This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ISTANBUL 000868 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV TU PHUM
SUBJECT: RELIGIOUS MINORITIES STILL FACE DIFFICULTIES IN 
TURKEY 
 
 
REF: A. 2002 ANKARA 8881 
     ¶B. 2002 ANKARA 7290 
     ¶C. 2003 ISTANBUL 202 
     ¶D. 2003 ANKARA 2909 
     ¶E. ISTANBUL 843 
 
 
¶1.  (U)  Summary:  Prime Ministry human rights Director Vahit 
Bicak offered an upbeat assessment of Turkey's progress in 
addressing religious minority foundations' legal issues at a 
May 15 NGO-organized symposium.  Nonetheless, religious 
minority foundations stressed that they still face serious 
challenges.  Foundations are finding it difficult in some 
cases to transfer the registration of property they control 
from individuals' names (including Jesus and Mary, on 
occasion) to the foundations' names.  Moreover, the 
government has approved only a handful of their petitions to 
recover seized properties.  Turkey's implementation of EU 
reforms, especially as regards religious minorites' property 
rights, remains incomplete.  End Summary. 
 
 
The Good... 
----------- 
¶2.  (SBU) Representatives of religious groups, academia and 
government attended a May 15 symposium organized by the 
Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) to 
discuss the legal problems still facing religious minority 
foundations after the passage of reform laws some 18 months 
ago (refs A through D).  Vahit Bicak, Chairman of the Prime 
Ministry's Human Rights Commission, was a presenter at two 
sessions, and he seemed to go over well with the potentially 
critical audience.  (Note: symposium organizers tell us that 
Bicak had originally been invited to attend the symposium, 
but that Bicak himself insisted on making the two 
presentations.  End note.)  Having served as an intern/jurist 
for the European Court of Human Rights in 1999, Bicak 
comfortably detailed the European Convention on Human Rights' 
religious freedom provisions in a morning session.  Speaking 
as a human rights lawyer rather than as a government 
official, his candor was refreshing.  When discussing the 
"freedom from expressing religious preference to the state," 
for example, he acknowledged that this invited discussion of 
Turkey's inclusion of religion on the national identity card. 
 
 
 
 
¶3.  (U)  Bicak closed the symposium with his afternoon speech 
on Turkey's accomplishments in the area of religious freedom. 
 The return of property sacred to the Baha'i community in 
Edirne topped his list of concrete advances.  He also pointed 
to improved dialogue between the government and foundations, 
the ability of foundations to engage in international 
activities, and less onerous requirements for officially 
changing religions.  He claimed that there was an emerging 
consensus that all foundations be considered under one law, 
instead of the current situation which considers religious 
foundations separately from others.  As regards property, he 
pointed to foundations' ability to register property under 
their own names and a more reasonable deadline for applying 
to recover property.  Bicak also announced that a previously 
secret "Minority Control Commission" had been abolished and a 
 
SIPDIS 
new inter-ministerial commission had been appointed to 
resolve outstanding issues with the communities (Ref E). 
 
 
¶4.  (U)  Adnan Ertem, the Regional Deputy Director of the 
General Directorate for Foundations attended the TESEV 
symposium, and during a Q/A session thanked panelists for 
their "fair evaluation of positive developments."  As the day 
went on he developed a slightly more defensive posture in his 
interventions, but stayed until the bitter end and mostly 
kept his cool despite representing the target of the day's 
heaviest criticism.  His participation in the event was 
positive in and of itself.  Moreover, TESEV organizer Cem 
Murat Sofuoglu noted that in a similar symposium two years 
earlier, six police officers had attended.  This time there 
was only one, he said, who had asked permission to attend. 
Orhan Kemal Cengiz, a lawyer representing the Protestant 
community, at one point remarked that "standards were so low 
that this counts as progress," but many agreed that a new and 
more productive attitude, when compared to years past, was 
displayed by the government officials present at the 
symposium. 
 
 
The Bad... 
---------- 
¶5.  (U) Despite Bicak's upbeat tone and the improved 
atmospherics, religious minority foundations continue to face 
problems.  The regulations which came into effect in January 
2003, for example, allow religious minority foundations to 
apply to the General Directorate for Foundations to register 
"property already at their disposal," but not registered in 
the foundation's name.  At the symposium, Ata Sakmar, a 
lawyer affiliated with the Greek Orthodox community, 
explained one reason why some such applications have been 
rejected.  In the past, Greek Orthodox properties were often 
registered in the name of individuals in order to avoid 
expropriation, and many were actually registered in the name 
of "Jesus" or "Mary."  According to Sakmar, in the absence of 
the official registrant's consent to changing the 
registration to a foundation's name, these petitions are 
rejected.  "I almost had to author a communique to summon 
Jesus to the courtroom last year", he said, "in order to 
submit successful applications to the General Directorate." 
 
 
¶6.  (U)  A negligible number of petitions to recover property 
that had been seized by the government has been granted.  In 
addition to difficulties in recovering properties seized 
since 1935, there is still the outstanding question of 
properties expropriated and/or disposed of by the government 
prior to 1935.  It is not clear whether the 2002 reforms even 
allow for applications to reclaim such property.  In any 
case, implementation of the spirit if not the letter of the 
reform measures passed in 2002 remains elusive. 
 
 
And the Tense... 
--------------- 
¶7.  (SBU)  Istanbul Muftu Cagrici was among three religious 
leaders invited to make opening remarks at the TESEV event. 
While the Armenian Orthodox and Ecumenical Orthodox 
Patriarchs sent representatives in their stead, Dr. Cagrici 
not only delivered his remarks personally, but stayed 
throughout the day and participated actively, and for the 
most part, constructively. In a comment that provided an 
insight into the "us vs. them" mentality deeply engrained in 
some government bureaucrats, however, he implied that perhaps 
Turkey's Law 1062, the so-called "Reciprocity Law," might be 
appropriate to consider in response to restrictions on ethnic 
Turks in Western Thrace.  Numerous participants rejected that 
idea, stating that the Reciprocity Law "should not even be 
mentioned here," as it is meant to affect nationals of 
foreign states, not Turkish citizens. 
 
 
Comment 
------- 
¶8.  (SBU)   The mere fact that this conference (reportedly 
only the second to be held on this subject since the 2002 
reform measures were passed) took place with the 
participation of the Muftu and attendance and interventions 
by a representative of the Foundations Directorate is a 
welcome development.  Discussion was open and lively, but as 
the reference to Western Thrace clearly indicated, the 
religious minorities continue to be subjected to an "us vs. 
them" attitude by state bureaucrats (e.g., minority groups 
still fall under the "Foreigners" Branch of the Istanbul 
Police Department).  Changing societal and bureaucratic 
attitudes that figure into the development of religious 
freedom policies will be at least as difficult as legislating 
property returns.  But as one participant noted at the end of 
the day, "It would be strange if transformation -- and we are 
talking about transformation here -- were easy." 
 
 
¶9.  (U) For additional background information and reporting 
from ConGen Istanbul, see our classified website at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/Istanbul/inde x.cfm. 
ARNETT