Aram I: “The Armenian Church”, a Book Review

Reviewed by Vahe H. Apelian

In a superb narration Aram I presents to his readers, in his book titled “The Armenian Church”,  “The Christianization of Armenia and the Armenianization of the Christianity” because “The Armenian Church is the birthplace of Armenian culture and since the beginning of the 5^thCentury it has been its epicenter, not only creating the wonder of the Armenian Alphabet, but also playing a pivotal part in promoting, enriching, and protecting all manifestations of Armenian culture.’

Aram I, early on in the book, presents the different names by which the Armenian Church is known: Church of Armenia, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic, Orthodox Armenian Church; Armenian Gregorian Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, Armenian Church or Church of Armenia. He then explains why he chose “Armenian Church” as the title of his book, when it was known as Church of Armenia during its early founding years. The one time church confined in Armenia now extends its jurisdiction from America to Australia and in all continents of the world in between where Armenians have now scattered.

Along with the customary Preface and Introduction of a book, Aram I presents the Armenian Church in 10 chapters in each of which he presents the essence of the inferred topic in a clear, easily understood, and captivating manner even though it may entail theological discussion as to why the Armenian Church rejected the Council of Chalcedon while it upheld the teachings of the first three ecumenical councils and explains the Armenian Church’s understanding of the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

To give a breath and the scope of this superbly narrated book that encompasses all aspects of the church for the interested lay reader, I will have to enumerate the chapters and the topics under each chapter Aram I presents in a simplified manner. Only those who have full command and grasp, resort to such simplified and pleasant narration to transmit their knowledge in a simple manner to the interested not to bore them but retain their attention and help them understand the working of the Armenian Church.

The chapters and their subtitles are as follows:

LONG HISTORY IN BRIEF(pages 21-53), comprises:

The major periods of the history of the Armenian church,  The Origin of the Armenian Church, Christianity as the state religion,  The Golden Age,  The Rejection of the Council of Chalcedon, The Arabs in Armenia,  The Formation of Armenian Cilicia,  A Period of uncertainty and stagnation,  The Armenian Genocide,  Soviet Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora,  New hopes and promises.

HIERARCHY AND DECISION-MAKING (pages 54-76), comprises:

Hierarchy,  Catholicos,  Patriarch, Archbishop,  Bishop,  Vartabed and Supreme Vartabed,  Celibate Priest,  Married Priest,  Deacon,  Decision-Making Structures,  Hierarchical Sees, Two Catholicosates within One Church.

ESSENTIALS OF FAITH (pages 76-95) comprises:

The Bible, Ecumenical Councils, Local Councils, Liturgy, Exegetical Literature, Hagiographic Writings, Treatises and Homilies, Encyclical, pastoral letters, exchange of letters, and Confessions of Faith; Historiography.

RICH SPIRITUALITY (pages 96-140) comprises:

Liturgy, Daily Services,  Feasts,  Liturgical Books,  Sacraments,  Baptism, Confirmation,  Repentance,  Holy Lucharist,  Holy Orders,  Marriage,  Anointing of the Sick,  The Holy Muron,  Images,  Cross-Stone, Music, Liturgical Vestments, Liturgical Vessels,  Relics of Saints, Architecture, Armenian Calendar.

CULTURAL ACTIVITY (pages 141-156) comprises:

The Translation of the Bible and Church Fathers,  Major Figures of Armenian Original Literature, Contribution to painting, printing and music.

SOCIAL ACTION (pages 157-167) comprises:

Characteristic features of the Church’s diakonia, Armenian Diaspora: the focus of the Church’s diakonia,  Social action: a continuing concern.

EDUCATIONAL ROLE (pages168-174) comprises:

The first Armenian school, Monasteries: centers of education, Community schools, Authors in Christian education.

ECUMENICAL ENGAGEMENT (pages 175-196) comprises:

Relations with the Oriental Orthodox churches, Relations with Eastern Orthodox churches,  Relations with Catholic churches,  Relations with the Anglican Communion,  Relations with Protestant churches,  Participation in ecumenical councils and bilateral theological dialogues,  Collaboration with the Armenian Catholic and Armenian Evangelical churches.

PEOPLE’S CHURCH (pages 197-205) comprises

Indigenization of Christianity,  The Church as a unifying factor,  The leadership role of the Church, Church-state relations.

CHALLENGES AND PRIORITIES (pages 206-217) comprises:

A dynamic pastoral engagement, An active spiritual ministry, Redefining of the national identity of the Church, Renewal of the Armenian Church and urgent imperative.

The rest of the book comprises Notes, Appendices, and a listing for Further Reading.

At the end Aram I lists his prodigal output in Armenian, English and in French, totaling 28 titles!

Those who have followed Aram I have come to know that the basic tenets of his ministry can be summed up paraphrasing President Abraham Lincoln’s famous quote from his Gettysburg Address, “Of the People, by the People, and for the People”. Catholicos Aram I writes that “The Armenian Church should not become a museum of spiritual heritage; nor should it remain imprisoned in a petrified institutionalism. It is called to respond, in faithfulness to the core value of the Gospel, to the expectations of its people and to the challenges of the present-day world”.

