Tweet
NEW DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THE ISSUE OF CHURCH PROPERTY RETURN IN TURKEY
02.10.2014
Vahram Hovyan
Expert, Centre for Armenian Studies, Noravank Foundation
A New Bill of the US Congress
The problem of preserving and returning church properties in Turkey
seized from Christian minorities is time to time brought into the
political agenda. Recently the US House of Representatives Foreign
Affairs Committee adopted the bill H.R. 4347, a.k.a. Turkey Christian
Churches Accountability Act 1 (on June 26, 2014 ordered to be reported
unanimous consent), which once again made this issue a discussion
subject in public/political and information dimensions.
Contextually, this new bill is the logical continuation of the US
House of Representatives Resolution H. Res. 306 2. As both documents
are related to the same problem, i.e. returning the church property
seized from Christian minorities, it can be stated that there is
a functional similarity between the two. However, there are some
differences in the problem statement depth:
1. While the H. Res. 306 was related only to the church properties
in Turkey, the H.R. 4347 also refers to the areas currently occupied
by the Turkish military in northern Cyprus
2. While the first one regarded Turkish government as an acting subject
in the issue of returning the property confiscated from Turkey's
Christian minorities, because it was ascribed with the responsibility
to return the property, the new bill puts the responsibility also on
the US government, as according to the bill the US government should
work together with the Turkish government in resolving the issue of
the church properties return.
3. Unlike the previous one, where no control was stipulated over
the process of church property return, the new Act does provide for
such control. The new Act requires the Secretary of State to submit
annual reports to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate till 2021 on the status and return of stolen, confiscated,
or otherwise unreturned minority properties.
Edward Royce, Chair, Committee on Foreign Affairs of the US House
of Representatives, substantiated the adoption of the new act by the
fact that "situation with Christian sites in Turkey is deteriorating,
and the churches are disappearing despite optimistic statements by
the Turkish leadership."3 These motives are supported by arguments
that rights and freedoms of Christian minorities in Turkey continue
to be violated, which is manifested by the following:
1. Christian minorities in Turkey are prevented from fully practicing
their faith.
2. They face serious obstacles to repairing their churches and
monuments, or constructing new ones.
3. The Christians are subjected to violence, including murder and
other crimes.
Attitudes of theStakeholders
To foresee the prospects of returning the confiscated church
properties, it is important to review the attitudes of involved
stakeholders towards the adoption of this act. Such stakeholders
include Armenian, Greek, and other ethnic minorities of the USA
that face the problem of church property return in Turkey and have
nation-states and national structures of their own, and Turkey.
The Armenian, Greek and Assyrian communities of the USA welcomed
the Act. Ken Hachikian, Chairman of the Armenian National Committee
of America noted that "The adoption of this measure sends a strong
signal to Ankara that it must stop its anti-Christian conduct and
start coming to terms with its moral, material and legal obligations
to Armenians, Syriacs, Cypriots, Pontians and other victims of Turkey's
still unpunished genocidal crimes." 4
The Armenian Apostolic Church also lauded the bill, describing it
as an important step to protect Christian minorities in Turkey and
their rights5.
However, the Turkish response to the bill inspired no much optimism.
It can be divided in two parts: reaction of the public/political
circles reflected in media and official reaction by the Turkish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It has to be mentioned that the media
response and the official stance proceeded in unison and complemented
each other.
The Turkish media dubbed the H.R. 4347 a document acting against the
interests of Turkey, adopted under pressure of the Armenian lobby6.
The official stance indicated rejection of claims made in the Act, and
showcased the traditional threatening style of the Turkish government.
Generally, Turkey's official attitude toward the adopted Act can be
boiled down to the following:
1. The claims made in the Act are groundless accusations.
2. Turkey has undertaken great efforts to protect the rights of
Christian religious minorities.
3.Adopting this this type of Act is damaging to the US-Turkish
partnership in various areas.
Those concerned with Turkish-American relations should support Turkey
in this issue7.
Thus, on one hand Turkey denies assessments made in the Act, on the
other hand tries to pretend that it is interested in guaranteeing
Christian minority rights and religious freedoms. However, in practice
it continues the policy of setting legal and political obstacles8,
through which the return of church property is actually obstructed.
