Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
04ANKARA5141
2004-09-13 14:53:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Ankara
Cable title:  

GOT'S NON-MUSLIM PROPERTY REFORMS FALL SHORT

Tags:  PGOV PREL PHUM TU 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

131453Z Sep 04
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 ANKARA 005141 

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SE

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/13/2014
TAGS: PGOV PREL PHUM TU
SUBJECT: GOT'S NON-MUSLIM PROPERTY REFORMS FALL SHORT

REF: A. ISTANBUL 1279


B. 02 ANKARA 6116

C. 02 ANKARA 7290

D. 02 ANKARA 8586

E. 03 ISTANBUL 202

F. 03 ANKARA 2909

G. ISTANBUL 843

H. 02 ISTANBUL 1778

Classified By: Classified by Ambassador Eric S. Edelman; reasons 1.4 b
and d.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 ANKARA 005141

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SE

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/13/2014
TAGS: PGOV PREL PHUM TU
SUBJECT: GOT'S NON-MUSLIM PROPERTY REFORMS FALL SHORT

REF: A. ISTANBUL 1279


B. 02 ANKARA 6116

C. 02 ANKARA 7290

D. 02 ANKARA 8586

E. 03 ISTANBUL 202

F. 03 ANKARA 2909

G. ISTANBUL 843

H. 02 ISTANBUL 1778

Classified By: Classified by Ambassador Eric S. Edelman; reasons 1.4 b
and d.


1. (C) Summary: EU observers and representatives of Turkey's
non-Muslim communities criticize as inadequate GOT reforms
designed to allow non-Muslim foundations to acquire property.
While the GOT has approved more than 700 applications to
acquire legal ownership of properties already under the
de-facto control of the non-Muslim communities, the reforms
do not allow the communities to reclaim the hundreds of
properties expropriated by the State over the past 30 years,
nor do they interrupt the ongoing process whereby the State
seizes control of properties in areas where the local
non-Muslim population dwindles. An EU contact says the GOT's
lack of progress in this area will be cited in the EU
Commission's October report on Turkey. Representatives of
Istanbul's Greek Orthodox, ARMENIAn Orthodox, and Jewish
communities are hopeful that a new regulation will help them
maintain properties by loosening restrictions on foundation
board elections, although they are wary that provincial
governors would retain control over the process. Relations
between the State and the Greek and ARMENIAn Orthodox
communities are strained by a history of regional conflict.
It will take considerable time to overcome historic distrust
exacerbated by decades of Turkish discrimination.
Nevertheless, we recommend USG officials advocate several
measures the GOT can take before the December EU Summit to
make progress on the property issue (see para 8). End
Summary.

--------------
EU, Non-Muslims Criticize Reforms
--------------


2. (C) As part of its EU-related reform effort, the GOT has
attempted to address the conflict over properties belonging
to Turkey's historic non-Muslim communities by adopting
legislation intended to allow non-Muslim foundations to
acquire property for the first time since a 1974 court ruling
declared all post-1936 acquisitions illegal (reftels). Under

the reforms, the GOT has approved hundreds of applications by
these foundations to legalize their de-facto ownership of
various properties. However, members of the minority
religious communities and EU observers criticize the reforms
as inadequate. The critics note that the reform legislation
fails to provide the non-Muslim communities an opportunity to
reclaim the extensive number of properties seized by the
State since the 1974 court ruling, and leaves intact a set of
regulations under which the State continues to seize
foundations and properties when the non-Muslim community in a
particular area dwindles. Sema Kilicer, political officer at
the EU Representation to Turkey, told us the meager results
of the property reforms are one reason the European
Commission will cite religious freedom as a weak area in its
October report on Turkey. "As far as Brussels in concerned,
there is no progress in this area," she said.

