UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
(HELSINKI COMMISSION) HOLDS BRIEFING:
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN TURKEY
APRIL 12, 2005
COMMISSIONERS:
U.S. SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS)
CHAIRMAN
U.S. SENATOR GORDON H. SMITH (R-OR)
U.S. SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R-TX)
U.S. SENATOR SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA)
VACANT
U.S. SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD (D-CT)
U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD (D-WI)
U.S. SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY)
VACANT
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH (R-NJ)
CO-CHAIRMAN
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FRANK R. WOLF (R-VA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH R. PITTS (R-PA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT B. ADERHOLT (R-AL)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE PENCE (R-IN)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BENJAMIN L. CARDIN (D-MD)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LOUISE MCINTOSH SLAUGHTER (D-NY)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ALCEE L. HASTINGS (D-FL)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE MCINTYRE (D-NC)
WITNESSES/PANELISTS:
MERVE KAVAKCI
FORMER MEMBER
TURKISH GRAND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
REV. FR. VERTANES KALAYJIAN
ARMENIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
VAN KRIKORIAN
TURKISH-ARMENIAN RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
BARRY JACOBS
AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE
REPRESENTATIVE
PROTESTANT/EVANGELICAL GROUPS
JEFF KING
PRESIDENT
INTERNATIONAL CHRISTIAN CONCERN
The briefing was held at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2200 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, D.C., Sam Brownback, co-chairman, Helsinki Commission,
moderating.
[*]
PRYOR: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you all
this morning to the CSCE briefing that we're having to examine the situation faced
by Muslims, Protestants, members of the Armenian Orthodox Church and the Jewish
community in the Republic Turkey.
Congressman Smith has hoped to be with us. We're going to go ahead and
start, though. I'll probably read his statement for him. And then we'll open the
floor to our distinguished group of panelists this morning, and then also open the
floor for questions and answers.
As many of you are aware, last month we highlighted the serious problems
experienced by the Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate.
We plan to hold a commission hearing soon on Turkey to discuss human rights
issues overall, Ankara's efforts to meet E.U. criteria for accession, and that
country's implementation record as a longstanding OSCE participating state.
First of all, we want to applaud the efforts by Turkey to bring its legal
system into conformity with OSCE commitments on religious freedom. The current
government has taken significant steps to improve conditions for the enjoyment of
religious liberty, steps that were unthinkable just a few years ago.
At the same time, as we learned last month, about the Greek Orthodox Church,
there are important areas requiring close attention and urgent action.
Turkey's system of regulating religious groups remains problematic,
especially the ban on headscarves in public institutions and the secular
government's strict control of Islamic teaching and practice. While the E.U. has
rightfully focused much attention on the religious freedom's of non-Muslim religious
groups, it has been virtually silent regarding the rights of Muslims to practice
their own faith.
As members of the Helsinki Commission have consistently urged every prime
minister over the past decade, the right of women to openly manifest their religious
beliefs, including in public places and schools, must be fully respected.
While the president of Turkey recently approved legislation to allow
thousands of students expelled from universities to return, including women who
violated the ban on headscarves, the ban nevertheless remains. The time has come to
end this injustice.
The Armenian Orthodox Church has suffered the loss of important properties
through government expropriations. Similar to the situation of the Greek Orthodox,
Syrian Orthodox and Catholic Churches, the Armenian Orthodox Church has lost much
under current laws that enable the government to assume direct administration of
properties that fall into disuse when the size of the local communities falls below
a certain point.
In addition, the Armenian Patriarchate continues to seek recognition of its
legal status. Last September, Turkey did adopt regulations to improve the way the
size of the religious community is gauged, and to give communities with legal status
the ability to acquire these properties.
However, the loss of property has done much damage to the church, and the
legislation does not allow for the reclamation of property unjustly expropriated by
the state.
Protestant and evangelical groups are experiencing problems in meeting
openly, despite reforms that purportedly allow non-Muslim religious communities to
build churches and to buy property.
Groups without legal standing or unable to afford these options cannot meet
in other locations such as private homes or rented facilities, as authorities have
actively sought to close these meeting places under the pretext of zoning laws.
Worse yet, the reforms are enforced in varying degrees depending on the will of the
local officials.
We urge the government to explicitly allow for the holding of religious
meetings in rented facilities or private homes.
Turkey has a special relationship with the Turkish Jewish community dating
back to the Ottoman period, when Sephardic Jews fleeing the Spanish Inquisition were
welcomed and given refuge.
After the November 2003 bombings of two Jewish synagogues, not only did Prime
Minister Erdogan publicly denounce the bombings, but he also met with Jewish
leaders, reportedly a first in the history of the republic.
At the same time, there were disturbing reports that "Mein Kampf," Hitler's
notorious work outlining an anti-Semitic world view, has become a bestseller in
Turkey. We urge the prime minister and other leaders in Turkey to speak up publicly
against resurgent interest in such racist materials.
In closing, Turkey has done much to earn a date to begin negotiations with
the European Union. We urge the government of Turkey to continue its good work and
redouble efforts to fully respect the rights of individuals and their communities to
freely profess and practice their faiths.
As I noted, we have a very distinguished group of panelists here this
morning. Before I commence with the introductions, I'd like to remind the audience
that a transcript of this briefing will be available on the Helsinki Commission Web
site, which is www.csce.gov. Usually, it's within 24 hours.
Our first panelist this morning is Merve Kavakci. She's a former member of
the Turkish Grand National Assembly. In 1999, she became the first female
conservative to be elected to the Turkish parliament, where she served for two years.
During that time, Ms. Kavakci acted as the spokesperson for human rights,
women's rights and the process of democratization in Turkey and the Middle East
before the United Nations, the governments of the U.S. and Great Britain,
international organizations, American and European universities.
Prior to that, she spent five years as the head of foreign affairs for the
Welfare-Virtue Party. She currently serves as an adjunct professor at the Elliott
School of International Affairs at the George Washington University, and is a
visiting scholar at the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies.
We welcome you this morning, and you have the floor, madam.
KAVAKCI: I thank Senator Brownback, Representative Smith and Mrs. Chair, and
the commission in general, for giving us this opportunity.
While I do love my country, I believe that we have to speak about some of the
things that we want changed, to bring about to Turkey.
To be able to enter and speak at the American Congress as a woman with a
headscarf is something that I cannot take for granted. I'm a member of a family
whose lives have been torn about by the ban on headscarves in Turkey for over three
decades now.
My mother was a professor of German literature when she was coerced to choose
between her profession and religious convictions in the early '80s. She chose not
to take her headscarf off, and resigned at a young age.
My father, though not directly, was also a victim of the ban. As the Dean of
the College (ph) of (ph) Islamic Studies in Ataturk University, he was coerced to
enforce the ban on his female students at the very college where Islam and its
mandate on women to wear scarves were taught.