Next Steps
Despite the existing problems and obstacles, the US Armenian, Greek,
Assyrian and other communities that have to deal with the problem
of church property return in Turkey should cooperate with their
nation-states and national diaspora structures to use the opportunity
and extract maximum benefits from the pressure imposed on Turkey.
The bills adopted to date contained loopholes, lacked concreteness
and were generalized, which allowed Turkey to maneuver and avoid from
fulfilling its obligations. The only specific provision in H.R 4347
is the requirement of comprehensive listing of all church property,
which enables to identify the properties to be returned to Christian
minorities.
The Armenian, Greek, Assyrian and other interested communities must
undertake efforts in their future discussions and documents to be
adopted, in order to bring clarity to the issue. In particular,
the following matters call clarification:
1. The list of Christian minorities in Turkey: The officially
recognized religious minorities in Turkey include adherents of
the Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic churches and Jews. However,
there are also communities without official recognition, such as
Armenian Catholic and Armenian Evangelical churches. The properties
expropriated from them comprise part of the rich Armenian legacy.
Hence, by clarifying the issue of the list of Christian minorities,
it is a necessary to include communities with no official status in
Turkey and extend the demand for return of confiscated property over
them as well. This would expand the camp of allies by involving the
Roman Catholic Church, Protestant churches, etc., because for example,
the Armenian Catholics and Protestants, other than being ethnic
Armenians are also part of the global Catholicism and Protestantism.
2. Church properties to be returnedO~I The Turkish government is
inclined to return only Christian properties that were confiscated
after 1936, whereas most of the properties were lost before that,
during the massacres and genocide. It is important the Act includes
demands to return of all the lost properties, rather than just part
of it.
3. Property return procedureO~I The experience tells that
politicization of the issue and bureaucratic hurdles are effective
tools in Turkish government's hands to disrupt the return of properties
of the Christian minorities. Quite often the Christian churches have
to resort to litigation with the government so as to return their
property9. Artificial difficulties created for return of property
cause psychological stress to the Christian communities and make them
feel that Turkish government is omnipotent and it is impossible to
resolve their problems, which may dissuade the Christian communities
from continuing the struggle for their rights. Therefore, resolving
the issue requires developing a simple and clear procedure for church
property return and making it part of the requirements to Turkey in
the documents to be adopted.
4. Deadlines for submission of applicationsO~I This is about having
no deadlines at all, rather than determining deadlines. The law on
returning church properties adopted in Turkey in 2011 stipulates
a deadline of one year for accepting applications from Christian
communities about returning their property. Given that application
submission is a time-consuming and cumbersome process, the one-year
limit makes the whole task of church property return impossible.
Therefore the future documents to be adopted must stipulate a clause
about unacceptability of any deadline for submission of church property
return applications.
5. Assessment and adequate compensation for appropriated church
propertyO~I Although the above-mentioned law stipulates compensation
for property taken from Christian minorities and appropriated from
individuals, but the issue of the adequate compensation remains
problematic. Hence, it is necessary to devise a clear formula for
property assessment and include it as a requirement in any future
documents.
Only with these and other clarifications any significant results might
be expected in the issue of returning church properties seized from
Christian minorities in Turkey. Otherwise the bills on this issue
will remain as documents simply describing situation and condemning
Turkey, while in reality they would bring a restricted impact. They
would have moral, rather than tangible significance. Taking advantage
of abstract formulations, Turkey would continue making symbolic
concessions to create an imitation of guarantees for the rights and
religious freedoms of the Christian communities.