--------------
1974 Ruling Launches Expropriations
--------------


3. (U) At issue are properties historically belonging to
Turkey's non-Muslim communities. In 1936, the GOT required
all foundations to declare their sources of income. In 1974,
amidst mounting tensions over Cyprus, the Turkish Court of
Appeals issued a ruling declaring that minority religious
foundations had no right to acquire properties beyond those
listed in the 1936 declarations. That ruling launched a
process under which the State has seized control of
properties acquired after 1936, or properties in areas where
the local non-Muslim community has dwindled. Most of the
expropriated properties belonged to Greek Orthodox and
ARMENIAn Orthodox foundations. The properties include not
only churches but also rent-generating assets such as
apartment buildings.

--------------
Most Applications Rejected or Returned
--------------


4. (U) Following the property reforms adopted in 2002,
minority foundations submitted more than 2,000 applications
to legally acquire properties. The General Directorate of
Foundations (Vakiflar),which oversees the process, states
that to date it has approved 719 applications, rejected 897,
and returned 337 due to lack of documentation. Adnan Ertem,
acting director of the Vakiflar for the Istanbul region, told
us that two-thirds of the rejected applications were for
properties that have been expropriated by the State. The
reform legislation, he noted, does not allow the foundations
to re-acquire these properties. The remaining one-third
includes properties registered in a name other than that of
the foundation attempting to claim it. Representatives of
the Greek Orthodox and ARMENIAn Orthodox communities in
Istanbul told us the foundations in the past often registered
properties in the names of saints, archangels -- or even
under fictitious names -- because they were not permitted to
use the foundation's name on the deed. They argue that it is
well known that the religious communities have long
controlled these properties, and accuse the Vakiflar of
bureaucratic obstructionism. Ertem, however, counters that
the Vakiflar is just doing its job. If a property is
registered under "Jesus, Son of Mary," for example, the
Vakiflar cannot award ownership to a foundation with a
different name.

--------------
Expropriation Process Continues
--------------


5. (U) Ata Sakmar, an attorney who advises the Greek Orthodox
Community, argued to us that the reform legislation is
fundamentally flawed, and no amount of bureaucratic
flexibility will make it effective. While the reforms may
enable minority foundations to acquire new assets -- the
Vakiflar reports it has approved all four applications filed
for acquisition of new properties -- this has little meaning.
These communities are not growing; in general, they are not
looking to acquire new assets but rather to re-acquire
expropriated properties and gain legal ownership of
properties they control indirectly. Meanwhile, the reforms
have left intact the regulatory process under which the
Vakiflar continues to seize foundations and their assets.
When the non-Muslim community in a specific area dwindles,
the Vakiflar can assume direct administration of the
community's properties. If a foundation is unable to
maintain a board of directors, the Vakiflar can request a
court to appoint a curator to take charge. After 10 years,
the Vakiflar can assume direct control. Sakmar said the
Greek Orthodox have lost dozens of foundations this way,
including more than 30 since the 1960s. Turkey's Greek
Orthodox population, meanwhile, has plummeted from millions
at the turn of the 20th Century, including more than 500,000
in Istanbul alone, to less than 3,000 today. The reforms
will not matter so long as the State continues to
relentlessly squeeze out the non-Muslim communities, Sakmar
maintained.

--------------
"Top Secret" Bill Could Loosen Restrictions
--------------


6. (C) Yusuf Beyazit, Vakiflar Director General, averred to
us it would be "impossible" for the State to allow the
minority communities to re-claim expropriated properties.
The State has taken control of more than 39,000 foundations
over the years; a tiny fraction of these are non-Muslim,
while the rest are Muslim. If the non-Muslim communities
were allowed to recover these foundations and their assets,
thousands of Muslim groups would seek to do the same. The
whole foundation system would crumble in the chaos. On the
other hand, Beyazit believes it would be possible to allow
the foundations to attain legal ownership of the properties
they control indirectly under names of third parties (Jesus,
Son of Mary, etc.). He said he is drafting a new Foundations
Law that would make this possible. Saying the draft is "top
secret," he declined to elaborate, but said he expects to

SIPDIS
complete it soon and forward it to the Cabinet.