It is not hard to envision that Aram I is burdened with the administrative responsibilities of the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia whose jurisdiction extends globally. He also is a revered spiritual leader and an ecumenical figure. He has served as two terms moderator of the World Council of Churches and as two terms president of the Middle East Council of Churches. God has bestowed upon Catholicos Aram I a powerful intellect and a tireless stamina, which he has put in service towards to the Armenian People through the Armenian Church.

The book was first published in 2016 by the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia in Antelias, Lebanon. The book I read was its second edition in 2017. The book measures  5 inches x 7.5 inches making it handy to carry for reading in leisure. Each chapter is an entity in itself and thus can be prioritized per the reader’s interest. Reading the book in its entirety will give a reader a vital knowledge for his or her better appreciation of and understanding the Armenian Church that has withstood the test of time but continues to face new challenges.

  

ANCA and the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide

Vahe H. Apelian

It was Harut Sassounian who brought to my attention that the ANCA like him also claims that the United States of America has repeatedly recognized the genocide of the Armenians. 

In his most recent editorial dated December 12, 2018, and titled “U.S. Ambassador to Armenia Should Call the Armenian Genocide, Genocide”, Harut stated that “the United States has repeatedly recognized the Armenian Genocide at the highest levels of the government.”, and demanding that its ambassador to Armenia affirm the same. Obviously Harut is concerned that the U.S. ambassador to Armenia might not affirm what her government has acknowledged! But Harut conveniently ignores the reason and the sad turn of events that put an end to the former U.S. ambassador in Armenia, John Marshal Evans’ career as an official of the U.S. Government. 

I have had numerous exchanges with Harut Sassounian disputing his claim. He insists on the veracity of his claim and cites the three different instances upon which he bases his argument. The three instances he cites are the following. I quote:

“1) The U.S. Government submitted in 1951 an official document to the World Court in which it recognized the Armenian Genocide as a Genocide for the first time.

2) The House of Representatives adopted two resolutions in 1975 and 1984 acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.

3) Pres. Reagan issued a Presidential Proclamation in 1981, which referred to the Armenian Genocide.

He further noted to me “the info on U.S. Recognition of the Armenian Genocide is available for free on many websites, including the ANCA.” Harut Sassounian is the editor of California Courier he owns as its publisher and is entitled to voice his opinions. But the ANCA is a grass root organization and its opinions reflect what the community at large it represents believes. I found Harut’s assertion that ANCA does the same, disturbing.

 The other day I checked the ANCA’s page and I found out that true to Harut’s assertion, ANCA does indeed claim that the U.S. has recognized the Armenian Genocide and makes reference to the three instances Harut first used to formulate his opinion.

On that page ANCA notes in bold letters that: “ President Trump like President Reagan should recognize the Armenian Genocide.” Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of the workings of the U.S. Government knows that the first denizen of the Executive Branch, the President, executes what the Legislative Branch legislates. The latter has not resolved that the 1915 happening-the Medz Yeghern – constituted genocide. As to the President Reagan’s use of the G word, recently his speechwriter, Ken Khachigan, shed light on it. What President Reagan stated at that time in no way conveyed the position of the U.S. Government.

ANCA also states on that page that  “Despite formal recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the U.S. Government in 1951 and 1981….”. Obviously, in these two instances, the U.S. Government officials referenced to the 1915 happening in its legal term, GENOCIDE, but those references do not constitute recognition. Let me explain why I believe that to be the case.

We know that genocide is a compound word and is similar to many similar words, such as homicide, suicide, fratricide etc. But genocide differs from these words in a fundamental way. In case of the former words, the act of the killing constitutes the legal ground to act against their perpetrators. However, in case of the genocide its not the killing, it’s the INTENT to kill for the purpose of wiping out a community that constitutes the legal ground to act against the perpetrator of the genocide. Surely the 1.5 million Armenian victims make the intent the more obvious but by themselves do not constitute the legal ground for genocide. We know the Turkish authorities INTENDED to wipe out the Armenian race, but the U.S. Government has not claimed that it did, namely that it committed the genocide of the Armenians.

It is important that ANCA clarifies its understanding of the U.S. Government’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide. As far as I am concerned U.S. Government’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide entails for the U.S. Congress to resolve that the 1915 happening, the Medz Yeghern, constituted genocide. As far as I know there has not been any such a congressional resolution. 

Consequently, it remains for the U.S. Government to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

What Collective Defense? What Security?

This piece is my translation of the article Raffi Doudaklian posted on his Facebook page on November 20, 2018, titled "What Collective Defense? What Security?" - (Ի՞նչ Միացեալ Պաշտպանութիւն, ի՞նչ Անվտանգութիւն) Բնագիրըկ կցուած է։

" It was May 29, 2014, when the President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan departed to Astana, the capital city of Kazakhstan to take part in summit of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). After signing the conditions for membership, Armenia was to become a full-fledged member of EEU as of January 1, 2015. The presidents of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were naturally attending the summit as well. The proceedings of the summit were being aired in all the membership countries. 

