time.
However, probably official Yerevan intervened after learning about the
content of the document and barred the Armenian Apostolic Church from
signing a legally binding document. In the result of this, perhaps,
the Communique failed.
Another course of developments is also possible. The fact is that the
visit of the Catholicos to Georgia did not solve the problem of the
status of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Georgia, and it is highly
doubted that it solved the issue of preservation of the Armenian
churches there, even though the Georgian government made commitments.
After all, the Georgian government has never committed itself to
the opposite, and it is not the first time it has committed to
reconstruction and preservation of the Armenian churches.
The key issue is when the Armenian community in Georgia will eventually
start acting more efficiently regarding these issues.
Armenians in Georgia are about 10% of the population of Georgia. About
300-500 thousand Armenians live in Georgia. It is hardly possible
to expect effective solutions of the issues of Armenian churches,
Armenian movement and Javakheti unless the Armenians find a pole for
self-organization, and establish effective relations and debate with
the Georgian government as Georgian citizens.
Due to its geographic dependence on Georgia, Armenia is usually
cautious in claiming solution of these problems in Georgia. The
situation is delicate. Armenia needs to be bolder regarding this
issue, otherwise Georgia will abuse Armenia~Rs dependence. However,
it is a fact that Armenia is tied to its dependence on Georgia.
Meanwhile, the situation of the Armenian community in Georgia is
different. They are citizens of Georgia and can pursue their rights
and set demands before the Georgian government. And Armenia should
not try to act as a mediator to any agreement or make commitments
to the Georgian government to controlling and curbing the Armenians
of Georgia.
However, the ability of the Armenian community in Georgia to
self-organize remains the key issue. If the community makes no progress
toward self-organization, hardly any progress will be reported toward
the solution of the Armenian-Georgian problems.
Moreover, the community must be interested in having possibly fewer
or no mediators between itself and Georgia because the Georgian
government may manipulate mediations as an intervention, deviating
from the discussion of the key issues.