Little I knew then that only a few years later I would face a similar
challenge and would have to quit my medical school education as a freshman. The
school administration was just not able to get past my looks. My family had to move
to a free land to live and learn and work freely.
In 1999, I paid another price for wearing a headscarf, this time as a duly-
elected parliamentarian. I walked into the Grand National Assembly of Turkey to
take my oath of office to serve my country. My fellow parliamentarians
chanted, "Get out, get out." The prime minister called upon the MPs, as he pointed
at me and said, "Put this woman in her place."
It took then the government only 11 days to revoke my citizenship with a
pretext of my dual citizenship, and to start the persecution for instigating hatred
and discriminating against peoples (ph), despite the very fact that I had
parliamentary immunity.
I was never permitted in. My seat remains vacant, and my constituents were
denied from representation. The result was the closure of my party and a ban on my
political activities for five years. The scarf that I wore was perceived to be a
threat to the secular state edifice.
My ordeal, however, was not an exception. Rather, it was typical of the
civil liberties violations that have been carried out against female citizens.
Originally, what began as merely a provision to regulate the dress code of
federal employees in the early '80s has become a means of patent discrimination
against religious women. While the state promotes equality for its citizens, it
stifles and ostracizes women with headscarves.
With a headscarf, a girl cannot get education in a junior high, high school
or a university. She cannot work at a state or military office. She cannot enter
the university or the military grounds.
Private realm is no exception to this rule. She even cannot give or get
education at a private institution. She is not only precluded from providing
service, but at the same time from receiving service, as well.
Medine Bircan was a senior citizen who paid the ultimate price by losing her
life in 2002. Because she wore a headscarf on her ID picture, she was denied health
care at an emergency room at an Istanbul hospital.
That same year at Ataturk University, mothers who wore headscarves to their
children's graduation ceremony were not permitted in unless they wore wigs on top of
their headscarves.
In 2003, a woman who appeared before the Supreme Court of Appeals in Ankara
was denied the opportunity to give her testimony when the judge decreed that a
public place could not be assumed with a headscarf.
The wife of the prime minister, wife of the speaker of the house, cabinet
members, wives of MPs are not permitted into the presidential residence. As a
result, thousands of Turkish women are excluded from schools and jobs, some endured
interrogations at the "persuasion room" -- quote, unquote -- established at their
institutions.
The proponents of the headscarf ban rose (ph) various justifications. Just a
couple of them that I would like to point out. That the headscarf is antithetical
to the values of the developed world Turkey yearns to be a part of for quite some
time now, namely the democratic values.
If that is the case, shall we claim that the police officer who stripped a
little girl's headscarf off against her freewill acts within the boundaries of
democracy and human liberties? Can a state whose main responsibility is to meet the
needs of its citizens and assist them to prosper justify discrimination, simply
because their subjects choose to be religious? How can a state legitimize not only
the social, but more importantly, maybe, the economical ramifications of its
systematic discrimination against its citizens?
On one hand, the state promotes social and economic growth for women, via
(ph) education. On the other hand, it still has discrimination on women with a
headscarf. While promoting gender equality within its physiology (ph), it's brought
inequality against particular women.
The second justification claim which I would like to point out and pass on is
that in a secular country, your public space cannot be assumed by any religious
symbols. This simply involves the question of what the public realm is and is not.
Seventy percent of the Turkish women do wear headscarves. It is part of our
culture, part of our religion and part of our history.
We can inquire on what basis that the public be denied from existing in
public. Despite the fact of the ban on headscarves in almost many facets of the
women's life, the ban does not have legal status. It contravenes the Turkish
constitution, as well as the international conventions Turkey is signatory to.
Since the establishment of the republic, women's clothing has not been
regulated via a law. Women had never been mandated to dress in a certain,
particular way. On the other hand, men are mandated to wear hats.
The ban on the headscarf is obviously the most ostentatious, yet not the only
manifestation of staunch secularism.
The provision that mandates inequality vis-à-vis the graduates of Imam
Hatip's religious faith school is another consequence of the secularism in Turkey.
The law that bans the teaching of our holy book Quran to our children under the age
of 12 is another reverberation of Turkey's secularism.
The unique construct (ph) of secularism espoused by the state is distinct
from the secularism adhered in the Western world. While the state adamantly
refrains itself from the cloud (ph) of religion over state affairs, over time it
shifted toward the other extreme, namely (ph), secular fundamentalism.
While it fervently rejects the concept of religious faith, it creates a state
religion. Due to this very fact, the Turkish religious authority, Diyanet, is a
faith institution.
Therefore, in conclusion, the conceptualization of such unique (inaudible) of
Turkish secularism must be overhauled. It must be reexamined through open
discourse. We must bring Turkish secularism from where it is at the far right to
where it is supposed to be on the continuum.
Meanwhile, the recent reforms Turkey has undertaken to meet the Copenhagen
criteria give new hope to women with headscarves. We know that the current
government acknowledges the discrimination. The pain caused by the ban hit the
homes of the members of the current government.
Recently, the speaker of the parliament enunciated that he was waiting in
patience for the revoke of the ban. We, the victims, are waiting. The parliament
is waiting. The Turkish people are waiting.
A recent study depicts that 71 percent of the people believe that the ban
must be lifted. This accounts for national consensus. U.S. Congress must urge the
Turkish officials to hear the people of Turkey and act upon the will of the people
to cease the blatant discrimination against women.
Every woman deserves the right to live and work in dignity.
Thank you.
PRYOR: Thank you very much, Ms. Kavakci.
I see that we've been joined by Congressman Hastings. Mr. Hastings, did you -
- you want me to just keep going?
Did you have a statement you wanted to make now?
HASTINGS: (inaudible).
PRYOR: OK. All right. Well, welcome. Glad to have you here.
The next speaker that we have is Father Kalayjian, originally from Syria.
He's an archpriest in the Armenian Orthodox Church. Prior to this, he served as a
parish priest in the Eastern Diocese of the Armenian Church of America.
He has worked both in the United States and Jerusalem and Amman in various
capacities. He's also served as a representative of the Diocese of the Armenian
Church, on the State Department's pornography commission and its reports on South
Africa, as well as the state of the affairs of the church communities in Eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Republics.
Father, we're pleased that you're here this morning, and you have the floor.
KALAYJIAN: Thank you, Madam Moderator. And it is indeed the pleasure to be
here and share this podium with the rest of the distinguished guests, and with the
Helsinki Commission members and the audience.
As it was said, I am Father Vertanes Kalayjian, pastor of St. Mary, Armenian
Apostolic Church. And I am here representing the Armenian Apostolic Church, Eastern
Diocese, headquartered in New York.