The president of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, the host of the summit solemnly took the podium. Much like the characteristic sullen and unpleasant faced former Soviet leaders spoke about the EEU for which Armenia had applied for membership and was present to sign accepting the conditions for Armenia’s membership. Nazarbayev suddenly started talking about the conditions for accepting Armenia’s membership, addressing president Serzh Sargsyan. We, said Nazarbayev, have received a letter from the president of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliev. He opposes Armenia joining the EEU with Karabagh. We, continued Nazarbayev saying, cannot accept the presence of Karabagh in the economic union. The precondition for Armenia joining the EEU was clear. Armenia could only join the economic union without Karabagh.

The president of Armenia did not utter a word, in spite of the disgraceful state he was subjected to, especially when Nazarbayev was conveying to him the precondition laid down by Alieve, the president of Azerbaijan (note: Azerbaijan is not a member of EEU). With his own admission, Nazarbayev was stating that he had received a letter from Baku and the message was clear.

President Serzh Sargsyan's displeasure was obvious. But what could he do? By his own admission he had decided Armenia joining EEU the evening before. In a single night he had Armenia join the economic union of tyrannical countries with failed economies.

 What else could he do when he was the one who had presented himself at their door applying for membership, when Armenia as a whole did not back him up? The people did not support him, even it understood and tacitly accepted the president’s sudden decision to join EEU. Thus Serzh Sargsyan let Nazarbayev’s insult go without a response. He uttered not a single word and returned to Armenia subdued where no one was expecting him to justify his stand for everyone seemed to have concluded that Armenia is a week and a poor country and will always remain at the whims of the tyrannical rulers of EEU. Were they not the very same countries that were arming Azerbaijan?

Now let us come to the present days and to the events that took place a few days earlier. This time it was at the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) summit. The same countries have come together. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have also joined them. The whole world knows that the leaders of these countries are as close to democracy as the moon is to our planet. The main topic of the agenda is the election of the new secretary-general. The former secretary-general Yuri Khachadurov has resigned because he faces grave legal issues in Armenia. The president of Belarus insists that the position of the secretary-general belongs to him, in spite of the fact that Khachadurov’s term extended to 2020. But Nikol Pashinyan opposes him and insists that the position of the secretary-general belongs to Armenia for the next two years. The by-laws are not clear about such succession. Russia remains silent. It might very well be that Russia wants Armenia cornered much like Serzh Sargsyan was four years earlier. The closed-door deliberations take place. According to some sources the deliberations take place in a very tense atmosphere. The sole ruler, the perpetual president of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko wants, at all cost, to snatch the decision to appoint the next secretary-general from Armenia. Pashinyan opposes him and counter offers. A decision is not arrived. Armenia refuses to give in and a consensus is not reached.

CST0 is an intergovernmental military security alliance. Each one of them is responsible for safeguarding the security of its member. If any one of the member countries is attacked, all are expected to join to safeguard the country’s security. Azerbaijan is not a member of CSTO. But lo and behold it is a favorite among some of the organization’s member countries. The day after the closed-door meeting, Belarus’s perpetual president invited the Ambassador of Azerbaijan in Minsk and conveyed to him the deliberations of the closed-door meeting. At least that is what the television and other news outlets of Belarus report. 

Consequently, in plain daylight, the closed-door deliberations of the CSTO’s member countries are conveyed to a country that is an enemy of a member country. Pashinyan, in no uncertain term, condemned the conveying of the behind-door deliberations of the member countries to the ambassador of Azerbaijan and tells the members that no one henceforth has the right to treat Armenia in such a manner. The spokesperson of Belarus responded in a diplomatically uncalled manner. It is clear. Lukasheno’s ally is not the organization member Armenia. It is Azerbaijan. So is Khazakhstan’s. 

This is how the “allies” of Armenia, Belarus and Khazakhstan, are. Four years ago it was Khazakhstan that dictated Armenia the conditions for its membership preconditioning it with the exclusion of Karabagh. Nowadays the president of an allied country conveys the behind the door deliberations of the member countries to Azerbaijan that is at war with a member country, Armenia. 

These are no new revelations here. It was well known that EEU and CSTO are nothing else but agents on the world scene that serve Russia’s historical imperial mindedness. The countries that make up these two organizations do not have a common political mission. They do not have the same security goals. They do not even have a common economic vision. The saddest reality is that Armenia has been forced to become members to these organizations, made up of tyrannical rulers, at the expense of its own interests accepting the sale to Azerbaijan weapons of mass destruction and public humiliation. 

Unfortunately the previous rulers of Armenia saw that the interest of Armenia is better served by serving the interests of their “allied” countries. They considered it to be a sound diplomacy arguing to us that the interests of Armenia are nowhere else other than subjugating ourselves to the conditions imposed upon us.

Before seeing the salvation of Armenia in EEU and CSTO alliances, it behooves us to ask how have the member countries accepted and viewed Armenia? Have they forcefully condemned Azerbaijan for continually attacking Armenian border village? Have they ceased arming Azerbaijan with weapons of mass destruction? Have they respected the right of people of Arstakh for self-determination? Have they taken into consideration Armenia’s unique geography and its special trade needs with neighboring countries?  What we have witnessed in the behaviors of Lukashenka and Nazar prove the contrary.

