Turkish Forum

Author: Harut Sassounian

  • Senate Should not Confirm Bryza As U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan

    Senate Should not Confirm Bryza As U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan

    By Harut Sassounian
    Publisher, The California Courier

    At the request of Sen. Barbara Boxer, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had postponed from early August to mid-September its vote on Matt Bryza, nominee for U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan. Senators Boxer, Harry Reid, and Robert Menendez were satisfied neither with Bryza’s answers during the confirmation hearing nor subsequently with his written responses.

    Harut Sassounian

    While Congress was in recess for the past 40 days, a number of newspapers and websites questioned the appropriateness of Bryza’s nomination to such an important post. They raised several conflict of interest issues regarding Bryza and his Turkish-born wife, Zeyno Baran, who until recently was director of the Center for Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank.

    This article shall focus on a single issue — the allegation that Bryza and Baran had received gifts during their August 23, 2007 wedding in Istanbul. If true, this would not only abort Bryza’s chances of becoming ambassador, but more importantly, it would get him into serious legal trouble. Under U.S. laws, government officials and their spouses are prohibited from receiving gifts, even wedding presents, unless these are given by close acquaintances. Such gifts have to be reported to the U.S. government, and the Internal Revenue Service. Bryza’s case is more complicated. If he got gifts that he did not report, while telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under oath that he did not receive such gifts, he could be charged with non-reporting of a gift, tax evasion, and perjury.

    Bryza’s celebrity wedding triggered a major controversy when Azeri jouranlist Adil Khalil reported in the opposition newspaper Azadlig that Haydar Babayev, Azerbaijan’s Minister of Economic Development, had paid most of the couple’s wedding expenses. Babayev refuted the accusation and filed a lawsuit for libel, causing Khalil to be arrested, severely beaten, stabbed, and forced to flee to France. The newspaper’s editor, Ganimat Zahid, was also arrested on unsubstantiated charges. Last month, Azadlig suspended publication, after it was evicted from its offices by the authorities. Having exhausted all domestic court appeals, the newspaper’s editor filed a claim against Azerbaijan with the European Court of Human Rights.

    According to Azeri and Turkish media reports, around 400 prominent guests from several countries attended Bryza’s 2007 lavish wedding, held under tight security. Among the attendees from Turkey were the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, the U.S. Consul General in Istanbul, the Armenian Patriarch of Turkey, members of parliament, and major media figures. Bryza also invited Armenian officials to his wedding, including Pres. Robert Kocharian and Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian, neither of whom attended. At the time, Bryza was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and U.S. co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, the mediators of the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict.

    Several high-ranking Azeri officials also attended Bryza’s wedding in Istanbul: Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov who served as a wedding witness, Minister of Economic Development Haydar Babayev, Azeri National Petroleum Company President Rovnaq Abdullaev, Deputy Speaker of Parliament Valeh Aleskerov, and Azerbaijan’s Consul General in Los Angeles Elin Suleymanov. Pres. Ilham Aliyev’s letter of congratulation was read at the start of the wedding. According to documents obtained by this writer from the European Court of Human Rights, the Azeri editor claimed that Pres. Aliyev sent “a special gift to the bride.”

    Even though Bryza and Baran requested that in lieu of gifts guests make a contribution to a Turkish charity, it is common practice in the Middle East to hand gifts — particularly jewelry — to a newlywed couple. For example, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, during a meeting with Hillary Clinton in Kabul in July, told her that he would be sending a gift to the Secretary of State, on the occasion of her daughter’s wedding.

    According to the Media Rights Institute, Minister Babayev’s lawyers confirmed during a court hearing in Baku that he attended the wedding and “even had a gift” for Bryza. Yet, at his Senate confirmation hearing, Bryza refuted the allegation that an Azeri official had financed his wedding, adding that its entire cost was paid by the couple’s families.

    The allegation that Bryza received wedding gifts should be thoroughly investigated before the Senate votes on his nomination. Even though Senators and members of the Armenian, Greek, and Cypriot communities oppose Bryza for multiple reasons, the wedding expenses and gifts are the only issues that could have serious legal ramifications. Therefore, the Senate should wait for the outcome of the lawsuit filed by the Azeri editor in the European Court of Human Rights.

    Bryza should fully cooperate with such an investigation in order to clear the clouds of suspicion hanging over his head, before he is rushed to Baku. He should provide the complete list of his wedding guests and disclose all gifts received by the newlyweds and their families.