--------------
Draft Regulation May Bring Some Relief
--------------


7. (C) Members of the minority communities say the process is
stacked against them. The regulations for electing
foundation board members limit the electorate to the district
where the foundation is located. If the community dwindles
or members move, to another neighborhood of Istanbul for
example, they may not retain enough voters in a borough to
hold elections, and could thereby lose control of a church or
rent-generating property that remains vital to their future.
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew told us the authorities have
taken this even further with the Greek Orthodox. Since 1990,
the Istanbul Governor's office has rejected without
explanation nearly all applications by Greek Orthodox
foundations to hold board elections, even when the size of
the local Greek Orthodox community was sufficient, making
exceptions in only a handful of cases under international
pressure, he said. (Note: The other communities have not
complained of similar treatment. The Jewish community even
obtained waivers of the population requirement for districts
by arguing that sufficient numbers of voters worked, but did
not reside, in a district. End Note). The GOT has drafted a
new regulation that would authorize governors to expand the
electoral districts in cases where there are not enough
members of a religious community in a given borough. Beyazit
said the new regulation should be put into effect shortly.
Greek Orthodox, ARMENIAn Orthodox, and Jewish representatives
told us they are in favor of the new regulation, but remain
wary of how governors will use their authority to determine
whether to expand the districts.

--------------
Conflict Rooted in History
--------------


8. (C) For the Greek and ARMENIAn Orthodox, the root of the
problem lies in a history of conflict that has engendered a
lack of trust between the communities and the State. GOT
officials are often quick to point fingers at the Greek and
ARMENIAn communities for their support of invading armies
during World War I and its aftermath. They also tend to link
the rights of Greek Turks to the rights of the Turkish
minority in Greece. Ertem even went so far as to accuse the
Patriarch of using his influence to persuade the Greek
Government to restrict the rights of the Turkish minority.
Patriarch Bartholomew argues that the GOT, which has taken
many "courageous steps" in other areas, should put this past
behind it. "Turkey is a strong state. We are not a threat,"
he said. "If Greeks supported invaders in the 1920s, are we
to blame in 2004?" Ercan Aslantas, head of the Ministry of
Interior's International Affairs Department, agreed, but said
the communities will have to show patience. Aslantas, whom
many EU and minority contacts have praised for his support of
reforms, argues that the property issue is complex,
emotional, and deeply tangled in history. The GOT has taken
some steps and will take more. But it cannot resolve
overnight a problem developed over generations. "What's the
hurry? The land isn't going anywhere," he said. "They will
have to show patience on this one."

--------------
Comment and Recommendation
--------------


9. (C) The GOT is under EU pressure to make quick, concrete
progress on the property issue, and other matters of
religious freedom for non-Muslims. FM Gul and others have
publicly dangled the promise of further reforms.
Nevertheless, religious freedom has proven to be one of the
areas where the GOT has made the least progress in following
through on its promises. The very nature of the legal
structure that requires the religious communities to form
foundations in order to own properties undermines religious
freedom and invites bureaucratic abuse. While we agree that
the Turkish State and the non-Muslim communities cannot build
a new relationship overnight, there are some steps the GOT
can take before the December EU Summit on the property issue.
We recommend that USG officials advocate the following steps
in contacts with GOT officials:

-- Adopt regulations allowing for expanded electoral
districts for minority foundations. If necessary, the
electorate should include all of Istanbul, or all of Turkey;

-- Adopt a new law allowing minority foundations to re-claim
properties expropriated by the State;

-- Develop a system whereby foundations can establish legal
ownership over properties in their control but registered
under a different name. This could be done, for example, by
creating a committee to review such cases and determine
ownership. The committee could set a deadline for submitting
applications in order to limit the potential for frivolous
claims.
EDELMAN