As the centennial of the Treaty of Lausanne approaches (1923) more scholarly attention will turn to this foundational document which sealed the birth of the contemporary Turkey as it is recognized today by international powers. The Treaty, which is still in effect, has special provisions for the management of non-Muslims who remained within Turkey’s borders even after deportation, genocide, and continued discrimination. “Non-Moslem nationals” of Turkey were recognized as “minorities” by the Treaty and given certain rights to practice their cultural differences to prevent fifth-column-like grievances and secessionism. The Ankara Delegation tried to avoid granting of special rights to non-Muslims but it was forced by Allied powers to recognize at least the religious difference of some of its citizenry. In this proposed panel I will discuss how Armenians who remained in Istanbul after World War I responded to the conflicting demands of the Ankara Delegation on the one hand and the Armenian groups in the emerging diaspora.Headed by Ismet Pasha, the Ankara Delegation at the Lausanne Conference (which lasted nine months) pushed the leadership of the community to denounce the idea that Turkish Armenians were represented by the Armenian mission to the Lausanne Conference (they were just a “mission” in that Armenians were not given a hearing at Lausanne since the Soviet Armenia was not party to the negotiations). Led primarily with a a desire (and political need) to peacefully co-habit with the victorious Turks, the Armenian spokespeople in Istanbul tried everything to distance themselves from the Armenians in Lausanne who pushed for more demands for Armenian, including a National Home inside the new Turkey, a development that the Turkish forces easily read as “separatism,” a mortal treat. Based on my research on Armenian press and memoirs, I will argue that the terms of the ongoing hierarchical relationship between the Turkish state and its Armenian citizens were established during this time.