I thank you for the opportunity to address this briefing, and to voice our
concern relating to the status of the Armenian Church and the Armenian community in
Turkey.
Allow me first to speak about myself to provide a background for the
statements that I am about to make in this briefing.
I was born in Aleppo, Syria, and I was raised in the northern town of Azaz,
only 10 kilometers from the Turkish border. As a teenager, there were many
occasions when, with my friends, we would take a hike or take a bike ride to the
border. Another 10 kilometers beyond the Turkish border is the town of Kilis, the
birthplace of my parents, grandparents and my ancestors, a place which I could never
visit.
That was 50 years ago. Circumstances have changed, of course, as they do
with the passing of time. Now, as a U.S. citizen, I can go and visit my ancestral
lands and of my parents, and I did so in the year 2001 on the occasion of the 1700th
anniversary of Armenia's official declaration of Christianity as the faith of the
nation.
The official reception we received in Turkey was beyond our expectation.
Swept by the prevailing cordial reception, I suggested to the mayor of Kars, a
northeastern city near the border with Armenia, to plant a tree to commemorate the
occasion.
Before our departure to Armenia, our final destination of our pilgrimage, we
did plant a tree in one of the newest parks created by the mayor himself.
Mrs. Chairman, even though the circumstances have changed to some degree,
there are some thick clouds overshadowing the relations between our two nations, the
Turks and the Armenians.
In June of 2004, a few of our community leaders and I responded to an
invitation extended by the ambassador from the Turkish foreign ministry, Mr. Ecevet
Tayzhan (ph), for a first-hand exchange of views, as he put it.
Mr. Tayzhan (ph) went on to say in a follow-up letter, and I quote, "I hope
this exchange of views will bring positive results in the future, paving the way for
a better understanding between our societies, and for peace and prosperity in our
region. I have every reason to be optimistic." End of quote.
Mrs. Chairman, I regret to say that at this point, we have no reason yet to
share that optimism. I want to make clear that my lack of optimism has nothing to
do with almost insurmountable issue of the genocide, the Armenian genocide by the
Turks, which on this 90th anniversary year, we are commemorating in this month
worldwide.
And may I be allowed to observe a moment of silence.
It has, however -- thank you -- our lack of optimism has everything to do
with the steps and measures that the Turkish government can and must take
unilaterally to make life for the Armenian Church and the Armenian community in
Turkey bearable, to lift de facto second class citizenship, bureaucratic
obstructionism and discrimination perpetrated upon the Armenian and the other
Christian minorities -- and other minorities, as well. And here are the points I
really presented to the ambassador, and I share it with you.
One, safeguarding the ethnic culture and the religious rights of the Armenian
citizens of Turkey. It is telling that such minorities which have been part of the
landscape for centuries are referred to by the Turkish government, even today, as
indigenous foreigners.
Second, safeguarding uninhibited functioning of the remaining Armenian Church
structures and communities under the administrative, legal and spiritual authority
of the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul. That relationship doesn't exist.
Three, recognizing the legal personality for the Armenian Patriarchate. And
that creates its own myriad of problems.
Four, safeguarding the integrity, the independence and even encouraging the
positive contributions of the Armenian schools and institutions, such as the press,
hospitals, cultural and alumni associations.
And lastly, granting permission, or more correctly stated, restoring the
right of the Armenian Patriarchate to have and maintain a religious seminary to
produce the next generation of Armenian clergy to care for the religious, spiritual
needs of the Armenian population of Turkey.
It does not make sense at all to impose a requirement that the next patriarch
be elected from among the clergy who are Turkish citizens, when the operation of a
seminary to produce such candidates is hampered, does it?
Emanating from the points mentioned are also situations such as forcing a
government appointed vice principal, or some such official, upon the Armenian
schools. The result is lack of freedom of action, intimidation and an untenable
suspicious environment, let alone fear.
Routinely, the churches and institutions are denied physical repairs and
renovations, as mundane as it may sound. Yes, one may apply for such permits, but
you have to apply for it in Ankara, when the church is located in Istanbul. Ankara
is where the capital is. And the response, if any, may come detrimentally late,
sometimes too late.
Because of demographic changes and shifts, the status of the churches that
remain with little or no parishioners are not subject to the Patriarchate's
administrative discretion. The result has been confiscation of church properties,
because the government has decreed that they are not transferable to the
Patriarchate.
The Patriarchate, in the absence of legal identity, cannot address these
issues and other -- issues of other churches and properties that are abandoned since
the 1915 massacres and mass deportations. For the same reason, one cannot bequeath
property to the Patriarchate, or any other church, for that matter.
The restrictions were placed on how to identify a citizen in the identity
card. It is called nofus (ph) paper, nofus (ph) card.
The removed the previous practice of mentioning an individual's religion --
in this case Christian -- and ethnic identity -- Armenian. And then, by the
government decree, one could not enroll into the Armenian school unless you prove
you're an Armenian. Catch-22.
These items, Mrs. Chairman, cover some of the basic human, as well civil,
rights of the Armenian population of Turkey and the debilitating restrictions
imposed upon the Patriarchate and the churches under its jurisdiction.
We hope and pray that sober minded officials in the Turkish government will
find their way to correct them for the benefit of all. And I think this process
puts a positive beginning to it, and we hope that it will continue.
Thank you.
PRYOR: Thank you very much, Father Kalayjian, for that statement.
Our next speaker is Van Krikorian, the founding member of the Turkish-
Armenian Reconciliation Commission. He has served as the deputy representative and
counselor to the United Nations for the Republic of Armenia, as well as a member of
the U.S. delegation to the 1991 Moscow CSCE meeting.
Mr. Krikorian is also active in the Armenian Church and with several
charities, including the Armenian Assembly, on whose board he sits.
Additionally, he is a member of the International Experts Group on the
Armenian Genocide of the World Armenian Congress.
After a career as an international attorney with extensive work in
structuring investments, negotiating agreements and resolving disputes, Mr.
Krikorian currently serves as the president of Global Gold Corporation.
Thank you very much for being with us today.
KRIKORIAN: Thank you. And I think the CSCE also for convening this hearing,
for examining freedom of religion issues in Turkey, and inviting Father Kalayjian
and me to participate here today.
This is an especially meaningful event, as Father Kalayjian noted, because
April is the month in which Armenian genocide is commemorated. And we rededicate
ourselves to building a future in which that crime against humanity does not recur.
As Christians, and as Americans, we also welcome increased concern for
religious minorities as part of the United States' foreign policy.
One of our primary considerations today, therefore, is to try to improve, and
certainly not be the pretext for further damage to the conditions of life for
Armenians or any other group in Turkey.
