US embassy cable - 04ANKARA5141

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