ARMENIA WANTS TO WIN SOME 450 CHURCHES OF GEORGIA IN COURT
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Jan 13 2015
13 January 2015 – 11:19am
By Giorgi Kalatozishvili, Tbilisi. Exclusively for Vestnik Kavkaza
Vazgen Mirzakhanyan, the spiritual leader of Armenians in Georgia,
the head of the eparchy of the Armenian Apostolic Church, demands the
return of hundreds of Georgian Orthodox churches to Armenian control.
Vaagn Chakhalyan, a leader of activists striving for the autonomy of
Javakheti (a region in the southern part of Georgia, populated mainly
by Armenians), was arrested for extremism during the presidency of
Mikheil Saakashvili, only to be pardoned after the Georgian Dream
coalition’s victory at the parliamentary polls in 2012.
After release from prison on amnesty, Chakhalyan was immediately
invited by the head of the Armenian eparchy to the main Armenian
church in Tbilisi, where he was welcomed as a hero and “fighter against
Georgian imperialism.” Saakashvili could not hide his disappointment,
reminding about the deeds done for the well-being of the population of
Javakheti: a new highway, hospitals, schools and, most importantly, the
status of a legal body granted to the Armenian church in Georgia. Only
the Georgian Orthodox Church had had such status before that. Mikheil
Saakashvili arduously “pushed” his decision through the parliament,
despite the position of the Georgian Orthodox Church. Many warned back
then that the status of a legal body would be used as an instrument in
endless international-level disputes around the ownership of churches.
The story of Chakhalyan remains an important symptom of sentiment in
the Armenian eparchy. Hence, reports about demands of the Armenian
eparchy for Georgia to return hundreds of Georgian churches were
unsurprising. Controversies have been ongoing for decades, since Soviet
times, when special departments for “protection of monuments” had
existed in Georgia and Armenia. Georgian and Armenian historians have
been arguing about the “true ownership” of monuments at conferences
and seminars.
An unofficial principle was imposed after gaining independence and
returning “monuments” to their true owners, i.e. Georgian and Armenian
churches. The principle resembles the principles of “territorial
integrity.” Both sides have been trying to resolve all disputes
without having to make them a public problem for many years.
Georgian historian Paata Bukhrashvili believes that disputes and
disagreements over the origin of churches are normal, considering the
historical processes: “There is nothing unusual about the presence
of Armenian churches in Georgia and Georgian churches in Armenia.
Armenians have been integrated into the Georgian state, the titulary
of Georgian kings mentioned Armenia too. The Armenian and Georgian
communities were closely interlaced. There have been many cases
in which Georgian foundations were discovered at excavations at
Armenian churches in Tbilisi. Armenia has many Georgian churches,
such as Akhtala. Before the schism of dyophysites and monophysites,
Armenians and Georgians had been a single religious community. That
is why many churches of the age (5-6th centuries) have Georgian and
Armenian inscriptions,” says the scientist. In Bukhrashvili’s opinion,
“some powers are trying to politicize the problem and incite tensions
around the issue.”
It seems that the efforts to “politicize” the dispute were what
provoked Vazgen Mirzakhaanyan’s demand for the return to his eparchy of
450 churches in Georgia, most of which are active. The churches conduct
divine services for Orthodox Christians. According to Vestnik Kavkaza,
the demand was only the first step towards an open interstate dispute
about the ownership of the churches. Armenia plans to make it a subject
of “cultural heritage” and address UNESCO, knowing that the chances
of solving the problem in international clerical institutions are low.
The Georgian Foreign Ministry told a Vestnik Kavkaza reporter that
nothing was known about any such plans. But considering that the
Georgian diplomatic system often learns about essential processes
late, the lack of information among Georgian diplomats does not mean
a lack of plans on the side of their potential opponents. Apparently,
the letter to UNESCO is only the first step to “fix” the problem
at an international level. Claims filed with international judicial
institutions, the Council of Europe, its specialized structures and so
on will follow it. The Georgian patriarchy told Vestnik Kavkaza that
it was unaware of the claims. “We have a list of Georgian churches
in Armenia too,” said a hierarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church in
an interview with me.
Thus, if the Armenian side does give the dispute an international tone,
it may become a subject of many years of legal battles, counterclaims
and even greater politicization, inevitably undermining interstate
relations.
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/analysis/politics/64574.html