Consequently, of what grand diplomacy are we talking about? Is demanding a country’s right to exist a grand diplomacy? It is time that these countries treat Armenia as an ally of equal footing. From this standpoint Pashinyan is right when he squarely confronts president of Belarus serenading Azerbaijan and demands explanation. He should demand explanation because that is what, first and foremost, the interests of Armenia dictate. Otherwise Armenia’s membership to EEU and CSTO makes no sense.

Raffi Doudaklian "

                                            **********

Ի՞ՆՉ ՄԻԱՑԵԱԼ ՊԱՇՏՊԱՆՈՒԹԻՒՆ, Ի՞ՆՉ ԱՆՎՏԱՆԳՈՒԹԻՒՆ

Մայիս 29, 2014-ին էր. Հայաստանի նախագահ Սերժ Սարգսեանը Ղազախստանի մայրաքաղաք Աստանա մեկնած էր, մասնակցելու՝ մաքսային միութեան անդամ երկիրներու գագաթաժողովին: Հայաստանը, միութեան պայմանագիրը ստորագրելէ ետք, 1 Յունուար, 2015-էն սկսեալ պիտի դառնար մաքսային միութեան անդամ: Գագաթաժողովին ներկայ էին բնականաբար Ռուսաստանի, Բելառուսի, Ղազախստանի եւ Կիրքիզիստանի նախագահները: Ժողովը կը սփռուէր կենդանի՝ միութեան անդամ բոլոր երկիրներուն մէջ:

Ղազախստանի նախագահ Նուրսուլթան Նազարբաեւը, գագաթաժողովի հիւրընկալը, հանդիսաւոր կերպով բեմ բարձրացաւ: Նախկին սովետի երկիրներու ղեկավարներուն յատուկ խոժոռ եւ անհաղորդ դէմքով խօսեցաւ Մաքսային Միութեան մասին, միութիւն մը, որուն անդամակցելու յայտ ներկայացուցած էր Հայաստանը եւ պիտի ստորագրէր համապատասխան պայմանագիրը: Նազարբաեւը յանկարծ սկսաւ արտայայտուիլ Հայաստանի միութեան միանալու պայմաններուն մասին, խօսքը ուղղելով նախագահ Սերժ Սարգսեանի: Մենք, ըսաւ Նազարբաեւ, նամակ ստացած ենք Ադրբեջանի նախագահ Իլհամ Ալիեւէն: Ան դէմ է, որ Հայաստանը Եւրասիական տնտեսական միութեան միանայ Ղարաբաղի հետ միասին: Մենք չենք կրնար ընդունիլ Ղարաբաղի ներկայութիւնը միութենէն ներս: Նախապայմանը յստակ է, Հայաստանը միութեան կրնայ միանալ միայն առանց Ղարաբաղի:

Հայաստանի նախագահը ձայն ու ծպտուն չհանեց, հակառակ ստեղծուած խայտառակ վիճակին, մանաւանդ երբ Նազարբաեւը կը փոխանցէր Ադրբեջանի՛ նախագահին նախապայմանը, ի՛ր իսկ խոստովանութեամբ: Նամակ ստացած էր Բաքուէն եւ պատգամը յստակ էր...

Բացայայտ էր, սակայն, Սերժ Սարգսեանի վրդովմունքը, բայց ի՞նչ կրնար ընել ղեկավար մը, որ իր իսկ խոստովանութեամբ, մէկ գիշերուան մէջ որոշած էր Հայաստանը միացնել սովորական բռնատէրեր եւ անյաջող տնտեսութիւններ ունեցող երկիրներու մաքսային միութեան: Ի՞նչ կրնար, երբ այնտեղ էր ինք, խումբ մը բռնատէրերու ակումբին դրան առջեւ կանգնած, անդամակցութեան խնդրագիրը ձեռքը տրուած: Այնտեղ էր ներկայացնելու երկիր մը ու ժողովուրդ մը ամբողջ, բայց ժողովուրդը իր հետ չէր, իր կողքին չէր, իրեն նեցուկ չէր, նոյնիսկ եթէ հասկացողութեամբ կ'ընդունէր մաքսային միութեան միանալու անակնկալ որոշումը: Եւ այսպէս, Սերժ Սարգսեանը կուլ տուաւ Նազարբաեւի անարգանքը: Ոչ մէկ բառ արտասանեց եւ լուռ ու մունջ վերադարձաւ Հայաստան, ուր արդէն ոչ ոք կը սպասէր իր արդարացումներուն, քանի որ արդէն բոլորն ալ սկսած էին համոզուիլ, որ խեղճ ու թոյլ, անտէր ու անտիրական է Հայաստանը եւ միշտ ալ կախեալ պիտի մնայ Եւրասիական մաքսային միութեան բռնատէրերու ողորմութենէն: Չէ՞ որ նոյն այդ երկիրներն էին նաեւ Ադրբեջանը զինողները...