1 H. R. 4347
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/sites/republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/HR
4347_Turkey Christian Churches Accountability Act.pdf
2 H. Res. 306
http://www.atour.com/government/pdf/20110615-USCongress-BILLS-112hres306ih.pdf
3 House panel adopts Turkey Christian Churches Accountability Act,
http://news.am/eng/news/216498.html
4 Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians of America welcome
passage of the Turkey Christian Churches Accountability
Act,http://news.am/eng/news/216512.html
5 Õ~DÕ¡ÕµO~@ Õ¡Õ©Õ¸Õ¼ Õ~MÕ¸O~BO~@Õ¢ Ô·Õ"Õ´Õ"Õ¡Õ®Õ"Õ¶Õ¨
Õ¸Õ²Õ"Õ¸O~BÕ¶Õ¸O~BÕ´ Õ§ Ô±Õ~DÕ~F Ô¿Õ¸Õ¶Õ£O~@Õ¥Õ½Õ"
Ô±O~@Õ¿Õ¡O~DÕ"Õ¶ Õ°Õ¡O~@Õ¡Õ¢Õ¥O~@Õ¸O~BÕ©ÕµÕ¸O~BÕ ¶Õ¶Õ¥O~@Õ"
Õ°Õ¡Õ¶Õ±Õ¶Õ¡ÕªÕ¸Õ²Õ¸Õ¾Õ" Õ¸O~@Õ¤Õ¥Õ£O~@Õ¡Õ® H. R. 4347 Õ¢Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ±O~GÕ¨,
http://www.aravot.am/2014/06/27/475133/
6 Ô¹Õ¸O~BO~@O~DÕ"Õ¡ÕµÕ" Ô±Ô³Õ~F-Õ¶ Õ¡O~@Õ±Õ¡Õ£Õ¡Õ¶O~DÕ¥Õ¬
Õ§ Ô±Õ~DÕ~F Ô¿Õ¸Õ¶Õ£O~@Õ¥Õ½Õ" Õ°Õ¡Õ¶Õ±Õ¶Õ¡ÕªÕ¸Õ²Õ¸Õ¾Õ"
Õ¨Õ¶Õ¤Õ¸O~BÕ¶Õ¡Õ® Õ¢Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ±O~GÕ"Õ¶,
http://ermenihaber.am/?lang_id=2&news_=9&cur_news=478
7 Ibid.
8 Õ~@Õ¸Õ¾ÕµÕ¡Õ¶ Õ~N., ÔµÕ¯Õ¥Õ²Õ¥O~AÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ£Õ¸O~BÕµO~DÕ"
Õ¾Õ¥O~@Õ¡Õ¤Õ¡O~@Õ±Õ´Õ¡Õ¶ ÕÕ¶Õ¤Õ"O~@Õ¨ Ô¹Õ¸O~BO~@O~DÕ"Õ¡ÕµÕ¸O~BÕ´,
Â"Ô³Õ¬Õ¸Õ¢Õ¸O~BÕ½Â", 2013, Õ©Õ"Õ¾ 1, Õ§Õ" 38-41O~I
9 Õ~OÕ¥Õ~[Õ½, O...O~@Õ"Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯, Õ~MÕ¿Õ¡Õ´Õ¢Õ¸O~BÕ¬Õ" Õ¤Õ¡Õ¿Õ¡O~@Õ¡Õ¶Õ¨
Õ´Õ¥O~@ÕªÕ¥Õ¬ Õ§ Õ°Õ¡ÕµÕ¸O~A ÕºÕ¡Õ¿O~@Õ"Õ¡O~@O~DÕ¡O~@Õ¡Õ¶Õ"Õ¶
Õ¾Õ¥O~@Õ¡Õ¤Õ¡O~@Õ±Õ¶Õ¥Õ¬ Â"Õ~MÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ½Õ¡O~@ÕµÕ¡Õ¶
Õ¿Õ¸O~BÕ¶Õ¨Â"http://ermenihaber.am/?lang_id=2&news_=9&cur_news=479
"Globus" analytical bulletin, No. 7, 2014
Return ________________________________ Another materials of author
KESSAB EVENTS: AN OUTLOOK FROM YEREVAN[19.05.2014] CONTEMPORARY
PROBLEMS OF CENTERS FOR ARMENIAN STUDIES ABROAD[07.04.2014] THE
ARMENIAN SCIENTIFIC AND ANALYTICAL COMMUNITY IN RUSSIA[20.01.2014]
ON THE MODERN CHALLENGES THE ARMENIAN COMMUNITY IN LEBANON
FACES[19.09.2013] TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN DIASPORA:
CHALLENGES AND POSSIBILITIES[17.06.2013] ON POLITICAL VIEW OF THE
ARMENIAN COMMUNITY IN SYRIA [06.05.2013] ISSUE OF RETURNING CHURCH
PROPERTIES IN TURKEY[07.02.2013] THE ARMENIAN EVANGELICAL COMMUNITIES
IN THE MIDDLE EAST[24.10.2012] THE ARMENIAN COMMUNITY IN GREECE AT
THIS STAGE[04.06.2012] ARMENIAN EVANGELICAL COMMUNITY IN URUGUAY
[06.02.2012]
http://www.noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=12923
From: Baghdasarian
02.10.2014
Vahram Hovyan
Expert, Centre for Armenian Studies, Noravank Foundation
A New Bill of the US Congress
The problem of preserving and returning church properties in Turkey
seized from Christian minorities is time to time brought into the
political agenda. Recently the US House of Representatives Foreign
Affairs Committee adopted the bill H.R. 4347, a.k.a. Turkey Christian
Churches Accountability Act 1 (on June 26, 2014 ordered to be reported
unanimous consent), which once again made this issue a discussion
subject in public/political and information dimensions.
