US embassy cable - 05ANKARA2750

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 ANKARA 002750 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SE 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/13/2015 
TAGS: PGOV, PREL, PHUM, TU, OSCE 
SUBJECT: RELIGIOUS MINORITIES SAY GOT BILL FAILS TO SOLVE 
PROPERTY ISSUE 
 
REF: 04 ANKARA 5141 AND PREVIOUS 
 
Classified by Polcouns John Kunstadter; reasons 1.4 b and d. 
 
1. (C) Summary: The GOT is reviewing a draft bill designed to 
address the issue of properties seized by the Turkish State 
from religious minority communities.  Representatives of the 
Christian and Jewish communities say the bill would have only 
minimal favorable impact, primarily because it would 
generally not enable the communities to reclaim the hundreds 
of properties expropriated by the State over the years.  EU 
officials criticized earlier versions of the bill, and an EU 
contact told us the latest version also falls short of a 
solution.  End Summary. 
 
------------------------------------ 
Cabinet Reviewing Long-Delayed Draft 
------------------------------------ 
 
2. (C) The GOT Cabinet is currently reviewing a long-delayed 
draft law designed to address the conflict over properties 
belonging to Turkey's historic Christian, Jewish and Baha'i 
communities.  The property issue has been one of most 
enduring weak points in Turkey's EU candidacy and in its 
relations with the U.S.  The GOT has been developing the bill 
for nearly a year; EU diplomats criticized earlier drafts of 
the legislation. 
 
3. (C) The GOT prepared the new bill, expected to be 
introduced in Parliament this month, after receiving input 
from attorneys for the minority religious communities, 
particularly the Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Syriacs, 
and Jews.  However, representatives of the minority 
communities note that the GOT made few changes to address 
their concerns.  They point out that the new draft is only a 
marginal improvement over the old, primarily because it would 
not enable "non-Muslim" foundations to reclaim more than a 
very small portion of the hundreds of properties expropriated 
by the Turkish State over the years, especially since 1974. 
Sema Kilicer, political officer at the European Commission 
Representation to Turkey, supported the communities' view, 
averring to us that claims by GOT officials that the draft 
will resolve the property dispute are "all lies." 
 
-------------------------------------- 
State Has Seized Non-Muslim Properties 
-------------------------------------- 
 
4. (U) At issue are properties historically belonging to 
Turkey's Christian and Jewish communities.  In 1936, the GOT 
required all foundations to declare their sources of income. 
In 1974, amidst mounting tensions over Cyprus, the Turkish 
High 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. 
 
5. (U) At the same time, the State has seized control of 
numerous foundations when the size of the minority community 
in a particular district dwindled below the level required to 
hold foundation board elections.  Religious minorities are 
required to establish foundations in order to own and 
maintain properties. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
Non-Muslim Communities Criticize Draft 
-------------------------------------- 
 
6. (C) As part of its EU reform process, the GOT has passed 
legislation aimed at allowing "non-Muslim" foundations to 
acquire property.  But these reforms have had minimal impact 
(reftel).  EU (and USG) officials have urged the GOT to take 
further steps.  The new bill was prepared by the General 
Directorate of Foundations (Vakiflar), which oversees the 
foundations and their properties, in an attempt to address 
the issue.  In letters to the European Commission, 
representatives of the Christian and Jewish communities 
explain why they believe the new draft falls far short of a 
solution.  Their views are summarized below. 
 
------------------------------ 
Summary of Bill's Shortcomings 
------------------------------ 
 
7. (U) Seized Foundations: The draft does not permit the 
minority communities to regain control of the foundations 
expropriated by the Vakiflar over the years.  In fact, the 
bill makes it clear that the seized foundations will remain 
permanently under Vakiflar control.  Since the communities 
will be unable to reclaim the expropriated foundations, the 
bill appears to prevent them from ever regaining the 
confiscated properties affiliated with those foundations. 
Religious minority communities have lost properties with 
commercial value or historical/religious significance in 
various locations.  In many instances, the Vakiflar seized 
the properties when the "non-Muslim" community dwindled in 
the district where the property was located.  Community 
representatives note that these properties hold value for the 
communities, regardless of whether "non-Muslims" still reside 
in the immediate area, and their loss has eroded their 
ability to raise funds and maintain traditions. 
 