Հիմա վերադառնանք մեր օրերուն, մի քանի օր առաջ տեղի ունեցած դէպքերուն: Այս անգամ Հաւաքական Անվտանգութեան Պայմանագրի Կազմակերպութեան (ՀԱՊԿ) գաղգաթնաժողովն է, Հաւաքուած են նոյն երկիրները, Տաճիկիստանն ու Ուզբեկիստանը նաեւ: Բոլոր երկիրները՝ բացի Հայաստանէն, մենատիրական-դիկտատորական երկիրներ են: Ամբողջ աշխարհը գիտէ, որ այս ղեկավարները ժողովրդավարութեան մօտ են այնքան, որքան լուսինը՝ մեր մոլորակին: Օրակարգի գլխաւոր թեմաներէն մէկը՝ ՀԱՊԿ-ի գլխաւոր քարտուղարի ընտրութիւնն է: Նախկին գլխաւոր քարտուղարը՝ Խաչատուրովը, պաշտօնէն հրաժարած էր, որովհետեւ դատական շատ լուրջ խնդիրներ ունի Հայաստանի մէջ: Իսկ հիմա՝ Բելառուսի նախագահը կը պնդէ, որ նոր Ընդհանուր Քարտուղար ունենալու իրաւունքը իրն է, հակառակ անոր, որ Խաչատուրով պիտի պաշտօնավարէր մինչեւ 2020: Բայց Նիկոլ Փաշինեան կը հակառակի Բելառուսին եւ կը շեշտէ, որ յառաջիկայ երկու տարիներուն ընդհանուր քարտուղարութիւնը Հայաստանին պիտի մնայ: Իսկ օրէնսդրութիւնը յստակ չէ, Ռուսաստանը լուռ է, հաւանաբար կ'ուզէ Հայաստանը անկիւն հրուած տեսնել, ինչպէս որ ըրաւ Սերժ Սարգսեանին՝ 4 տարի առաջ: Կը սկսի դռնփակ նիստը, որ ըստ մամուլին սպրդած որոշ տեղեկութիւններու, կ'ընթանայ բաւական լարուած մթնոլորտի մէջ: Բելառուսի մենատէրը, յաւերժ նախագահ Ալեքսանդր Լուկաշէնկոն ամէն գնով կ'ուզէ Հայաստանէն խլել ընդհանուր քարտուղար նշանակելու իրաւունքը: Փաշինեան կ'ընդիմանայ ու կը հակադարձէ: Որոշում չի կայացուիր, քանի որ Հայաստան կը մերժէ տեղի տալ եւ համախոհութիւն տեղի չունենար:

ՀԱՊԿ-ը հաւաքական պաշտպանութեան դաշինք է: Բոլորը պատասխանատու են իրենց անդամներու պաշտպանութեան: Եթէ մէկ երկիր ենթարկուի յարձակման, բոլորը պարտաւոր են միանալու այդ երկրի պաշտպանութեան: ՀԱՊԿ-ի անդամ չէ Ադրբեջանը: Բայց եկուր տես, որ ՀԱՊԿ-ի որոշ անդամներու սիրելին է: Բելառուսի յաւերժ նախագահը գագաթժողովի յաջորդ օրն իսկ հանդիպման կը հրաւիրէ Մինսկի մէջ Ադրբեջանի դեսպանը եւ տեղեկութիւններ կը փոխանցէ ՀԱՊԿ-ի դռնփակ նիստին մասին: Գոնէ այդպէս կը հաղորդեն Բելառուսի հեռուստացոյցն ու միւս լրատուամիջոցները:

Ուրեմն, օր ցերեկով, դաշնակից երկիրներու փակ նիստի տեղեկութիւնները կը փոխանցուի ՀԱՊԿ-ի անդամ երկրի մը թշնամին հանդիսացող պետութեան ներկայացուցիչին: Փաշինեան խստօրէն կը դատապարտէ, ու կը յիշեցնէ, որ այլեւս ոչ ոք իրաւունք ունի Հայաստանին հետ այդպէս վարուելու, իսկ Բելառուսի բանբերը կը պատասխանէ դիւանագիտական շատ անպատշաճ լեզուով: Պարզ է՝ Լուկաշէնկոյի դաշնակիցը ՀԱՊԿ-ի իր գործընկեր Հայաստանը չէ, Ադրբեջանն է: Նոյնպէս եւ Ղազախստանինը:

Այսպէս են Հայաստանի «դաշնակիցները», Բելառուսն ու Ղազախստանը: 4 տարի առաջ Ղազախստանն էր, որ մաքսային միութեան Հայաստանի անդամակցութիւնը կը պայմանաւորէր Արցախի դուրս-մղումով, իսկ այսօր՝ Հայաստանի հետ հաւաքական պաշտպանութեան դաշինք կնքած երկրի նախագահը՝ Հայաստանի հետ պատերազմի մէջ գտնուող երկրին տեղեկութիւններ կը փոխանցէ ՀԱՊԿ-ի փակ նիստին մասին:

Նորութիւն չէ, վաղուց արդէն յայտնի էր, որ թէ՛ մաքսային միութիւնը կամ Եւրասիական Տնտեսական Միութիւնը (ԵԱՏՄ) եւ թէ՛ ՀԱՊԿ-ը այլ բան չեն, քան միջազգային բեմին վրայ նախկին կայսերական դիրքերուն վերատիրանալու ռուսական նկրտումներուն ծառայող գործիքներ: Այնտեղ հաւաքուած երկիրները չունին քաղաքական միացեալ օրակարգ, չունին պաշտպանական միեւնոյն նպատակներ, չունին նոյնիսկ տնտեսական միասնական քաղաքականութիւն ու զարգացման տեսլական: Իսկ ամէնէն ցաւալին այն է, որ Հայաստանը մինչեւ վերջերս մենատիրական երկիրներու այս ակումբներուն մէջ շարունակաբար գտնուած էր սեփական շահերը զիջելու պարտադրանքին տակ՝ ընդունելով Ադրբեջանի համատարած քանդումի զէնքերու վաճառքը, դաշնակիցներու ճնշումները եւ հանրային արհամարական վերաբերմունքը: Դժբախտաբար, մեր երկրի նախկին իշխանաւորները, Հայաստանի շահերու պաշտպանութիւնը տեսած էին գլխաւորաբար «դաշնակից» երկիրներուն շահերուն սպասարկելու մէջ եւ սա համարած էին ու կը համարեն հասուն դիւանագիտութիւն, մեր բոլորին համոզելով, որ Հայաստանի շահերը այլ տեղ չեն գտնուիր, պէտք է ենթարկուիլ մեզի պարտադրուած պայմաններուն:

Բայց նախքան ՀԱՊԿ-ի եւ ԵԱՏՄԻ-ի մէջ Հայաստանի փրկութիւնն ու քաղաքական-տնտեսական շահը տեսնելը, արժէ նախ տեսնել, թէ այդ կազմակերպութիւններուն անդամները ինչպէ՞ս ընդունած են եւ կ'ընդունին Հայաստանը: Խստօրէն դատապարտա՞ծ են անոնք Հայաստանի սահմանային գիւղերուն վրայ ադրբեջանական յարձակումները, դադրեցուցա՞ծ են Ադրբեջանին մասսայական քանդումի զէնքերու մատակարարումը, յարգա՞ծ են Արցախի ժողովուրդին ինքնորոշման իրաւունքը, նկատի առա՞ծ են Հայաստանի աշխարհագրական իւրայատուկ դիրքը եւ տնտեսական իւրայատուկ յարաբերութիւններու անհրաժեշտութիւնը... Այն, ինչ որ տեսած ենք Նազարբաեւի եւ Լուկաշէնկոյի վերաբերմունքին մէջ, պարզապէս հակառակը կը փաստեն:

Ուրեմն ի՞նչ դիւանագիտութեան մասին է խօսքը: Երկրի մը գոյութեան իրաւունքը ընդունիլ տալը դիւանագիտական նուաճու՞մ է: Ժամանակն է, արդէն, որ այս երկիրները Հայաստանին վերաբերին հաւասարէ հաւասար, իբրեւ իսկական դաշնակիցներ: Եւ այս իմաստով շատ ճիշդ կ'ընէ Նիկոլ Փաշինեանը, երբ յստակօրէն կը հակադրուի Բելառուսի նախագահին եւ Ադրբեջանի հետ իր սիրաբանութեան համար հաշիւ կը պահանջէ: Ու պէ՛տք է պահանջէ, քանի որ այդպէս կը պահանջեն նախ եւ առաջ Հայաստանի՛ շահերը: Այլապէս, ոչ մէկ իմաստ ունի ՀԱՊԿ-ին կամ ԵԱՏՄ-ին Հայաստանի անդամակցութիւնը:

Րաֆֆի Տուտագլեան

Why the Armenian National Assembly Number Varies ?

Vahe H. Apelian

 

Does the PM of Armenia govern the country with an unchecked authority? 

By law the Armenian National Assembly will have a minimum of 101 seats and an additional 4 seats allocated to the minorities, totaling 105 seats. It also stipulated by law that 1/3 of the National Assembly should comprise the opposition. Hence of that minimum 105 seats, 35 seats should be allocated to the opposition and 70 to the leading party or coalition. 

 But it has been reported that the upcoming National Assembly will number 132.  

How did this number of seats come about, the the number of delegates in the NA under PM Sargsyan short premiership was 105?

Thanks to my friend Jeffry T. Urban, I have come to understand the following plausible explanation. Please follow the rest of the text.

To have representatives in the National Assembly, a party should secure at least 5% of the votes cast and a coalition should secure at least 7% of the votes cast. Remember, according to the parliamentarian system of governance Armenia adopted, the voters vote for a party, not for a specific candidate. Obviously the prominent and the more visible from each party and coalitions run the campaign. Nikol Pashinyan ran the campaign on behalf of the My Step coalition. 

The election results indicated that only 3 of the eleven total numbers of parties and coalitions who participated in the election met the criteria and they will constitute the upcoming National Assembly. They were as follows and secured the following percentages of the votes cast:

My Step coalition secured 70.43% of the votes.

Prosperous Armenia party secured 8.27% of the votes

Bright Armenia party secured 6.37% of the votes.