Contextually, this new bill is the logical continuation of the US
House of Representatives Resolution H. Res. 306 2. As both documents
are related to the same problem, i.e. returning the church property
seized from Christian minorities, it can be stated that there is
a functional similarity between the two. However, there are some
differences in the problem statement depth:
1. While the H. Res. 306 was related only to the church properties
in Turkey, the H.R. 4347 also refers to the areas currently occupied
by the Turkish military in northern Cyprus
2. While the first one regarded Turkish government as an acting subject
in the issue of returning the property confiscated from Turkey's
Christian minorities, because it was ascribed with the responsibility
to return the property, the new bill puts the responsibility also on
the US government, as according to the bill the US government should
work together with the Turkish government in resolving the issue of
the church properties return.
3. Unlike the previous one, where no control was stipulated over
the process of church property return, the new Act does provide for
such control. The new Act requires the Secretary of State to submit
annual reports to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate till 2021 on the status and return of stolen, confiscated,
or otherwise unreturned minority properties.
Edward Royce, Chair, Committee on Foreign Affairs of the US House
of Representatives, substantiated the adoption of the new act by the
fact that "situation with Christian sites in Turkey is deteriorating,
and the churches are disappearing despite optimistic statements by
the Turkish leadership."3 These motives are supported by arguments
that rights and freedoms of Christian minorities in Turkey continue
to be violated, which is manifested by the following:
1. Christian minorities in Turkey are prevented from fully practicing
their faith.
2. They face serious obstacles to repairing their churches and
monuments, or constructing new ones.
3. The Christians are subjected to violence, including murder and
other crimes.
Attitudes of theStakeholders
To foresee the prospects of returning the confiscated church
properties, it is important to review the attitudes of involved
stakeholders towards the adoption of this act. Such stakeholders
include Armenian, Greek, and other ethnic minorities of the USA
that face the problem of church property return in Turkey and have
nation-states and national structures of their own, and Turkey.
The Armenian, Greek and Assyrian communities of the USA welcomed
the Act. Ken Hachikian, Chairman of the Armenian National Committee
of America noted that "The adoption of this measure sends a strong
signal to Ankara that it must stop its anti-Christian conduct and
start coming to terms with its moral, material and legal obligations
to Armenians, Syriacs, Cypriots, Pontians and other victims of Turkey's
still unpunished genocidal crimes." 4
The Armenian Apostolic Church also lauded the bill, describing it
as an important step to protect Christian minorities in Turkey and
their rights5.
However, the Turkish response to the bill inspired no much optimism.
It can be divided in two parts: reaction of the public/political
circles reflected in media and official reaction by the Turkish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It has to be mentioned that the media
response and the official stance proceeded in unison and complemented
each other.
The Turkish media dubbed the H.R. 4347 a document acting against the
interests of Turkey, adopted under pressure of the Armenian lobby6.
The official stance indicated rejection of claims made in the Act, and
showcased the traditional threatening style of the Turkish government.
Generally, Turkey's official attitude toward the adopted Act can be
boiled down to the following:
1. The claims made in the Act are groundless accusations.
2. Turkey has undertaken great efforts to protect the rights of
Christian religious minorities.
3.Adopting this this type of Act is damaging to the US-Turkish
partnership in various areas.
Those concerned with Turkish-American relations should support Turkey
in this issue7.
Thus, on one hand Turkey denies assessments made in the Act, on the
other hand tries to pretend that it is interested in guaranteeing
Christian minority rights and religious freedoms. However, in practice
it continues the policy of setting legal and political obstacles8,
through which the return of church property is actually obstructed.
Next Steps
Despite the existing problems and obstacles, the US Armenian, Greek,
Assyrian and other communities that have to deal with the problem
of church property return in Turkey should cooperate with their
nation-states and national diaspora structures to use the opportunity
and extract maximum benefits from the pressure imposed on Turkey.