For reference and for details in connection with my testimony today is
attached a report by Dr. Tessa Hoffman, published by the Forum of Armenian
Associations in Europe in October 2002, called "Armenia and Turkey Today: A
Critical Assessment," which details throughout the 20th century a lot of the
specific problems that the Armenian Church and Armenian minority has had in Turkey.
The first-hand experience I had with the CSCE and the Helsinki Commission's
remarkable work at the time of the Soviet Union's collapse, the Sumgait and Baku
pogroms, the attempted eradication of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the
transition to Armenian independence, will always be appreciated. And it's another
reason why I'm glad to be with you all here today.
Armenian presence in Turkey, however, is and has been tenuous. It is a
different kind of a situation. International commitments to reform, as we've heard
and as I'm sure we'll continue to hear, have regularly been followed by backlash,
leaving an even more damaged situation than before.
In an effort to break that cycle, Armenians and Turks are increasingly
engaged in civil society dialogue. There's a critical role for religious figures
and respect for religious rights in this process. If the CSCE can help catalyze and
secure progress in these areas, you'd achieve the kind of permanent results you have
helped to achieve in other areas. And that's a request that I have.
The dialogue process in which I took part is called the Turkish-Armenian
Reconciliation Commission -- that's www.tarc.info -- began in 2001 and ended last
year after, among other things, producing a legal opinion on the applicability of
the United Nations Genocide Convention, and producing joint recommendations from the
Turkish members and the Armenian members to the government on how relations of
Armenians and Turks and Armenian Turkey could be improved.
This process is also the subject of a recently published book
called "Unsilencing the Past," by our former chairman, David Phillips.
One of our joint recommendations -- and I've also attached those
recommendations to my testimony -- one of our joint recommendations dealt with
encouraging religious understanding. It stated that among civil society initiatives
there also opportunities for religious leaders to develop contacts and engage in
joint activities, as well as activities within their own groups, to promote
reconciliation between Turks and Armenians.
Those activities should be encouraged by government, including the
restoration of religious life and supporting the rights and functioning of religious
foundations.
It's fair to say that progress in Turkey is being driven by both external and
internal factors. Certainly, the European harmonization packages, as were noted
earlier, that were passed into Turkish law, are a testament to that combination.
But it seems that a growing number of public figures understand that entering
the European Union for Turkey is not some kind of standardized test where they meet
some objective criteria, by passing laws they'll get a passing grade.
They're increasingly understanding that fundamental change needs to take
place in Turkey, and that charges of religious prejudice against the European Union
ring hollow unless all Christian, Jewish and non-majority religious rights are
restored and respected in Turkey, in practice as well as on paper.
With that background and that suggestion for future CSCE activity, let me now
briefly discuss the specific situation of Armenian churches in Turkey.
There is an Armenian Protestant community in Turkey, which is active. And
there's also an Armenian Catholic community which is active. The majority of
Armenians in Turkey, as elsewhere, however, are members of the Armenian Apostolic
Orthodox Church led by Patriarch Mesrob II Mutafian.
That Patriarchate is one of the four hierarchical sees of the Armenian
Church, and the other patriarchate is in Jerusalem, Anvaratuk (ph) Catholicoi (ph,
one in Antelias, Lebanon, and then the Catholicos of all Armenians, who is in
Etchmiadzin, Armenia.
In 301, Armenia, as Father Kalayjian noted, was the first state to adopt
Christianity. And the vast majority of the Armenian homeland then, and for
millennia, stretches over modern Turkey.
In 1914, there were approximately 5,000 Armenian churches, seminaries and
schools registered by the Patriarchate, which attest to this historic presence in
Christian faith. Less than 50 Armenian churches are under the jurisdiction of the
Armenian Patriarchate today.
For centuries, Armenians paid -- and in many places still pay -- a high price
for their Christianity. The seizure and often destruction of Armenian church
property, of this Christian legacy, thus presents itself as a ripe area to
demonstrate reform and begin building confidence (ph).
Like other perversions of history, many of these ancient structures -- and
quite a few of them are more than 1,000 years old -- which were not destroyed were
desecrated to remove their true identity. Such sites as Ani and Akhtamar are
recognized as sites critical to world civilization. And the progress that's been
made there so far -- for example, Ani's been listed on the world monuments fund --
need to move to the next level.
In addition, the multitude of sites, such as the holy Garabed monastery in
Moosh, also need attention.
The Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople was established in 1461.
Patriarch Mesrob himself was born in Turkey, and I won't go into the rules
which Father Kalayjian noted, but he attended the University of Memphis here in the
United States. And so, I'd like to note that he has those roots, as well, as well
as the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the Pontifical University of St. Thomas
in Rome.
He was elected patriarch in March 1998 by a large margin, and has proven to
be a thoughtful, spiritual and well respected leader.
Although the population of Armenians in Turkey is estimated at 70,000 to
82,000, the Turkish government has also stated that another 30,000 to 40,000
Armenians from Armenia work in Istanbul.
These Armenians and the Armenians from Turkey are well known for their
piety. Church services are held daily. They are packed, and it's something that's
impressive for Armenians and other Christians all over the world, that they are so
pious, attend church and practice their faith in difficult circumstances the way
they do.
Especially for Armenians, because these are the remnants of the 2,100,000
Armenians that lived there before the genocide. Those numbers I know don't take
account of the progeny of Armenian children taken from their parents or forcibly
converted, or Muslim Armenians that exist there as well.
Turning to the current situation, on March 16th, the CSCE took testimony on
the situation of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The same
types of problems apply to Armenians, as can be seen from Dr. Hoffman's report.
These issues generally fall into three main categories.
First, the ability to conduct services, which includes the ability to train
and employ clergy.
Second, the ability to maintain Armenian schools without censorship and with
the ability for any Armenian student to attend whose parents so desire.
Third, the ability to fund, administer and operate the church and properties,
including restoring religious properties to their relevant religious group,
rectifying denials of parishioners rights to gift or bequeath property to support
their religious institutions, self governance and the ability to repair or improve
physical structures.
On March 16, co-chairman Smith I think summed this all up very well in his
opening statement. And I've quoted that in my written testimony, and I won't go
over it again. But basically, we know what the problems are. They're not new
problems. Congressman Smith recognized them, I'm sure. Everyone that participated
or read that testimony recognized them as well.
At one point he summed up that the issue is indeed black and white. Property
must be returned and expropriations must end.
The issue of allowing churches to train clergy really should not even exist.
Axiomatic to freedom of religion is the ability to train clergy to administer
religion. Denial or curtailment of that right is not only a denial of freedom of
religion established by law, but also counterproductive to fostering a tolerant
society.
The issue of allowing parishioners to support their church should also be a
black-and-white issue. Last month, a Turkish newspaper reported efforts to deprive
the Armenian hospital Surp Prgich, Holy Savior, of a multimillion U.S. dollar
bequest.