    U.S. investigators should contact everyone who attended Bryza’s wedding to verify what gifts they gave to the couple on that occasion. He should also be asked to produce a record of his wedding expenses and how they were paid.

    A few days ago, Sen. Boxer wrote a letter to this writer expressing her serious concern about Bryza’s inadequate responses to her questions both during and after the confirmation hearing. She pledged to continue her efforts “to determine if he is the appropriate representative for the United States in this highly volatile region of the world.”

    Sen. Boxer and her colleagues should either reject Bryza’s nomination outright or place a hold on it until all allegations against him are investigated and proven to be true

  • Top Three Armenian Church Leaders Boycott Turkish Show in Akhtamar

    Top Three Armenian Church Leaders Boycott Turkish Show in Akhtamar

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

    The Turkish scheme of luring Armenian Church leaders to participate in a religious show at Holy Cross (Sourp Khach) Church on Akhtamar Island, Lake Van, backfired last week.

    The heads of three Hierarchical Sees of the Armenian Church — in Armenia, Lebanon, and Jerusalem — will neither attend nor send representatives to the celebration of Divine Liturgy at Holy Cross Church on September 19. All three turned down the invitation of Archbishop Aram Ateshyan, Deputy Patriarch of the Armenian Patriarchate of Turkey.

    Catholicos Aram I of Cilicia, headquartered in Antelias, Lebanon, was the first to announce that he would boycott the Sept. 19 ceremonies. In this regard, the Catholicosate announced: “In an attempt to convince the European Union and UNESCO that Turkey safeguards the cultural heritage of its occupied lands, the Turkish government restored the Holy Cross Armenian Church, but instead of keeping it as a church, transformed it into a museum.” It described the ceremonies orchestrated by Turkey as “an attempt to obscure its consistent policy of denying the Armenian Genocide and the rights of its survivors.”

    The Holy See of Etchmiadzin, on the other hand, had initially announced that it would send to Akhtamar two high-ranking clergymen. In an earlier column, this writer had expressed the wish that Karekin II, Catholicos of All Armenians, would reconsider his decision. Last week, after the Turkish government broke its promise to place a cross atop the Holy Cross Church, the Catholicos, as expected, withdrew Etchmiadzin’s participation from the Sept. 19 ceremonies.

    The third Hierarchical See, the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, had initially decided to dispatch to Akhtamar Archbishop Aris Shirvanian, Director of Ecumenical and Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Patriarchate’s Holy Synod. When questioned about his planned attendance, Archbishop Shirvanian told this writer on Sept. 5 that in line with the decision of Holy Etchmiadzin, he would not participate in the church service, because of Turkey’s refusal to install a cross on the dome of the Holy Cross Church.

    All three church leaders now have a unified position on this issue. They are to be commended for their decision not to support a political show sponsored by the Turkish regime, under the guise of a religious ceremony!

    Regrettably, the Armenian Patriarchate of Turkey, the fourth Hierarchical See of the Armenian Church, is still planning to participate in the Sept. 19 show, despite the fact that the Turkish government lied to Deputy Patriarch Aram Ateshyan, and refused to restore the promised cross on the church’s dome. The Governor of Van made the ridiculous claim that the Turkish state did not have the technical means to lift the 400 lb. cross to the top of the church. All those who bought airline tickets and booked hotel rooms, misled by Turkey’s false promises, should promptly cancel their trip, demand a refund and an apology from Turkish authorities for their deceptive bait and switch tactics!

    Even though Archbishop Ateshyan is a hostage of the Turkish regime and therefore does not have the freedom to take independent decisions, he risks losing all credibility with Armenians worldwide and all three Hierarchical Sees, should he go ahead and celebrate Mass in what Turkish officials describe as the “Akdamar Memorial Museum!” He should threaten not to show up at the Holy Cross Church on Sept. 19, unless Ankara installs the promised cross. Turkish officials would have to take his threat seriously, because without him there would be no religious ceremony. His absence would turn Turkey’s expected propaganda coup into a public relations nightmare!

    The last important actor in the Sept. 19 “extravaganza” is the Armenian government. While large segments of the public in Armenia have reacted strongly against Ankara’s once a year church service in the Holy Cross “museum,” little has been heard from Yerevan officials on this subject. Last month, the Armenian Foreign Ministry announced that it has not received an official invitation from Turkey. It is generally assumed that Armenian officials would refuse to participate in such a scandalous show, particularly after Ankara tricked Armenia’s leaders into signing the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, without any intention to ratify them.