The bills adopted to date contained loopholes, lacked concreteness
and were generalized, which allowed Turkey to maneuver and avoid from
fulfilling its obligations. The only specific provision in H.R 4347
is the requirement of comprehensive listing of all church property,
which enables to identify the properties to be returned to Christian
minorities.
The Armenian, Greek, Assyrian and other interested communities must
undertake efforts in their future discussions and documents to be
adopted, in order to bring clarity to the issue. In particular,
the following matters call clarification:
1. The list of Christian minorities in Turkey: The officially
recognized religious minorities in Turkey include adherents of
the Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic churches and Jews. However,
there are also communities without official recognition, such as
Armenian Catholic and Armenian Evangelical churches. The properties
expropriated from them comprise part of the rich Armenian legacy.
Hence, by clarifying the issue of the list of Christian minorities,
it is a necessary to include communities with no official status in
Turkey and extend the demand for return of confiscated property over
them as well. This would expand the camp of allies by involving the
Roman Catholic Church, Protestant churches, etc., because for example,
the Armenian Catholics and Protestants, other than being ethnic
Armenians are also part of the global Catholicism and Protestantism.
2. Church properties to be returnedO~I The Turkish government is
inclined to return only Christian properties that were confiscated
after 1936, whereas most of the properties were lost before that,
during the massacres and genocide. It is important the Act includes
demands to return of all the lost properties, rather than just part
of it.
3. Property return procedureO~I The experience tells that
politicization of the issue and bureaucratic hurdles are effective
tools in Turkish government's hands to disrupt the return of properties
of the Christian minorities. Quite often the Christian churches have
to resort to litigation with the government so as to return their
property9. Artificial difficulties created for return of property
cause psychological stress to the Christian communities and make them
feel that Turkish government is omnipotent and it is impossible to
resolve their problems, which may dissuade the Christian communities
from continuing the struggle for their rights. Therefore, resolving
the issue requires developing a simple and clear procedure for church
property return and making it part of the requirements to Turkey in
the documents to be adopted.
4. Deadlines for submission of applicationsO~I This is about having
no deadlines at all, rather than determining deadlines. The law on
returning church properties adopted in Turkey in 2011 stipulates
a deadline of one year for accepting applications from Christian
communities about returning their property. Given that application
submission is a time-consuming and cumbersome process, the one-year
limit makes the whole task of church property return impossible.
Therefore the future documents to be adopted must stipulate a clause
about unacceptability of any deadline for submission of church property
return applications.
5. Assessment and adequate compensation for appropriated church
propertyO~I Although the above-mentioned law stipulates compensation
for property taken from Christian minorities and appropriated from
individuals, but the issue of the adequate compensation remains
problematic. Hence, it is necessary to devise a clear formula for
property assessment and include it as a requirement in any future
documents.
Only with these and other clarifications any significant results might
be expected in the issue of returning church properties seized from
Christian minorities in Turkey. Otherwise the bills on this issue
will remain as documents simply describing situation and condemning
Turkey, while in reality they would bring a restricted impact. They
would have moral, rather than tangible significance. Taking advantage
of abstract formulations, Turkey would continue making symbolic
concessions to create an imitation of guarantees for the rights and
religious freedoms of the Christian communities.