The Istanbul building was left to the hospital in 1952. The deed was
registered. And then in 1992, the government declared that the bequest violated the
1936 decree disallowing non-Muslims from donating real estate. And the property was
seized, as the original owners and their heirs were long gone.
The courts complied with the government. Not until there was an appeal to
the European Court of Human Rights did the ministry of finance refuse to approve the
prearranged sale. Proper compliance with the Treaty of Lausanne, which I know has
been examined in prior hearings as well, and other standards that apply in Turkey
protecting religious rights, would have never let this case get so far.
The good news, I think, that we can take out of this, though, is that it is a
Turkish newspaper that printed this story and exposed the situation and drew
attention to it. And that's a positive role that civil society is playing, and it
should be encouraged to play.
The issue of obstacles to repairing churches also recurs (inaudible). A
recent example is the report on the Samacha (ph) Armenian Church, where permits to
fix the roof went unissued for months. And when the parish took it upon themselves
just to simply fix the roof themselves, the authorities sealed the church doors and
closed it.
This is not behavior compatible with the rule of law or the type of society
many Turkish people want to see in their country.
But again, from that we can also see sort of the seeds of progress, because
one parish member actually was able to talk about it in public.
Unfortunately, and in addition to the list of current problems, the problems
of Christians in the '30s, the '40s, the '50s, the '60s, the '70s and every decade,
virtually, need to be openly discussed without fear of reprisal, and with an eye to
reconciliation.
Many of these problems are more in the nature of human rights, such as acts
of violence, extortion and theft against minorities, changing Armenian names to
Turkish names, persecution and denial of identity. And they've all been very well
documented over time.
A study titled, "The Christian Minorities of Turkey" was published in 1979 by
the church's committee on migrant workers in Europe, which thoroughly documents much
of that behavior. A former patriarch, Shinat Kalustian (ph), also published reports
describing adverse conditions, confiscatory acts, denial of Armenian identity and
interference with self governance. And I believe that the CSCE has also those
things on file going back to those years.
Accounts of other problems encountered by Armenians more recently in Turkey,
including violence to churches and holy places, violence against persons,
perpetuation of hostile atmosphere against the Patriarchate and Armenians also bear
the CSCE's and other's review and understanding.
The State Department's record on reporting infringements in the international
religious freedom report shows improvement from the past, but still does not do
justice to the situation.
For example, continuing breaches of Articles 38, 40, 41, 42 and 43 of the
Treaty of Lausanne, which in theory guaranteed Armenians may (ph) many of the same
religious rights which were promised before and are being promised again are soft
pedaled or overlooked. A simple comparison with other publicly available even
journalistic reports now coming from Turkey, those reports shows the deficiencies.
Today, we're also concerned with the fate of an Armenian evangelical
Protestant pastor in Turkey. He struggled and ended up in jail to avoid
confiscation of his church's property in the past, and last month discussed Armenian
genocide on television.
The past pattern has been retaliation and preemptive anti-Armenian and anti-
Christian activity for such behavior. Our hope and our prayers, however, are that
the historical patterns on that subject will also change, and the experience of
basic religious rights -- the exercise of basic religious rights -- and basic rights
such as freedom of speech will not be persecuted.
Here I can note that the study on the applicability of the genocide
convention, of which the reconciliation commission in which I participated, was
translated into Turkish, published by the "Turkish Daily News" and actually serves
as a basis for discussion in Turkey.
I can also say that there are more members of Turkish civil society willing
to discuss these problems than ever before, and that the government has so far at
least tacitly allowed more discussion to take place is a small but important step.
That trend really needs to continue.
Like the Armenian government and the majority of populations in both
countries, according to a poll taken jointly by Armenians and Turks, I also believe
that the establishment of diplomatic relations, as well as Turkey's lifting of its
blockade of Armenia, which ironically, but characteristically, is also the subject
of treaty obligations requiring Turkey to maintain an open border with Armenia,
would be positive contributions to this trend.
These are areas, like genocide recognition, where the United States can and
should be publicly engaged. There's a leadership role for the CSCE here. I hope
you accept it.
Thank you again for your efforts in promoting progress in this area.
PRYOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Krikorian, for your thoughtful remarks.
I'd like to now introduce our next speaker, who is Jeff King, the president
of International Christian Concern, who will give a statement on behalf of the
Turkish Protestant evangelical community.
The ICC is a nonprofit and interdenominational human rights organization
dedicated to assisting and sustaining Christians who are victims of persecution and
discrimination due to the practicing of faith. Core activities of the ICC are to
provide training for pastors in persecuted countries, advocates for the persecuted
in Washington, delivers humanitarian aid and raise awareness in the West about the
existence and severity of persecution worldwide.
Mr. King, welcome. You have the floor.
KING: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
The Republic of Turkey has traditionally identified minority citizens in
terms of ethno-religious affiliation. Christian minority citizens traditionally
have been of non-Turkish ethnic origin, and during the Ottoman Empire, as well as
later during the republic period, they have accepted their minority status and lived
according to the regulations of the Turkish government.
The rights of these ethnic minority Christians in the Turkish republic are
regulated by the Lausanne Treaty of 1923, which dates back to an era before
ethnically Turkish Protestants began to emerge.
Within some limits, the Turkish state protected the ethnic minorities and
allowed them autonomy in their own religious and cultural affairs. In the last
quarter century -- last quarter of the 20th century -- a small number of ethnically
Turkish citizens, members of the majority Muslim population, converted from Islam to
Christianity. And consequently, they have found themselves outside the protection
of this treaty.
Some, but by no means all, of these ethnically Turkish citizens who identify
themselves as Protestants, or as evangelicals, officially changed their religious
affiliation on their national identification cards. This official documentation of
their change of faith was permitted, albeit often with some official opposition by
the secular state of Turkey.
They refused to call themselves minority citizens, as ethnically they are
not. We can say that ethnically, they are not a minority, but in terms of religion
they are.
When identification of Turkish Protestants is strictly on a religious basis,
these citizens may be regarded as a miniscule minority in their own country. They
themselves estimate their numbers at 3,000 to 5,000. The major part of this
community has formed a network under the title of Alliance of Protestant Churches of
Turkey.
While this alliance, under current regulations, has not been able to register
as a legal entity, it has nevertheless been able to represent the Protestant
Christian community before national and international bodies.
The major root of present difficulties lies in the fact that outside of the
Sunni Muslim majority, all religious groups, including Protestants, find themselves
in a legal no man's land, as there have been no laws regarding the legal identity of
religious bodies. Therefore, churches have been unable to own property, employ
people, have bank accounts or conduct any activities on an official basis.
Another root source of the problems has been the absence of laws regarding
the opening of places of worship. However, in the last couple of years through
local and international pressure, there have been steps toward legal reforms in
these areas, as Turkey is seeking to comply with European Union standards.