    Just as the Turkish government inadvertently protected Armenia’s interests by refusing to ratify the Protocols, this time around, Ankara is causing Armenians to refrain from participating in this charade by breaking its promise to place a cross atop the Holy Cross Church!

  • Congress Should Investigate State Dept. For Holding Back Aid to Artsakh

    Congress Should Investigate State Dept. For Holding Back Aid to Artsakh

    By Harut Sassounian
    Publisher, The California Courier
    sassounian3
    The State Department has acted negligently and possibly in contempt of Congress by withholding assistance that it had expressly allocated to Nagorno Karabagh (Artsakh) during the past 12 years.
    The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) revealed last week that the State Department only spent about half of the amount allocated by Congress to Artsakh. From 1998 to 2010, Congress appropriated to Artsakh $61 million, not including an additional amount estimated at $10 million, allocated during 2000-2002. U.S. government documents obtained by ANCA reveal that the State Dept. spent only $36 million on humanitarian aid to Artsakh in those dozen years.
    Successive Democratic and Republican administrations have attempted to block congressional efforts to provide aid to Artsakh, in order to appease Azerbaijan. Failing to prevent approval of such allocations, the State Dept. devised a clever ploy to obstruct the will of Congress — it spent only a portion of the funds intended for Artsakh. Azerbaijan had been insisting that any U.S. assistance to Artsakh be channeled through Baku. Despite objections from the administration and Azerbaijan, Congress has continued to allocate aid to Artsakh, and made it less restrictive; its 2010 allocation of $8 million is earmarked for “programs and activities in Nagorno Karabagh,” not exclusively for humanitarian projects.
    Throughout these dozen years, neither Armenia nor Artsakh, and apparently no one from the Armenian American community has complained to Congress about the State Dept.’s refusal to spend fully the allocated funds. Amazingly, after this shortfall was revealed by ANCA, a senior Artsakh official downplayed the failure to deliver the allocated aid. According to Radio Free Europe, Vahram Atanesian, Chairman of the Artsakh parliament’s foreign relations committee, excused the withholding of the aid by attributing it to Artsakh’s robust economic growth!
    While Armenians remained surprisingly quiet, Congress, starting in 2001, repeatedly urged the administration “to release, without further delay, the remainder of the $20 million in humanitarian assistance initially provided in the fiscal year 1998 Act.” Furthermore, the House of Representatives asked the Secretary of State to report back the amount of assistance provided by the United States to Artsakh within 15 days of the enactment of the aid bill. In 2004 and 2005, the Senate demanded that USAID present its plans for the disbursement of the allocated funds within 60 days after the enactment of the aid bill. Unfortunately, the Obama administration bears the lion’s share of the blame. During its first two years in office, it has held back $12 million or one-third of the funds not spent on Artsakh since 1998.
    Sen. Barbara Boxer had the opportunity to pursue this issue with Matthew Bryza, nominee for U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan, during his confirmation hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee on July 22. She wanted to know why only $4 million was spent out of the $16 million allocated for Artsakh in the past two years. In response to Bryza’s evasive answer, Sen. Boxer asked him to provide in writing “a detailed accounting on the disbursement of all U.S. assistance to Nagorno Karabagh for the past five years.” She pointedly inquired: “Why weren’t the full amounts allocated by Congress for Nagorno Karabagh in 2009 and 2010 spent?” Bryza, once again, did not provide an adequate response to the Senator’s questions.
    Consequently, Sen. Boxer asked the Foreign Relations Committee to postpone voting on Bryza’s confirmation, until the Senate returns from recess around mid-September. This would hopefully give Bryza the opportunity to prepare an honest accounting of why the aid from Washington did not fully reach Artsakh. The delay in his confirmation would also allow the Senate to check more thoroughly the issues raised regarding his background.
    Clearly, Bryza and his predecessors at the State Department had resorted to various tricks to frustrate the intent of Congress. They attempted to appease Azerbaijan by limiting and delaying the aid desperately needed in Artsakh.
    Armenian-Americans should now ask Congress to investigate the State Department’s failure to comply with the legislature’s mandate, by under-spending $35 million of the allocation to Artsakh, during the past 12 years.
    Should the investigation uncover misconduct by State Dept. officials, Armenian-Americans should then ask Congress to make a one-time allocation of $35 million to Artsakh, in compensation for the amount the U.S. government failed to spend, as required by law.
    The uproar caused by such a congressional investigation would hopefully make State Dept. officials more cautious in the future when handling the disbursement of funds intended for Artsakh!

