TURKEY: OPPOSITION PARTY CHALLENGES FOUNDATIONS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 000639 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/04/2018 TAGS: KIRF PGOV PHUM PREL OSCE TU SUBJECT: TURKEY: OPPOSITION PARTY CHALLENGES FOUNDATIONS LAW REF: A. 06 ANKARA 6593 ¶B. 07 ISTANBUL 1073 Classified By: Political Counselor Janice G. Weiner, reasons 1.4 (b),(d ) ¶1. (C) Summary and Comment: The opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) applied to the Constitutional Court on March 23 to annul nine articles of the recently adopted Foundations Law on the ground that they violate Turkey's Constitution, laws, and the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. The nine articles, which make up the most progressive parts of the law, are the same articles former President Sezer vetoed in November 2006 -- and which parliament tried to address in this "re-do" of the provision. CHP and far-right National Action Party (MHP) consistently have lambasted the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) for taking steps to help Turkey's Greek minority without requiring Greece to take reciprocal measures toward its Turkish minority. Yusuf Beyazit, DG of Turkey's Directorate of Foundations (Vakiflar) and drafter of the revised law, believes the Constitutional Court may overturn the law even though CHP's legal arguments lack merit. Beyazit claims Turkey's minority communities are hurting their own cause by failing to defend the progressive law, focusing instead on its shortcomings. Many contacts contend the substance of the revised Foundations Law is less the issue than the Court's composition: seven of the 11 judges were appointed by Sezer and CHP needs only six to annul the revised law. In the current political atmosphere, if the Court indeed annuls the law, it will be seen as another step towards government by the judiciary. End summary and comment. -------------- -------------- CHP Takes Foundations Law to Constitutional Court -------------- -------------- ¶2. (U) The CHP, a vocal opponent during parliamentary debates, applied to the Constitutional Court March 23 to annul nine articles of the Foundations Law passed by Parliament February 20, claiming they violate Turkey's Constitution, laws, and the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. CHP Vice Chair Onur Oymen charged in a February 19 debate that the law violates the Lausanne Treaty's reciprocity principle regarding non-Muslim minorities in Turkey and Muslim minorities in Greece. He maintained the law would grant rights to minority foundations in Turkey that the Greek government does not extend to its Turkish minority. ¶3. (U) The Court is allowing the Foundations Law to continue in effect while a court rapporteur prepares his recommendation for the Court. The current law is nearly identical to the law Parliament passed and Former President Sezer vetoed in November 2006. Sezer vetoed the same nine articles, claiming the measure threatened the Turkish Republic's long-standing system of placing foundations established under Ottoman law under law under the legal control of the GOT. Sezer also implied minority rights were already sufficiently protected and noted that Greece should reciprocally grant rights to its Muslim minority in Thrace before Turkey expands minority rights (ref A). ¶4. (U) Far-right MHP, which vehemently opposed passage of the Foundations Law in February, has not yet announced support for CHP's legal move. Party leader Devlet Bahceli labeled the newly adopted law a "law of treason" and "document of surrender" that violates the Lausanne Treaty and would be a threat to national interests. -------------- Minority Communities Remain Silent -------------- ¶5. (C) Turkey's traditional "Lausanne minority" communities (Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Jewish) affected by the law have remained silent in the face of CHP's legal attack. These groups tepidly supported AKP's initial effort to pass a revised Foundations Law -- welcoming the law's positive changes but pointing out that more needed to be done (reftels). As the revised measure was being debated, they decided officially to oppose the bill due to what they saw as its substantial shortcomings. The three groups remain divided on the law: the Greek Orthodox community strongly ANKARA 00000639 002 OF 002 opposes it, while the Jewish community believes it represents a small, positive step in the right direction. Though the Armenian Orthodox community officially opposed the law, Patriarch Mesrob II told us he also views it as a positive development despite some flaws. The three communities' opinions reflect the relative balance of risks and benefits they stand to acquire pursuant to the law. -------------- Foundations Law at Risk -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Vakiflar DG Yusuf Beyazit told us he fears the three years he spent drafting the law and spearheading the effort to reform this area will be lost, despite the fact CHP's arguments lack merit. Turkey adopted the Foundations Law for its own people, not for the EU or U.S., he said. European Union treaties to which Turkey is a party required amendment of the old law. Beyazit hopes the Constitutional Court retains its past view that minority foundations can legally acquire property. However, he fears the Court may overreach and issue a broad ruling that will leave minorities with fewer options than under the previous law. ¶7. (SBU) According to Beyazit, the minority communities are hurting their own cause by remaining silent in the face of CHP and MHP attacks. He acknowledged the revised law does not resolve fully minority complaints, such as confiscated properties sold to third parties. But it goes further than any other law, allowing, for example, foundations to purchase and sell property. These groups should recognize that, with only 59 minority foundations out of a total of 41,500 foundations of all types, a complete overhaul of the system would bring chaos, he noted. During the three years the Vakiflar was working on the new law, the minority communities never raised their current criticisms, Beyazit claimed; they only recently began to articulate specific aspects they find objectionable. (Note: Minority community contacts vehemently refute Beyazit's charge, countering they have issued numerous public criticisms.) ¶8. (C) European Commission legal officer Didem Bulutar-Ulusoy told us CHP's legal arguments are "absurd." EC human rights officer Sema Kilicer agrees, but expects the seven Constitutional Court judges appointed by former President Sezer -- more than the majority of 6 required -- to uphold CHP's appeal. Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/Portal:Turk ey WILSON