These reforms theoretically now allow for places of worship to be opened upon
receiving the permission of local authorities.
Also, changes in associations laws have now permitted Protestant churches to
take steps towards being legal entities in the form of associations. However,
churches and other religious communities have as yet to see the practical outworking
of these changes.
As a trial case, a local Protestant church in Ankara applied to become an
association and was ratified as such in March 2005. It remains to be seen how this
will officially work.
With regard to places of worship, church buildings that have been in
existence since the pre-republic era of Turkey remain zoned and protected as
churches through international treaties. These buildings, even though many may
stand empty today, are not easily available to the Turkish Protestants. There are
some exceptions, primarily Turkish Christian Protestant congregations meeting weekly
for worship in ethnic minority Christian church buildings by permission from these
minorities.
Therefore, ethnically Turkish Protestants have felt obliged to rent
apartments or buildings not zoned for religious purposes in order to gather weekly
for worship.
Although there has been one exception to this recently, the great majority of
those seeking to meet as congregations face the near impossible regulatory
situation, and currently, over 20 churches have ongoing court cases in this area,
including some at the European Court of Human Rights.
Turkish Protestants have been consistently granted their constitutional
rights by the judicial branch of the Turkish government. However, laws, regulations
or ordinances which would allow them to structure their church are either
nonexistent or vague, and thus leaving Protestant churches to the mercy and
prejudices of the local authorities.
Thankfully, ethnically Turkish Protestants do not have too many instances of
human rights violations to report. However, from time to time, and most intensively
since the start of 2005, the popular media and other institutions, including some
state officials and offices, such as the directorate of religious affairs, has waged
a relentless slander and blatant disinformation campaign, particularly against the
Protestant Christian community and any form of evangelism.
An ugly picture is being continually presented of the Christian community,
portraying them as a public enemy out to undermine Turkey.
People have been incited to make attacks on Christian individuals and
churches in a number of cities, including Izmit, Samsun and Ankara. Since these
churches do not have a legal existence, individual Turkish Christians have opened
court cases against some of the perpetrating media.
But this small community of faith is hard pressed to keep up with, much less
cope with this onslaught. Sadly, the government has turned a blind eye to all this
recent increase in negative attitudes and attacks, seeming to be supportive of this
active disinformation campaign.
Across the country, numerous converts within Protestant churches are being
harassed by members of state security, either directly or through visits to
relatives and neighbors. These tactics are aimed at denigrating and shaming these
Christians among their family and acquaintances. The goal seems to be to try to
instill fear and separate the Protestant converts from their immediate social
network.
These present activities against the Protestant community in Turkey are
currently the greatest concern for this faith community. Hopefully, in the coming
months and years, the legal process will be slowly but gradually ironed out. But
until this happens, the struggle for these men and women and children will be to
gain acceptance by their own government and their society, as both sincere citizens
as well as sincere Christians.
PRYOR: Thank you, Mr. King.
We now turn to our final speaker, Barry Jacobs. He's the Director of
Strategic Studies at the American Jewish Committee's Office of Government and
International Affairs.
The AJC has a cooperative agreement with the Turkish Jewish community. As a
result, Mr. Jacobs is a regular visitor to Turkey, and a close observer of Turkish
affairs.
Mr. Jacobs was a senior foreign service officer with the United States
Information Agency for 26 years, serving on four continents in seven countries,
including Greece, Cyprus and Israel.
He has also served as deputy director of the Washington Foreign Press Center,
deputy program manager for USIA's WorldNet Television service, director of USIA's
Latin America Wireless Cloud, and vice president for international media for the
Discovery Channel's network in Latin America and Asia.
I now turn the floor to you, Mr. Jacobs. Welcome.
JACOBS: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you, Congressman Hastings. I
would also like to thank Senator Brownback and Representative Smith for the
outstanding work they have done in overseeing this commission.
I am Barry Jacobs. I'm the Director of Strategic Studies for the American
Jewish Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you.
As the chairwoman has said, I am not Turkish. But for the last eight years I
have followed the affairs of Turkey and the welfare of the Turkish Jewish community
very closely. My organization has a cooperative agreement with the Turkish Jewish
community. I am a regular visitor to Turkey, and a close observer of Turkish
affairs.
As a foreign service officer, I never served in Turkey itself, but I did
spend two years in Greece, three years on the island of Cyprus, where my first child
was born, and visited Turkey several times as a tourist. I now follow events
closely, and I'm a frequent visitor to the republic.
I have talked with the Jewish community of Turkey in Istanbul in preparing
these remarks. I would like to start by stating that the 25,000 person Jewish
community of Turkey is free to practice its religion as it wishes. Its synagogues
and institutions are protected by the Turkish authorities. Its leaders meet
regularly with Turkish political leaders, and its members live and work as they wish.
It is a strong middle class community, well represented in the professions,
with a small number of top-level, wealthy industrialists and business executives.
For over 500 years, the peoples of Turkish and its predecessor, the Ottoman
Empire, offered refuge to Jews driven by rampant and murderous anti-Semitism from
Europe.
In August of 1492, when Columbus embarked on his most famous expedition to
the New World, his fleet departed from the relatively unknown seaport of Palos,
because the shipping lanes of Cadiz and Seville were clogged with Sephardic Jews
expelled from Spain by the edict of Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand.
Sultan Bayazid II, offerer of refuge, gave new hope to the persecuted Spanish
Jews. In 1492, Sultan ordered the governors of the provinces of the Ottoman Empire,
and I quote, not to refuse the Jews entry or cause them difficulties, but to receive
the cordially.
Moreover, even before 1492, the Jews welcomed the military successes of the
Ottomans in the 14th and 15th centuries, when the Ottomans captured Bursa in 1326,
they found a Jewish community that had been persecuted during long centuries of
Byzantine rule.
Over the next decades, the country became a haven for Jews fleeing repression
and expulsion for various parts of Europe, including Hungary, France, Spain, Sicily,
Salonika, and Bavaria. In the liberal atmosphere of Ottoman rule, Jewish activity
flourished, and many Jews held important positions. Istanbul was the home of great
rabbis and scholars, and was a Hebrew book printing center.
This history is important, because it sets the tone for Jewish religious
practices in today's Turkey. This history is even more remarkable today, in that
Turkey is a country that is 99 percent Muslim. It is a tribute to the greatness of
the founder of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk, that the Republic of Turkey is the only
secular democratic state besides Israel in a difficult region.
It is a loyal member and the only Muslim member state of NATO. And it was
the first Muslim country, and only the second state overall, to recognize the
newborn Jewish state of Israel in 1948.