Now

If we were to gauge the percentage secured by each of the three entities (70.43% + 8.27% + 6.37% = 85.07%), we come with the following figures:

My Step coalition represents (70.43/85.07)*100 = 82.79% of the upcoming National Assembly.

Prosperous Armenia party represents (8.27/85.07)*100 = 9.72% of the upcoming National Assembly

Bright Armenia party represents (6.37/85.07)*100 = 7.48 % of upcoming the National Assembly

Since the National Assembly should have a minimum of 101 seats, then each entity secured the following number of the seats in the National Assembly

My Step coalition secured at least (101*82.79%) = 84 seats

Prosperous Armenia party secured at least = 10 seat

Bright Armenia party secured at least = 8 seats

Totaling 102 seats

It appears that My Step will also acquire the 4 seats reserved for the minorities; hence My Step coalition will have 88 seats. 

But by law, the 88 seats should represent 2/3 of the National Assembly, the 1/3 being reserved for the opposition. Hence the National Assembly should total 132 seats. That is to say 88 of the administration and 44 seats for the opposition.

The remaining seats (44 seats – 10 seats (Prosperous Armenia) – 8 seats (Bright Armenia) = 26 seats will be allocated to the Prosperous Armenia and Bright Armenia parties in the same ratio they occupy now, that is to say 10:8 ratio. Consequently, 14 seats most likely will be allocated to Prosperous Armenia and 12 seats will most likely be allocated to Bright Armenia, making the final likely make up the National Assembly as follows:

My Step coalition will have 88 seats.

Prosperous Armenia will have 24 seats.

 Bright Armenia will have 20 seats.

Totaling 132 seats in all in National Assembly.

Quoting Wikipedia: “The National Assembly is a unicameral body. The National Assembly consists of at least 101 seats, but with additional seats allocated, it may grow and reach to about 200 seats in extremely rare cases.” The system caters to the constitutional mandate of 1/3 opposition and naturally honors the percentage of votes cast in favor of a party or coalition. To complicate matters 1/3 of the delegates should be women.

Therefore, it remains to be seen how many will be in the post June 20, 2021 National Assembly and how many of them will be women. No easy matters when it comes to Armenia!

updated on 7/7/2021

 

 

 

 

 

Moneyed Armenians: Amiras and Effendis (2/2)

Part 2/2: Chalabis, Khojas, Amiras and Effendis

by Dr. Antranig Chalabian

Translated and abridged by Vahe H. Apelian

An Armenian Amira in the Ottoman Empire

3. Amiras

Before I present the Armenian Amiras and then the Effendis it's important that I digress from the subject matter and present a glimpse of Bolis, the Armenian Constantinople of the era. At the beginning of the 1800s, Bolis had 850,000 inhabitants of whom 374,000 were Muslims; 152,000 Creeks; 150,000 Armenians and 44,000 Jews. The remaining 80,000 were Europeans, Copts, Assyrians, and others.

In 1850's Bolis had become the financial, the political and the cultural center of the Western Armenians. The community was continuing to swell in numbers at the expense of the Armenian populated cities in Eastern Turkey. Everyone wanted to settle in Bolis. It should be noted, however, that a good segment of the Armenians who came to Bolis were migrant workers who would work, at times for years, to save money and return to their villages and homes.

The number of Armenians in Bolis between 1860-1880, had peaked to an all-time high estimated to be around 275,000. Bolis was unsurpassed among the Armenians worldwide, including Armenia. In 1859 there were 42 Armenian schools in Bolis with a total enrollment of 5531 students and 197 teachers. In 1871 the numbers were swelled to 48 schools with an enrollment of around 6000 students. The cultural and scholastic revival among the Armenians in Bolis may be better appreciated in stating that the famed American University of Beirut was established later, in 1886, and until 1945 had only 500 students; while in Yerevan the Eastern Armenians numbered 13,000 and were a minority overwhelmed by the presence of 17,000 Tatars. Most of the Eastern Armenians in the region lived in Tiflis and Baku.

The unprecedented cultural revival among the Armenians in Turkey was cut short from 1876 and onwards for reasons we all know too well.

During this time trade in Constantinople was in the hands of Greeks and Armenians. For many years the pulse of Ottoman royalty was in Armenian hands and its distinguished denizens were titled "Amira". The word is Arabic in origin and was bestowed upon the wealthy and influential Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire. A disproportionate number of the Amiras, whose number ranged between 80 to 100 individuals, came from modest provincial backgrounds notably good many of them hailed from the small town of Agn (today's Kemaliye) in Anatolia's Erzincan province. They were a remarkable group of enterprising and ambitious Armenians who rose to the forefront of the Ottoman Empire in the 18th, and 19th centuries. At times, the succeeding generations of the same Amira family served the reigning Sultans faithfully and accomplished great things. They also became enormously influential in running the affairs of the Armenian community and became the link between the Sultan's palace and the Armenian Patriarch who had legal jurisdiction over the entire Armenian subjects of the Sultan.