8. (C) Confiscated Properties: Attorneys for the minority 
communities maintain that the draft article on the return of 
immovables to the foundations is so vaguely worded that, in 
practice, it will lead to lengthy court cases that will make 
it virtually impossible for the foundations to reclaim 
properties.  Moreover, the bill would prevent minority 
foundations from reclaiming properties in cases where a court 
has canceled a foundation's deed or annulled a will donating 
a property to a foundation.  In anticipation of the new 
legislation, community representatives say, the Vakiflar has 
recently launched a large-scale effort to take property cases 
to court in order to prevent the foundations from reclaiming 
properties. 
 
9. (U) Council: The 15-member Vakiflar Council, the highest 
decision-making body overseeing the foundations, would 
include only one member elected by the "non-Muslim" 
foundations.  The Council would be dominated by State 
officials and nominees selected by the GOT.  Attorneys for 
the Christian and Jewish communities maintain that one member 
cannot represent the various religious minority communities. 
They had urged the GOT to include six representatives elected 
by religious minority communities with foundations. 
 
10. (U) Foreign Management: The bill would allow foreigners 
to establish foundations in Turkey; however, members of a 
foundation's executive organs would be required to hold 
Turkish residence permits.  Attorneys for the religious 
minority communities argue the State included a residence 
requirement in order to maintain strict control over foreign 
involvement in the foundations. 
 
11. (U) Board Elections: The draft states that new rules and 
procedures for electing foundation board representatives will 
be specified in a regulation, but it sets no deadline for 
establishing the regulation.  Attorneys for the Greek 
Orthodox community are concerned that this ambiguity could 
cause delays leading to the further loss of foundations.  The 
law authorizes the Vakiflar to seize any foundation that has 
not held board elections for 10 years.  Greek Orthodox 
representatives say Istanbul authorities have rejected 
without explanation nearly all applications by Greek Orthodox 
foundations to hold elections since 1990, leading to the 
expropriation of foundations. 
 
12. (U) Malfeasance: Authorities would be able to suspend the 
entire board of a foundation for the duration of court 
proceedings if one board member is found guilty of 
malfeasance causing "irreparable consequences."  Community 
representatives argue that the full board should not be 
punished for the misdeeds of one member.  They also say the 
bill gives authorities excessively broad powers, because it 
fails to specify that "gross negligence" and/or "willful 
misconduct" are required to justify suspending a board. 
 
13. (U) Sale/Exchange of Property: Foundations would be able 
to sell their longstanding properties, or exchange them for 
new properties, with the approval of a court.  Community 
attorneys say courts have historically been hostile to the 
foundations, and argue that court approval should not be 
required unless there is a legal dispute between the 
foundation and the State over a property. 
 
14. (U) Charters: Foundations would be allowed to revise 
their "purposes and functions" as stated in their charters 
with the approval of relevant State authorities.  Community 
representatives maintain that foundations should be permitted 
to make such changes without State approval. 
15. (U) International Activity/Assistance: Foundations would 
be permitted to open branches abroad, cooperate with foreign 
organizations, and receive financial support from foreign 
individuals and institutions.  Community representatives say 
this is a positive step.  However, they note that the bill 
requires foundations to report all foreign donations to 
authorities, and states that all transactions must be done 
through a bank.  They say these requirements reflect the 
State's intense scrutiny of "non-Muslim" foundations. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
16. (C) The expropriation of properties belonging to 
religious minority communities is an element of the Turkish 
State's broader campaign against religious pluralism.  Since 
the founding of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, the State has 
utilized a series of policies in a relentless effort to 
squeeze out religious minorities; for example, in 1940 the 
State imposed a wealth tax on Christians and Jews at a rate 
up to 10 times greater than the rate for Muslims.  As 
Christians and Jews left the country, the State seized their 
properties and foundations. 
 
17. (C) The State has succeeded in establishing a national 
identity based on the Turkish language and the Islamic faith. 
 Religious diversity, like linguistic or ethnic diversity, is 
widely seen as a threat to national unity.  As a result, 
there is no domestic constituency for loosening restrictions 
on religious minorities.  The EU and U.S. continue to urge 
progress, but the ruling AK Party is not likely to undertake 
serious reform to redress the longstanding grievances of 
Christians, Jews and others while it remains unable to 
address the headscarf ban and other issues important to its 
Islamist base. 
 
18. (U) We will continue to follow this legislation, and to 
discuss it with representatives of the minority communities 
as well as the Vakiflar. 
 
 
 
 
 
EDELMAN