During the Second World War, as historian Stanford Shaw, Professor Emeritus
of Turkish and Judeo-Turkish history at the University of California in Los Angeles,
UCLA, writes, "While six million Jews were being exterminated by the Nazis, the
rescue of some 15,000 Turkish Jews from France, and even of some 100,000 Jews from
Eastern Europe, might well be considered as relatively insignificant in comparison."
It was, however, very significant to the people who were rescued. And above
all, it showed that, as had been the case for more than five centuries, Turks and
Jews continued to help each other in times of great crises.
Nevertheless, being a Jew in Turkey is not always easy. In November 2003, on
Shabbat, suicide terrorists with ties to al Qaeda detonated truck bombs in front of
two synagogues in Istanbul, killing 25 people and wounding hundreds, most of them
Turkish Muslims who happened to be in the vicinity.
This was the second murderous attack on Neveh Shalom, the chief synagogue, in
the past quarter of a century. The first took place in 1986, when two foreign
terrorists tied to Abu Nidal entered the temple firing machine guns and throwing
hand grenades, killing 22 of the 30 worshippers present that Saturday morning.
A large clock stands near the boarded entrance of Neveh Shalom, its hands
stopped forever at the time that the attack occurred. Above it, the name of each
victim is carved into stone.
Turkey is currently going through a period of fevered nationalism. Its media
and political comment is stridently anti-West, anti-American and anti-Israel.
Attitudes the frequently bleed into outright anti-Semitism. "Mein Kampf," as has
been mentioned, is a bestseller.
My former colleague and longtime friend, Ambassador Eric Edelman, a
distinguished career diplomat who has been our envoy in Ankara these past two years,
was greeted by a headline in the daily newspaper "Vakit" -- and I must apologize, I
identified in the papers out in the hall as "Vatan," it was "Vakit" -- welcoming, in
quotes, the Jew ambassador.
Turkey has a free press, but both the American Jewish Committee and the
friends of the Turkish Jewish committee call on the Turkish leadership in the media
and intellectual and academic circles -- and, most importantly, in the political
leadership -- to openly and vigorously denounce this rising cacophony of anti-
Semitic pronouncements. These create a dangerous and hostile atmosphere, especially
towards the community of loyal Jewish Turkish citizens and stain the tapestry of 500
years of Turkish tolerance for diverse religious communities.
Moreover, much of the worst religious slander pours forth from newspapers
that, if not official organs of the ruling Justice and Development Party, are
nonetheless closely aligned with its leadership. Two of the most notorious
publications are "Yeni Safak" and "Terkurman." And I should add "Vakit" and --
"Milli Gazete." Excuse me, I had to think.
Turkey, in line with many European nations, has so-called anti-hate
legislation. We urge Turkey's prosecutor of the republic, that is, its attorney
general, to both openly denounce such messages and to employ this legislation to
actively prosecute religious slander and libelous articles in the media.
On the positive side, AJC praises the new legislation that brings Turkish
jurisprudence more in line with that of the European Union.
On an issue of great importance to the Turkish Jewish community, new laws
have fundamentally improved the property management of minority foundations. This
now permits the Jewish community to buy, sell and rent property belonging to its
synagogue foundations, and this new system is functioning to the community's
satisfaction. The community has purchased and sold property, and has encountered no
obstacles.
There is an official list of religious foundations, and the community hopes
that those of its unlisted foundations will soon be included.
There is another issue that may appear humorous, but is actually quite
serious. Both Islam and Judaism include ritual circumcision. Those Jews in Turkey
who perform this operation lack the official sanction of their Muslim counterparts.
This results from the fact that they have not received the same training as their
Muslim colleagues, but have taken equivalent courses in Israel, and have obtained
the necessary certification there.
It would be useful if arrangements could be enacted to grant recognition and
equivalency to the Israeli certification.
There is one outstanding issue that is of great importance to the Turkish
Jewish community, and that is supported by Jews throughout the world. Jewish
synagogues in Turkey are located in built-up urban areas that are almost impossible
to secure without greatly inconveniencing Muslim neighbors and businessmen.
Even before the November 2003 attacks on the two synagogues, the community
has been seeking a plot of land in Istanbul to construct a secure community and
religious center, large enough to accommodate community celebrations including
weddings bar mitzvahs.
Both the current AK Party administration and its predecessors have promised
to accommodate this request, but little has been done, because of bureaucratic
obstructionism. We urge the responsible governments, particularly the Istanbul
municipality, to work with the community to solve this grave danger resulting from
the lack of a secure location to both worship and to celebrate.
We, at the American Jewish Committee, stress that there are actions we would
like to see Turkish authorities take to help secure and ameliorate the concerns of
its Jewish citizens. These suggestions should not in any way obviate that we
believe Turkey's history and the current situation deserves greater recognition by
those outside its borders for the toleration it has shown and still shows.
This is particularly worthy of praise at a time when we see rising and
violent anti-Semitism in the rest of Europe.
And I should like to add that the American Jewish community supports and
openly encourages the Turkish government to grant the same conditions that the
Jewish community experiences to our friends in both the Armenian and the Greek
Orthodox communities, the need for the ability to train their own clergy, to reopen
religious institutions for the training of such clergy, and to regularize the
conditions both in theory, but also in practice that will allow the religious
communities to care for, expand and modify, as they see fit, their own properties.
Thank you.
PRYOR: Mr. Jacobs, thank you very much.
We're going to open the floor in a few minutes for questions, but first we
welcome some remarks by Congressman Hastings.
HASTINGS: Thank you very much, Ms. Pryor, for presiding. And I want to
thank the panelists all for coming today to this important briefing on religious
freedom in Turkey.
I also apologize for being a bit tardy. Rather interestingly and ironically,
I was meeting with 20 representatives of the Black Sea region, which includes
Armenia and Azerbaijan, and also Turkish representatives, before coming here. And
interestingly, they raised the subject of religious freedom. And I informed them
that I would be coming to this commission meeting.
As has been mentioned, Senator Brownback and Congressman Smith, our other
colleagues in the Helsinki Commission, have been very active not only in this
particular aspect of the commission's mandate, but in a general way, to advance the
cause of religious freedom and human rights.
I have traveled to Turkey many times. And I've also traveled to Armenia and
Azerbaijan. I've always enjoyed Turkish hospitality, and am mindful that Turkey and
the United States are allies and founding OSCE participating states.
I also support Turkish accession into the European Union. And in my most
recent visit, I said to President Erdogan that it would be my great hope that that
would happen sooner rather than later.
I'd like to recognize the great improvements made to Turkish law and policy.
Still, as have been pointed out here, there are areas that need improvement. And I
hope that the Turkish government will take note of the areas highlighted today in
such a succinct and candid manner as all of our presenters have put forward, so that
all Turkish citizens can enjoy their religious freedom.
Religious freedom is a fundamental human right. So I urge the government to
continue with its reforms in this sphere.