1 H. R. 4347
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/sites/republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/HR
4347_Turkey Christian Churches Accountability Act.pdf
2 H. Res. 306
http://www.atour.com/government/pdf/20110615-USCongress-BILLS-112hres306ih.pdf
3 House panel adopts Turkey Christian Churches Accountability Act,
http://news.am/eng/news/216498.html
4 Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians of America welcome
passage of the Turkey Christian Churches Accountability
Act,http://news.am/eng/news/216512.html
5 Õ~DÕ¡ÕµO~@ Õ¡Õ©Õ¸Õ¼ Õ~MÕ¸O~BO~@Õ¢ Ô·Õ"Õ´Õ"Õ¡Õ®Õ"Õ¶Õ¨
Õ¸Õ²Õ"Õ¸O~BÕ¶Õ¸O~BÕ´ Õ§ Ô±Õ~DÕ~F Ô¿Õ¸Õ¶Õ£O~@Õ¥Õ½Õ"
Ô±O~@Õ¿Õ¡O~DÕ"Õ¶ Õ°Õ¡O~@Õ¡Õ¢Õ¥O~@Õ¸O~BÕ©ÕµÕ¸O~BÕ ¶Õ¶Õ¥O~@Õ"
Õ°Õ¡Õ¶Õ±Õ¶Õ¡ÕªÕ¸Õ²Õ¸Õ¾Õ" Õ¸O~@Õ¤Õ¥Õ£O~@Õ¡Õ® H. R. 4347 Õ¢Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ±O~GÕ¨,
http://www.aravot.am/2014/06/27/475133/
6 Ô¹Õ¸O~BO~@O~DÕ"Õ¡ÕµÕ" Ô±Ô³Õ~F-Õ¶ Õ¡O~@Õ±Õ¡Õ£Õ¡Õ¶O~DÕ¥Õ¬
Õ§ Ô±Õ~DÕ~F Ô¿Õ¸Õ¶Õ£O~@Õ¥Õ½Õ" Õ°Õ¡Õ¶Õ±Õ¶Õ¡ÕªÕ¸Õ²Õ¸Õ¾Õ"
Õ¨Õ¶Õ¤Õ¸O~BÕ¶Õ¡Õ® Õ¢Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ±O~GÕ"Õ¶,
http://ermenihaber.am/?lang_id=2&news_=9&cur_news=478
7 Ibid.
8 Õ~@Õ¸Õ¾ÕµÕ¡Õ¶ Õ~N., ÔµÕ¯Õ¥Õ²Õ¥O~AÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ£Õ¸O~BÕµO~DÕ"
Õ¾Õ¥O~@Õ¡Õ¤Õ¡O~@Õ±Õ´Õ¡Õ¶ ÕÕ¶Õ¤Õ"O~@Õ¨ Ô¹Õ¸O~BO~@O~DÕ"Õ¡ÕµÕ¸O~BÕ´,
Â"Ô³Õ¬Õ¸Õ¢Õ¸O~BÕ½Â", 2013, Õ©Õ"Õ¾ 1, Õ§Õ" 38-41O~I
9 Õ~OÕ¥Õ~[Õ½, O...O~@Õ"Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯, Õ~MÕ¿Õ¡Õ´Õ¢Õ¸O~BÕ¬Õ" Õ¤Õ¡Õ¿Õ¡O~@Õ¡Õ¶Õ¨
Õ´Õ¥O~@ÕªÕ¥Õ¬ Õ§ Õ°Õ¡ÕµÕ¸O~A ÕºÕ¡Õ¿O~@Õ"Õ¡O~@O~DÕ¡O~@Õ¡Õ¶Õ"Õ¶
Õ¾Õ¥O~@Õ¡Õ¤Õ¡O~@Õ±Õ¶Õ¥Õ¬ Â"Õ~MÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ½Õ¡O~@ÕµÕ¡Õ¶
Õ¿Õ¸O~BÕ¶Õ¨Â"http://ermenihaber.am/?lang_id=2&news_=9&cur_news=479
"Globus" analytical bulletin, No. 7, 2014
Return ________________________________ Another materials of author
KESSAB EVENTS: AN OUTLOOK FROM YEREVAN[19.05.2014] CONTEMPORARY
PROBLEMS OF CENTERS FOR ARMENIAN STUDIES ABROAD[07.04.2014] THE
ARMENIAN SCIENTIFIC AND ANALYTICAL COMMUNITY IN RUSSIA[20.01.2014]
ON THE MODERN CHALLENGES THE ARMENIAN COMMUNITY IN LEBANON
FACES[19.09.2013] TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE ARMENIAN DIASPORA:
CHALLENGES AND POSSIBILITIES[17.06.2013] ON POLITICAL VIEW OF THE
ARMENIAN COMMUNITY IN SYRIA [06.05.2013] ISSUE OF RETURNING CHURCH
PROPERTIES IN TURKEY[07.02.2013] THE ARMENIAN EVANGELICAL COMMUNITIES
IN THE MIDDLE EAST[24.10.2012] THE ARMENIAN COMMUNITY IN GREECE AT
THIS STAGE[04.06.2012] ARMENIAN EVANGELICAL COMMUNITY IN URUGUAY
[06.02.2012]
http://www.noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=12923
From: Baghdasarian