RELIGIOUS MINORITIES APPREHENSIVE OF LATEST

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ISTANBUL 000202 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/06/2013 TAGS: PGOV PHUM TU SUBJECT: RELIGIOUS MINORITIES APPREHENSIVE OF LATEST FOUNDATION REGULATIONS REF: A. 02 ANKARA 8881 ¶B. 02 ANKARA 7290 ¶C. 02 ANKARA 6116 ¶D. 02 STATE 44732 Classified By: CONSUL GENERAL DAVID ARNETT FOR REASONS 1.5 (B) AND (D). ¶1. (C) Summary: The General Directorate for Foundations recently enacted regulations that were expected to allow community (i.e. non-Muslim religious) foundations to reclaim seized properties. The new regulations are part of the EU-harmonization reforms aimed at enhancing religious minority rights and, it was hoped, allowing foundations to reclaim seized properties. Reaction from non-Muslim community leaders ranged from outrage to indifference to near-contentment, depending upon a community's reading of the regulations and the amount of each community's disputed property. However, ONE fact is unquestioned: property acquisition and registration remains squarely in the unsupervised hands of the General Directorate for Foundations, the very body accused of appropriating many of the properties to begin with. End Summary. -------------- THE NEW REGULATIONS -------------- ¶2. (U) The new regulations, published in the Official Gazette January 24, address three different issues: how community foundations can acquire property, how they may use such property, and how they may register "property already at their disposal" (i.e. occupied but unregistered property). Each portion of the regulation has its own ambiguities and legal complexities. ¶3. (U) In the case of acquisition, it is unclear whether newer religious community foundations, not currently on the list, will be allowed to acquire further property as their community grows. In the case of older communities with shrinking populations, it is not clear if they will have the option of acquiring new properties at all, as they will have to explain, even if the property is willed or donated, what "religious, charitable, social, educational, cultural, and health needs" the new property will meet. The Ecumenical Patriarchate and other communities with rapidly dwindling populations fear that the General Directorate for Foundations, the arbiter of whether the property may be acquired, will deny them the inheritance, saying their needs are already met by current properties. ¶4. (U) In the case of disposition of property already owned and properly registered, the foundations are allowed to "exercise their power of disposition of the property" in order to meet the needs listed above. However, "the exercise of real rights shall be subject to the permission of the General Directorate for Foundations." Thus, rental or sale of an existing property is not an unsupervised right. ¶5. (U) In the case of registration of currently owned property, the regulation seems to preclude the possibility of restitution for properties seized by the GoT between 1935 and the present. Though the regulation is generous as to what documents can be used to buttress an application for registration (including utility bills, Ottoman deeds and registries, and unapproved deed inspection records),the caveat that the property must be "under the disposal of the foundation" suggests that only property with documentation problems, rather than property expropriated by the State, will be covered under the law. Thus, ONE major point it was hoped the new law would ameliorate is not addressed by the regulation. -------------- GENERAL REACTIONS -------------- ¶6. (U) Poloff spoke with representatives of all major communities affected by the new regulations (the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate, Suriyani Orthodox Metropolitan, Jewish Community, and Chaldean Catholics). Since the law is written specifically for community foundations, the list of relevant groups was appended to the regulation, though there is no mention of what inclusion on the list of 160 foundations means. Whether or not these are the only parties who can make use of the law is unclear. The portion of the law related to registration of currently owned property covers the years 1935 to present (and the list of foundations is roughly accurate for those registered in 1936). However, it is unclear if newer foundations, such as the Istanbul Protestant Church Foundation, can make use of the new "acquisition" regulations or not, as they were not listed in the appendix. ¶7. (U) Of the total 160 foundations listed, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has 74. The Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate has 34 foundations. The Jewish Community has 18, Suriyanis 6, and Chaldean Catholics 3. ¶8. (C) Reactions to the regulation diverge widely. Metropolitan Meliton of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, who has principal responsibility for property issues, argues the regulations are "one step forward, three steps back," in that they fail to recognize or give status to the Patriarchate, split Halki into two foundations, and make no provision for the re-acquisition of expropriated property. Armenian Orthodox, Suriyani and Chaldean Catholic churches are also pessimistic about the regulations' limitations to varying degrees, but suggest that the law may open some possibilities for normalization of unresolved property problems and new property acquisition. Finally, the Jewish Community is most optimistic, seeing no new problems created by the law, and some utility in the registration process. Except for the Armenians and Greeks, all the communities with which post met agreed that the appended foundation list was complete. -------------- SPECIFIC CONCERNS -------------- ¶9. (C) "A Patriarch is not a Foundation": Greek and Armenian Orthodox churches hold that their patriarchs, and the immediate facilities in which they reside and work, are not foundations, but simply patriarchates. As such, they should be allowed to own and acquire property, as well as register the property they now inhabit, in their own right (in both cases, the patriarchates do not have any legal status or deed, despite centuries of residence). Unlike the Hahamhanesi (Chief Rabbinate),they have no established foundation for the patriarchate itself, and argue that a foundation is unacceptable because the patriarch alone decides how the property should be administered, not a committee (as is required in the law governing foundations). This political and semantic fight prevents both parties from coming to a modus vivendi with the GoT under the new regulations, and continues a decades-old stand-off over what, exactly, a patriarch is under Turkish law. ¶10. (C) "Applying to the Thief": Greek and Armenian Orthodox and Chaldean Catholic churches all see restitution of expropriated property as impossible under this law. Legal problems "created" (in their terms) by the GoT in the thirties prevented non-Muslim communities from either registering properties or forming their own foundations. Accordingly, over the course of the next 60 years, their properties were taken over by the General Directorate of Foundations. No mention is made in the regulation of how to apply for restitution of properties which were seized, only how to register properties which are still in the communities' possession, but lack proper documentation. Though all concede that the law technically could be interpreted to allow for some form of restitution, such an application must be approved by the General Directorate for Foundations, the very body which took the properties to begin with. In the words of Fr. Francois Yakan of the Chaldean Catholic Church, "that would be like applying to the thief to get your wallet back." -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶11. (C) The regulations fall well short of providing a transparent and efficient means to reconcile property seizures that the GoT itself recognizes were unlawful. Normalization of the status of property already in the hands of the foundations demands a willingness on the part of the foundation to accommodate to the General Directorate's willful interpretations of the law. The Jewish Community long ago elected to accommodate itself. The Greek and Armenian Orthodox churches continue to hold their political ground in the interests of establishing a transparent and reliable approach on the part of the General Directorate. End comment. ARNETT