Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Happened In Georgia?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What Happened In Georgia?

    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.

Working...
X