  • Complaint against Azerbaijan in European Court Could Have Grave Consequences

    Complaint against Azerbaijan in European Court Could Have Grave Consequences

    By Harut Sassounian
    Publisher, The California Courier
    sassounian33
    In recent years, Armenian-Americans have filed several lawsuits in U.S. courts against insurance companies, banks, and the Republic of Turkey, seeking compensation for losses stemming from the Genocide of 1915.
    For the first time, on September 15, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) will hold a hearing on a complaint filed by an Armenian family against the Republic of Azerbaijan for damages suffered during the Karabagh (Artsakh) conflict. Remarkably, the ECHR will consider on the same day a similar complaint brought by several Azeris against the Republic of Armenia (Chiragov and others vs. Armenia).
    Minas Sargsyan, a former resident of Gulistan in the Shahumyan region, north of Artsakh, filed a complaint on August 11, 2006, regarding the destruction of his house and eviction from his property. Sargsyan stated in his complaint that someone else, presumably an Azeri, is now living in his house. Although Sargsyan passed away a year ago, his widow and two children are continuing to pursue the case. Due to a backlog, the ECHR normally takes several years before it hears a case. The Sargsyan family is represented before the Court by attorneys Narine Gasparyan and Knarik Ohanyan of Yerevan (members of the Legal Guide NGO), and well known human rights lawyer Prof. Philip Leach representing the European Human Rights Advocacy Center in London.
    The Shahumyan region is situated on the northern border of the former Nagorno-Karabagh Autonomous Oblast, as it was known in Soviet times. More than 80% of Shahumyan was inhabited by Armenians prior to the Artsakh conflict. In June 1992, when the Azerbaijani forces bombed Gulistan, Sargsyans’ two-storey house was destroyed. As a result, the entire population of the village fled fearing for their lives, according to the “Statement of Facts,” summarized by the ECHR.
    Sargsyan’s complaint is based on the following claims:
    1. The destruction of his house and eviction from his property constituted “a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.”
    2. Infringement on his right to a private and family life and to his home because of his forced displacement and Azerbaijan’s continuing refusal to allow him access to his home and belongings.
    3. In view of the demolition or vandalism of several Armenian cemeteries in Azerbaijan, Sargsyan stated that he was unaware of the condition of the cemetery of his close relatives and that he was deprived of the possibility of visiting their graves, which he had done regularly in the past. The mere fact of knowing that the graves of his relatives were under the risk of being destroyed caused Sargsyan severe suffering and distress. The inability to visit the cemetery deprived him of spiritual communication with his deceased relatives, as visiting and maintaining his relatives’ graves was a religious duty that he fulfilled before his eviction.
    4. There are no effective remedies available to ethnic Armenians who were forced to leave their homes in Azerbaijan. Armenians who had sought to lodge complaints with relevant Azerbaijani authorities were unable to obtain any redress for the violation of their rights. Due to the unresolved status of the Artsakh conflict, there were practical difficulties and obstacles for gaining direct access to any remedies available in Azerbaijan.
    5. Sargsyan complained that he had been subjected to discrimination in Azerbaijan, based on his ethnic and religious affiliation. He submitted that only ethnic Armenians living in Azerbaijan had been targets of violence, pogroms, and attacks. The Government of Azerbaijan failed to investigate violence against Armenians and to provide redress for the illegal occupation of their properties and the destruction of Armenian cemeteries.
    This is the first Armenian complaint lodged with the ECHR for violations of property rights, among others, by the Republic of Azerbaijan. If successful, it will set an important precedent for claims by hundreds of thousands of Armenians who were forced to abandon their properties in Baku and other parts of Azerbaijan. Similarly, the Chiragov complaint lodged against Armenia could open the door for demands by hundreds of thousands of Azeris who left their homes during the Artsakh conflict. In contrast to the Armenian case, however, most Azeris left at their own free will and sold their properties prior to their departure.
    It cannot be a mere coincidence that the Armenian and Azeri complaints are set to be heard by the Grand Chamber of the ECHR on the same day. If the Court finds a violation of property rights in these two cases, and orders monetary compensation to the applicants, this would likely lead to many similar cases being filed in the future, which could have far-reaching consequences for the economies of Armenia and Azerbaijan, amounting to billions of dollars. Alternatively, the Court could mandate that both countries allow their respective citizens to return to their former homes, which could create new upheavals and security risks in the region. As members of the Council of Europe, Armenia and Azerbaijan are obligated to comply with the decision of the Court.
    Both hearings could be followed live on September 15, on the Court’s website: www.echr.coe.int/echr. The Azeri complaint will be broadcast at 9:15 a.m., while the Armenian one is set for 2:30 p.m. (French time).

