TURKEY'S PRESIDENT RESISTS REFORM BY VETOING

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 ANKARA 006593

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/06/2016
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL OSCE TU
SUBJECT: TURKEY'S PRESIDENT RESISTS REFORM BY VETOING
PORTION OF FOUNDATIONS LAW

REF: A. ANKARA 6529

B. ANKARA 6567

Classified By: Political Counselor Janice G. Weiner, reasons 1.4(b),(d)

1.(C) Summary: In a blow to Turkey's religious minorities,
on November 29, President Sezer vetoed nine articles in
Parliament's new Foundations Law, explaining that they
violated Turkey's Constitution, laws, and the 1923 Treaty of
Lausanne. The nine articles made up the most progressive
parts of the law, which was widely perceived as expanding the
property rights of Turkey's minorities. Minority
Communities, who had hoped the law would have gone further,
were unsurprised by the veto, and are cataloguing their
complaints while awaiting Parliament's next move. The GOT's
Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet),as well as
representatives from civil society, viewed the veto as part
of a wider strategy to block measures that could erode the
traditional secular power structure. The European
Commission, greatly disappointed by the veto, predicted that
Parliament will re-pass the law in a watered-down form. In
an environment of rising nationalism where politicians are
reluctant to be seen as taking steps that could be perceived
as weakening the Turkish State, the ruling Justice and
Development Party (AKP) is not likely to push through the law
again in its current form. End summary.

-------------- --------------
President Vetoes Critical Sections of New Foundations Law
-------------- --------------

2.(U) On November 29, President Sezer partially vetoed and
returned to Parliament the new Foundations Law passed by
Parliament on November 9. The law, part of the GOT's 9th EU
Reform Package, was generally viewed as a positive step
toward resolving the conflict over properties belonging to
Turkey's historic Christian, Jewish, and Baha'i comunities
(see ref A). Should Parliament again pass the law in its
current form, the President's only recourse would be to
challenge the law in the Constitutional Court.

3.(U) In a statement issued with the veto, Sezer said that
the law violates the Lausanne Agreement of 1923, the Turkish
Constitution, and Turkey's legal system. According to Sezer,
the new law threatened the Turkish Republic's long-standing
system of placing foundations established under Ottoman
Sheriat law under the control of the GOT. He also implied
that current laws sufficiently protect minority rights and
noted that Greece should reciprocally grant rights to its
Muslim minority in Thrace before Turkey expands minority
rights.

4.(U) Minority communities and civil society believe that
seven of the nine vetoed articles (5, 12, 14, 16, 25, 26, and
41) formed the most significant and progressive core of the
new law. A summary of these articles follows.

-- Article 5 would make it easier for Turkish citizens and
foreign residents of Turkey to establish new foundations or
branches of existing foundations.

-- Articles 12, 14, 16 and 26 would allow foundations to more
readily change their founding charters, manage foundation
property, and transfer, exchange, or sell that property.

-- Article 25 would allow foundations to establish branches
and offices abroad.

-- Article 41 would add one representative from the minority
communities to the Foundations' Council, the highest
decision-making body overseeing foundation issues.

-------------- --------------
Minority Communities Focused on Law's Shortcomings, Not Veto
-------------- --------------

5.(C) Minority Community contacts told us that they were more
focused on the law's inherent shortcomings than on the
President's veto. Representatives from the Greek Orthodox
and Armenian communities said that the primary shortcoming is
that the new law did not allow them to recover confiscated

ANKARA 00006593 002 OF 003


properties sold to third parties -- in most cases the bulk of
their expropriated properties (see ref A). Metropolitan
Meliton, a senior advisor to Greek Orthodox Patriarch
Bartholomew, told us in a December 5 meeting that although
the law contained some positive measures, the Patriarchate
has at least 17 points of contention. Before deciding their
next steps, the religious minorities plan to closely monitor
how Parliament will proceed, according to Meliton.

-------------- --------------
Diyanet: Veto Directed Toward Muslim Foundations
-------------- --------------

6.(SBU) The GOT's Directorate of Religious Affairs
("Diyanet") views President Sezer's veto as a nationalistic
reaction to a Muslim population that increasingly desires to
express its faith. Diyanet Deputy President Mehmet Gormez
explained to us that under Turkish law, all foundations are
treated equally. He believes that President Sezer is
concerned that Muslim foundations, which represent 95% of
foundations, would use provisions in the new legislation to
expand their scope and power. Gormez believes, however, that
the AK Party will use its majority in Parliament to again
pass the same bill, which would limit the President's
recourse to a challenge in the Constitutional Court.

-------------- --------------
Civil Society: Veto A Reflexive Nationalistic Reaction
-------------- --------------

7.(SBU) Turkish civil society contacts told us in meetings on
December 1 that they view Sezer's veto as another effort to
ward off a perceived threat to Turkey's secular order from
the pro-Islam AKP (see ref B). Amnesty International
Turkey's President Levent Korkut saw Sezer's veto as an
unsurprising attempt to garner support from an increasingly
nationalistic public that has reacted vociferously to
perceived slights to the State, such as the recent French
parliamentary effort to criminalize denial of the alleged
Armenian genocide. "The President and the military have
consistently tried to hinder the AKP by blocking such
progressive reforms," according to Korkut. Turkey's Human
Rights Foundation President Yavuz Onen said he believes the
veto to be part of a strategy to help the opposition
Republican People's Party (CHP) to capitalize on rising
nationalistic sentiment in the lead up to next year's
elections.

8.(SBU) Several academics viewed the veto as primarily an
effort to stave off the rise of Islamic groups. Ankara
University Anthropology professor Tayfun Atay said the veto
demonstrates the President's paranoia that the AKP will use
EU-encouraged reforms as cover to mask their true intention
of replacing the Kemalist regime with a fundamentalist
religious power-structure. Human Rights activist and
political commentator Dr. Ahmet Kizilkaya, told us that the
President, the military, and other secular-minded powers
sincerely, but incorrectly, believe that Muslim tarikats
(Sufi religious orders) will use any means, including the
proposed Foundations Law, to acquire properties, increase
revenues, and expand their power. Galatasaray Constitutional
Law Professor Emre Oktem saw the veto, as well as CHP's
opposition to the law, as preview of the upcoming election
battle. He believes the AKP will use its majority in
parliament to pass the law in its current state.

--------------
EU: Veto Wipes Away Law's Progress
--------------

9.(SBU) A representative of the European Commission to
Turkey's Office told us that the veto wiped away the numerous
significant advances in the law. EU Commission legal expert
Didem Ulusoy said in a December 5 meeting that, given the
CHP's staunch opposition to the law, Parliament is unlikely
to again pass the law without significant changes that
water-down the reforms. EU Commission Political Officer
Serap Ocak, also downbeat, conveyed the Commission's great
disappointment that the GOT has still not made good on its
promises to improve property rights for religious minorities.


ANKARA 00006593 003 OF 003



10.(C) Comment: President Sezer's veto of this progressive
law was a disappointing blow for human rights in Turkey, but
not necessarily surprising. In an environment of rising
nationalism (see ref B),opposition parties are trying to
attack the AKP as Islamic fundamentalists at odds with
Ataturk's founding principles, while portraying themselves as
proud defenders of the Turkish State. In this politically
charged atmosphere, AKP may have a majority in parliament,
but politicians across the political spectrum are reluctant
to promote change -- especially when it comes in the form of
a measure that could be interpreted as empowering foreigners
at the expense of the Turkish State. The Foundations Law was
sacrificed under the banner of nationalism, and is unlikely
to be resuscitated in its original form anytime soon. End
comment.

Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/ankara/

WILSON