PAPAL VISIT FOCUSES ATTENTION ON MINORITY RIGHTS ISSUES IN TURKEY
Yigal Schleifer and Nicholas Birch
EurasiaNet, NY
Dec 1 2006
Pope Benedict XVI’s four-day visit to Turkey, which concluded December
1, appears to have fulfilled its main aims. It succeeded in promoting
closer ties between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches,
and repaired the pope’s image among Muslims.
At the outset of his trip, Benedict XVI sought to cultivate better
ties with Turks by offering an endorsement of Turkey’s European Union
membership drive. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
During a subsequent meeting with Ali Bardakoglu, the chief of Turkey’s
Religious Affairs Directorate, the pope called for an "authentic
dialogue" between Christians and Muslims. Such conciliatory words and
gestures helped ameliorate damage done back in September, when he gave
a speech quoting a Byzantine emperor who linked Islam and Mohammed
with violence. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
The visit also stimulated dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox
hierarchies. Benedict XVI had a "fraternal encounter" with Ecumenical
Patriarch Bartholomew I, according to a joint statement. The two
pledged that the churches would work jointly to promote Christianity.
"We cannot ignore the increase of secularization, relativism, even
nihilism, especially in the Western world. All this calls for a renewed
and powerful proclamation of the Gospel, adapted to the cultures of
our time,’ the joint statement said.
Another important aspect of the papal visit was that it raised
awareness about conditions faced by Turkey’s Christian minority,
including about 3,000 Greek Orthodox Christians, along with another
70,000 Armenians. The pope, in voicing support for Turkey’s EU
ambitions, called on Ankara to promote religious freedom. During a
mass on November 29, Benedict XVI characterized Turkey’s Christians as
"a small minority which faces many challenges and difficulties daily."
Although guaranteed the same rights as Muslim citizens, Christians
and Jews in Turkey have long complained about the legal hurdles they
face. Working out of a small compound hemmed in by a working class
neighborhood, the Orthodox patriarchate – which has been in Istanbul
for 1,700 years, since the city was known as Constantinople, capital of
the Byzantine Empire – is the frequent target of nationalist protests
while the occasional grenade has been lobbed over its walls.
Over the decades it has seen numerous properties, including schools
and cemeteries, confiscated by the state. Its theological seminary was
closed down in 1971 and has yet to be reopened, leaving it unable to
train its own clergy. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Ankara also refuses to recognize the patriarchate’s status as
ecumenical – or global – in reach, saying that it is responsible only
for tending its dwindling Orthodox community in Turkey. "Minority
rights of non-Muslims are the issue that we have had the least progress
on over the last six or seven ears. It’s a common theme in all the
[EU] reports," says Ioannis N. Grigoriadis, an assistant professor
of political science at Istanbul’s Isik University. "Other difficult
issues have been dealt with more successfully, while with the issue
of non-Muslim minorities that has not been the case."
The recent debate in parliament over a bill regulating the
establishment of minority foundations illustrated for many Turkey’s
continuing struggle with the issue of its non-Muslim peoples.
Although originally envisioned as a reform-minded bill that would
ease the bureaucratic hurdles and burdens that minority foundations
currently face, legal experts say the version of the bill that passed
offered little improvement over the past.
"The legal thinking behind the new [law] is the same, approaching
minority foundations with a lack of trust," says Ester Zonana,
a lawyer who advises Turkey’s Jewish community. "This new law even
takes us a bit back."
The new law, for example, offers no way for minority group to reclaim,
or seek restitution for the thousands of properties – schools,
churches, cemeteries and other real estate – that have been confiscated
by the Turkish state over the last few decades.
Even more disturbing for some was the tone of the parliamentary
debate on the bill, much of it centering on whether giving greater
rights to minority groups would give foreign powers greater influence
in Turkey. When the question of property restitution came up, some
parliamentarians asked whether allowing Turks of Greek origin to
reclaim property could force Turkey to hand back Istanbul’s historic
Hagia Sophia, the Byzantine church turned into a mosque by the
Ottomans, and then into a state museum in 1935.
"I was very angry during the debate. They were not treating us as
citizens. Why should I be treated differently than a Muslim?" says
Mihail Vasiliadis, editor of Apoyevmatini, a daily Greek newspaper
based in Istanbul. "The new law doesn’t offer us any solutions. It
doesn’t solve any of our problems."
Some representatives of Turkey’s Armenian community are more hopeful
that the law can be used to recover eight properties belonging to
Istanbul Armenian church that were confiscated between 1987 and 1993.
"It’s a positive step towards wiping out the effects of 1974,"
says Diran Bakar, a Turkish Armenian lawyer. He was referring to a
Turkish Appeal Court’s decision – made as ethnic tensions between
Greeks and Turks on Cyprus spilled over into war – holding that real
estate acquisitions made by non-Muslim foundations since 1936 had to
be returned to their previous owners. The ruling led to the piecemeal
confiscation of at least 4,000 properties belonging to Turkey’s Jews,
Armenians and Greeks.
It remains unclear whether the new legislation will ease EU concerns
about minority rights protection in Turkey. The foundations bill
was passed by parliament the day after Brussels released its regular
report on Turkey’s accession progress. The report rapped Ankara for
making little or no progress in the areas of freedom of expression
and religious freedom.
While freedom of worship was "generally respected" in Turkey,
"non-Muslim religious communities … continue to face restricted
property rights," the report stated. It recommended that Turkey
should remove restrictions barring the full operation of all religious
communities by adopting framework legislation in line with European
Court of Human Rights (ECHR) case law.
The most widespread criticism voiced by minority-group representatives
is that the new law continues to make a distinction between Muslim
and non-Muslim foundations. "Legal reform is all very well," says
Lakis Vingas, a businessman and prominent member of Turkey’s Greek
community. "But mentalities are more important. In Turkey, minorities
are ‘you,’ and they need to become ‘us.’"
It’s an attitude Diran Bakar illustrates with the story of an
acquaintance who decided to donate property to a charitable foundation
in his will. As required under a 2002 law, he informed the Foundations
Directorate. When the bureaucrat found out he was older than 50,
he told him to get a doctor’s report attesting to his mental health.
Turkish historians trace suspicion of the Orthodox Church back to the
tumultuous period after World War I, when Greece invaded the nascent
Turkish state and the patriarchate sided with the invaders. As part
of their peace agreement, Turkey and Greece implemented a massive
population exchange, although the patriarchate was allowed to stay
in Istanbul. Armenians are also often viewed as having designs on
gaining back Turkish territory.
In the early days of the Turkish republic, efforts were made to
bring all religious foundations – Muslim and non-Muslim – under the
government’s control, says Elcin Macar, a professor at Istanbul’s
Yildiz Technical University who specializes in minority issues. But
in the 1960’s and 70’s, particularly as the Cyprus conflict became
more tense, the Turkish government moved towards greater restrictions
on non-Muslim communities, with Turkish courts issuing decisions that
allowed for the large-scale confiscation of minority properties.
"I believe that these decisions were not made in harmony with the
law. They were discriminatory," Macar says. Although he believes there
has been some improvement in the legal standing of minority communities
in Turkey, Macar says that underlying suspicion of them continues. "The
minority is still seen as a dangerous thing for us," he says.
Editor’s Note: Nicolas Birch specializes in Turkey, Iran and the Middle
East. Yigal Schleifer is a freelance journalist based in Istanbul.