Some of the Amiras were also put in charge of tax collection in the empire. Up to 1856, there was no banking system in the Empire. The Amiras filled in the void and made financial transactions with traders, trading houses, government offices and even with the reigning Sultans at exuberant rates. In 1795, the head of the Dadian family, Arakel Dad Amira, was appointed to oversee the armament factories of the Empire. From that date on for the next 75 years, the descendants inherited the position and ran the Ottoman munitions and artillery along with the production of paper and military uniforms. The members of the family thus exercised enormous influence given the size of the Empire and its armed forces.

In the first half of the 19th century, one of the Armenian titans in Bolis was Harutyun Amira Bezdjian who was nicknamed "Kazaz Artin". He became a confidant of Sultan Mahmud II and was trusted with handling the personal wealth of the Sultan. His influence on running the affairs of the Empire was so strong that historians would call the era as the "Bezdjian Era".

Through Harutyun Amira Bezdjian's financial contributions the following institutions were built in Bolis: the new building of the Bolis Patriarchate in 1823; Sourp Prgitch (Saint Savior) Armenian National Hospital in 1832; The women's school of Peria in 1826; the central school of Kumkapi in 1828; Saint Arakelots (Holy Disciples) Armenian school in 1830; Boghossian Boys' School in 1832; Varvarian Women's School in 1832; Bezdjian School in Kumkapi in 1832; Ayoubian Co-Ed School in 1832; a total seven schools and three major institutions. In 1836 he established the first trade – tailoring- school for the Armenian women of Bolis. Along with these monumental charitable contributions, he also undertook the expenses for the publication of many literary works, especially that of Krikor Pashdimaljian, the noted Armenian pedagogue, linguist, and philosopher. Harutyun Amira Bezdjian was buried in the Virgin Mary Patriarch Cathedral by the special permission of Mahmud II.

Limited space does not allow us to elaborate more on the amazing accomplishments of other Amiras such as the Balians, who became court architects and built such masterpieces as the Dolmabahçe Palace, the Yildiz Mosque, and the Imperial College of Medicine, which today houses the famed Galatasaray Lisesi. The Arpiarian Amira family clan, who also hailed from Agn, oversaw the silver mining in the Ottoman Empire.

For some two hundred years the Amiras served the Sultans faithfully and were accorded privileges no others possessed in the Empire.

4. Effendis

Let me end this article with a few words about the Armenian Effendis who succeeded the Amrias of Bolis. According to Wikipedia "Effendi is a title of nobility meaning a lord or master. It is a title of respect or courtesy, equivalent to the English Sir, which was used in the Ottoman Empire (Turkey)."

In 1856 Sultan Adul Majid established banking in the Empire that came to be known as the Ottoman Bank. With this historic turn of events, the Sultan, the courtiers, the governors of the provinces and others started borrowing their monies from the Ottoman Bank instead of from the Amiras. With the establishment of the Ottoman Bank, the fortunes of the Amiras started dwindling and their influence eroding in the capital city. Along with the banking system came the various ministries that regulated finance, military, internal and external affairs. This gave rise to a cadre of government officials and to traders who were called Effendis. Some would also acquire considerable wealth and secure influential positions for themselves.

The Armenian traders, following the footsteps of the Khojas, would import scarves, spices, jewelry from India; clothing from Iran and muslin from Damascus. Other Armenian traders would import goods from England, France, Germany, Italy, and Venice. By 1861 the number of the Armenian traders in Manchester, England had reached 30. Within the next two years, the number of Armenian traders will increase further with the arrival of new Armenian traders from Istanbul, Izmir, Kayseri.

By the middle of the 19th century, there were 434 Armenian Effendis in Istanbul who were traders or high placed government officials. Among such officials is Gabriel Effendi Noradoungian. He was born in 1852. After attending local Armenian and French schools he went to France where from 1870-1875 he specialized in international law. Returning to Istanbul in 1875 he entered the Foreign Ministry. He was appointed as the Foreign Minister of the Ottoman Empire in 1912. His tenure ended with the outbreak of the Balkan War in 1913.

After Noubar Pasha, Gabriel Noradoungian headed the Armenian National Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference. He spent the last few years of his life in Paris where he passed away in 1926.

Dr. Nazareth Daghavarian was a contemporary to Noradoungian and another Armenian social activist. He received his medical education from the famed Sorbonne University and Pasteur Institute. After which he returned to Istanbul and started working in the French St. Savoir hospital. The Turkish authorities arrested him on the allegations that he was involved in anti-state activities.  He was released by the mediation of the French Embassy. After sending his wife and children to Bulgaria, he managed to elude the authorities by disguising himself as a French Embassy employee and boarded a Greek ship to Marseille. From there he moved to Cairo with his family where he resumed his medical practice. In 1906 he and Boghos Noubar Pasha, along with several others, established the Armenian General Benevolent Union with Boghos Noubar Pasha acting the president and him as the secretary of the newly found organization.

Two years later, after the revolution of the Young Turks, trusting the new Turkish order, he returned to Istanbul with his family.  The rest is another tragic chapter in Armenian history...

In summing up this section of the article, I can without any hesitation conclude that the Bolis of the 19thcentury, with its unprecedented achievements in finance, education, literature popularizing the Western Armenian language, presents one of the most shining periods of our three millennia-old histories.