  • Why Would Armenians Go to Akhtamar

    Why Would Armenians Go to Akhtamar

    Why Would Armenians Go to Akhtamar, And Become Tools of Turkish Propaganda?

    Ever since the Genocide, after nearly a century of banning Armenian church services, the Turkish government has finally decided to allow a one-time celebration of Mass to be held at the 10th Century Holy Cross Church on Akhtamar Island.

    sassounian32Questions have been raised about the prudence of attending the Sept. 19 church services to which the Turkish government has invited Armenians from around the world, members of the international media and foreign Ambassadors and dignitaries. Those calling for a boycott indicate that the true aim of the Turkish authorities is to score propaganda points with the European Union and the United States, by feigning tolerance towards Christians and other minorities. In reality, successive Turkish governments have carried out a systematic policy of eliminating all visible signs of Armenian presence throughout Western Armenia (Eastern Turkey) for over nine decades, during which more than 2,000 Armenian churches and monasteries have been destroyed or converted into non-religious use. The Holy Cross Church itself was targeted for demolition some years ago, but was saved by the intervention of a local Turkish official.

    Critics of those traveling to Akhtamar also object to the Turkish government’s classification of the historic church as a “museum,” and holding services only once a year. After many requests and complaints, Turkish officials have finally promised to place a cross on the church’s dome.

    There is no reason for Armenians to be grateful to a country that, after confiscating and destroying thousands of churches, is now allowing a religious ceremony in a single church, which it classifies as a museum. This church and thousands of others should belong to the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul, and services should be held as needed, without governmental permission or interference.

    Last week, tempers flared in Armenia when the Holy See of Etchmiadzin announced its intention to send two clergymen to the Sept. 19 ceremonies. His Holiness Catholicos Karekin II usually consults with Armenian officials before taking decisions on matters involving foreign countries. Since he was absent from Armenia while this announcement was made and possibly unaware of the objections raised, His Holiness now has the opportunity to make a final determination regarding the sending of representatives of the Holy See to Akhtamar. As Armenians in Turkey are not permitted to freely express their views, Church officials and lay leaders outside Turkey should take the initiative to condemn the Turkish exploitation of Armenian religious ceremonies.

    The Foreign Ministry of Armenia announced that it has not received an official invitation from Ankara to send a delegation to the Holy Cross Church. It is hoped that if and when such an invitation is extended, the Armenian government would reject it. Yerevan handed the Turks a propaganda victory last year by signing the Armenia-Turkey Protocols. Participating in the Akhtamar church services would be tantamount to presenting the Turks an undeserved additional reward.

    There are indications, however, that this time around the Armenian government may not be as accommodating. Eduard Sharmazanov, spokesman of Pres. Sargsyan’s ruling Republican Party and Member of Parliament, harshly criticized the planned church services, calling it a “publicity stunt” and a “provocation” to mislead the international community.

    In addition, a subcommittee of the Public Council, an advisory body formed by Pres. Sargsyan, issued a statement, urging Armenians to boycott the Holy Cross church services. It called on all self-respecting Armenians to refrain from participating in “this cheap Turkish show.” Giro Manoyan, spokesman of the opposition Armenian Revolutionary Federation in Yerevan, also advocated boycotting the church services and criticized the Holy See of Etchmiadzin for planning to send two clerics to Akhtamar.

    A clear indication of Turkish disinterest in preserving Armenian churches is the interrogation by the secret police of several thousand families who have offered to host Armenian visitors in nearby city of Van on September 19, due to shortage of hotel rooms. Turkish officials are suspicious that host families may be forcefully Turkified or Kurdified remnants of Armenian Genocide victims. By this appalling action, reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s Gestapo tactics, the Turkish regime is showing its obsession to keep track of its citizens’ ethnic origin. In fact, after this racist investigation, a number of families have been officially banned from hosting Diaspora Armenians in Van.

    Armenians who naively plan to attend religious ceremonies in “a museum” would inadvertently legitimize the confiscation of a historic Armenian Church and promote a political show staged by Turkish authorities.

    It is perfectly understandable that Turkish leaders would want to create a positive image in order to facilitate their country’s entry into the European Union, and counter Armenian efforts for the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. It is far less understandable, however, why Armenians would help advance the Turks’ anti-Armenian objectives.

  • Sassounian’s column of July 22, 2010

    Sassounian’s column of July 22, 2010

    Turkey has no Right to Interfere
    In Armenian Patriarch’s Election
    sassounian31
    Although the Treaty of Lausanne is supposed to protect the rights of non-Muslim minorities in Turkey – Armenians, Greeks, and Jews – these rights are routinely violated by the Turkish government.
    Armenians in Turkey, fearing the government’s wrath, rarely dare to object to the repeated violations of their civil rights. Worse still, Istanbul Armenians sometimes invite Turkish officials to intervene in their community’s affairs in order to settle their internal and personal disputes.
    The latest example of such blatant interference was the selection of Archbishop Aram Ateshyan, as Deputy Patriarch, after doctors had diagnosed the current Patriarch of Turkey, Mesrob Mutafian, as suffering from incurable dementia.
    Six months ago, after a two-year delay during which the Patriarchal seat was practically vacant due to Patriarch Mesrob’s incapacity, the Patriarchate’s Religious Council wrote to the Turkish government seeking permission to elect a coadjutor (co-Patriarch). The Council then set up an Election Committee in order to organize such an election once Ankara gave its permission.
    To complicate matters, the Election Committee, exceeding its authority, sent its own letter to Turkish officials, asking for permission to elect a new Patriarch rather than a co-Patriarch.
    Both initiatives made the serious error of inviting the interference of the Turkish government into the Armenian community’s internal religious affairs. Furthermore, both requests contradicted the Patriarchate’s almost 600-year tradition and practice of not having a co-Patriarch, unlike the Holy See of Etchmiadzin, the Catholicosate of Cilicia, and the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The request to elect a new Patriarch was also improper, since a new Patriarch can not be elected, while the existing Patriarch is still alive, as Patriarchs are elected for life.
    Taking advantage of the dissension within the Armenian community, the Turkish government finally responded on June 29, allowing the election of a Deputy Patriarch, but not a co-Patriarch or a new Patriarch. By so doing, Turkish officials violated the Armenian community’s religious rights, ironically, at the community’s own request!
    In authorizing a Deputy Patriarch to represent the Patriarchate, the Turkish government has in effect weakened the status of that historic institution. Since Patriarch Mesrob is mentally but not physically incapacitated, he may live for many years, while the Patriarchate is led by a mere Deputy Patriarch. Such an eventuality would serve Turkey’s interests which has always sought to assimilate the Armenians by bureaucratic obstructions, and depriving it of a freely elected and capable religious leader.
    Within 48 hours of the government’s edict, Archbishop Ateshyan, who de facto ran the Patriarchate as Chairman of the 26-member Religious Council, convened a meeting which unanimously elected him Deputy Patriarch. No other clergymen were given a chance to submit their candidacies for that post.
    While Armenians worldwide remained silent, with the exception of Primate of Germany, Archbishop Karekin Bekciyan, a few courageous Armenians in Istanbul dared to raise their voices in protest. The Election Committee, which the Turkish government disbanded, filed a lawsuit against Ankara’s decision, demanding the election of a new Patriarch, not just a Deputy.
    Where do we go from here? Armenian religious and lay leaders outside Turkey should protest the undue interference of the Turkish authorities in the internal affairs of the Armenian Church in violation of the Lausanne Treaty.
    More importantly, Armenians in Turkey should come together and declare that the office of the Deputy Patriarch is a temporary arrangement, not a long-term solution. Without asking for Ankara’s permission, the Armenian community should organize a new election to elect a co-Patriarch, who would then become Patriarch after the demise of the presently incapacitated Patriarch Mutafian.
    Whether the Armenian community decides to elect a new Patriarch or a co-Patriarch is its own business, and not that of Turkish officials. It is important that the Istanbul Armenian community coalesces around a common position and avoids further dissension. If the local Armenian community becomes united and enjoys the backing of Armenians and others around the world, the Turkish government, which prides itself as a secular and democratic regime, would be more reluctant to politically interfere in the Armenian minority’s religious affairs.