I guess it's accidental and coincidental that this hearing is established
shortly after the death and funereal experiences that all of us have witnessed with
reference to Pope John Paul II, and the ongoing commemoration of one individual's
extraordinary work in reaching out. Notwithstanding some of his critics, all, I
think, would agree that he made an effort to try to bring the world's religions into
focus together.
We state the obvious, so that we don't leave this hearing thinking that
religious freedom issues exist just in Turkey. Recently in Russia, same subject.
Some years back in China, same subject. All over Europe, with the advent of a
substantial number of Muslims and scarf issues in France and elsewhere, the U.K.,
same subject.
And lest I give the impression that it's everywhere else in every other
country, the United States still has some issues concerning religious freedom.
Notwithstanding the fact that people can openly practice their religions here, there
are times when certain religions are identified by some, in a way to refer to them
as cults. A fellow said to me once that one man's cult is another man's religion.
And somehow or another, we have to come to terms with all of this.
I, week before last, was at the Church of Nations in Israel. And I saw the
Lord's Prayer in each of the languages that was represented there.
After being there, I went to Greece. And in Greece on the Greek side of the
green line and on the Turkish side of the green line, I watched and listened to the
song birds. And I thought to myself, you know, it's us humans that create these
divisions and these lines. The birds, I'm sure don't always agree on nesting rights
and territories, but at least they were free to cross the green line, back and
forth, without there being difficulties.
I would urge their leaders to follow the birds, and perhaps all of us would
be very wise to take into consideration the need for strong ecumenism,
interdenominational undertakings on behalf of all of us, intercultural and
interfaith actions on behalf of all of us.
And it would be helpful if those of us that are Christians would spend some
time trying to walk two miles in the moccasins of those in Islam, and that those in
Islam would take time to recognize that Buddhists exist in this world. And I could
go on and on and on.
Part of the problem is, we isolate ourselves within the framework of our own
convictions and our own beliefs, and are not willing to reach out and try and
understand others.
I hope that's what we advance here today. I think the panelists have given
us an extraordinary amount of food for thought. And I'm sure that the Helsinki
Commission will accept this mandate in pursuing religious freedom for all of
humankind.
Thank you.
PRYOR: Thank you very much, Congressman Hastings.
We're going to open the floor now. And if I may, I'd like to ask those who
want to ask questions and make statements do three things for us.
One is to come to the microphone to ask a question. That helps those who are
recording for our transcript.
Second is to identify yourself and your affiliation. And the third is to
stay within the boundaries of the subject matter today, and not stray too far away.
And remember that this session today, we're really looking at the situation faced by
Muslims, Protestants, members of the Armenian Orthodox and the Jewish community with
the Republic of Turkey.
So I now open the floor.
Yes, Mr. Yildiz (ph)? Mr. Yildiz (ph), I think, was going to ask first.
Please.
YILDIZ (ph): Hi. This is Marty Yildiz (ph) from the Turkish embassy, first
section of the embassy dealing with human rights issues.
Since Turkey is the subject matter, I hope you can bear some comments of my
side. I will not have any questions to the speakers.
First of all, I would like to thank the commission for the interest shown in
the religious freedoms in Turkey. And I assure you that (inaudible) has things in
this (inaudible) end, and the speakers, of course, that the testimonies of them will
be transmitted back to Ankara.
This is the second meeting that's held within the framework of this
commission. It's a series of meetings on religious freedom in Turkey. And the
first meeting was held last month under the title of recourse (ph) to the church in
Turkey, with the most systematic expropriation.
So, be (ph) very much, it's only four days before that conference, that
meeting, to attend the meeting, which was biased, I should say, not only as with the
title, but to its composition of speakers, I should say.
Unfortunately, this meeting has been committed (ph) at least under an
unbiased title, I should say, saying that religious freedom is something to get
appreciated, of course.
But as to the speakers, except for Mr. Barry Jacobs, maybe, to a certain
extent, I see that this special effort which was (inaudible) during the first
meeting, as regards to selecting the speakers, was preserved.
You may wonder why we were not, you know -- why we -- you refrain from
participating to the conference as speakers.
I believe it's Turkey's right to let's say reserve its position as regards to
participating at a gathering which consists (ph) of people who are, in fact, I
should say, striving for promotion of their mostly personal and restricted (ph)
agendas, who didn't even, let's say, miss the opportunity to reserve (ph) in such a,
under such a title, to the so-called Armenian genocide, which has got nothing to do
with the title of the meeting, let's just say.
Turkey will continue to let its, let's say, efforts and reforms on the
religious freedom be known by the world public opinion and American public opinion,
of course, in the appropriate forums, like OSCE and during our celebrations with the
European Union. We will continue our efforts to let the world public opinion and
U.S. and E.U. public opinion know about our efforts in the course and within the
framework of appropriate forums.
Thank you for giving me the chance to speak. Thank you.
PRYOR: Thank you very much.
Again, questions from the floor. Gentleman on the front row?
ELIAN (ph): My name is Hague Elian (ph). I have no organizational
affiliations except for being a Christian Armenian since 301 A.D. I wear my age
well, I know, but ...
(LAUGHTER)
ELIAN (ph): As a young reporter on the "Miami Herald," Congressman Hastings'
home state, in the 1950s, I was working the night desk. And a one-line item came
across the desk from the wire services.
And it said merely that Armenians, Jews and Greeks were being taxed in the
middle of the night in the Turkish provinces. And because they didn't have the
necessary gold pieces, their homes and properties were being confiscated -- 1950s.
Fast forward to the set of a cable television station in Maryland where I
have a talk show. And my guest was a Turkish artist of Jewish ethnic faith. And we
were discussing this situation. And he said -- and I quote -- "Oh, no. The Jews
were not victims, but the Turks thought that they were Armenians."
In legal circles we laughingly refer to this as the mistaken victim,
accidental victim defense.
And he said it with a straight face. And now I read Congressman Cardin's
comment that when the Jewish synagogues were bombed in Istanbul, that it was not
aimed at the Turkish minorities in Istanbul. Again, the accidental victim.
Turkey has been getting away with this since 1895, as far as their minorities
are concerned. And we sit here with straight faces and talk about the progress in
Turkey. There has been no progress in Turkey. The persecutions continue.
Mr. Jacobs pointed out that they do have some issues. And, yes, they do.
And the issues have not gone away, and probably will not go away for years to come.
My question generally speaking is, we appear to be preaching to the choir
this morning. And that's not enough.
If anything is to be done, Turkey is to be called to blame for their
actions. Pure honesty is all we ask for.
For Mr. Jacobs' edification, it is said that German officers in Turkey, their
allies during World War I, advised the Turkish government on the genocidal attacks
on the Armenians. And in 1936 in Munich, when Adolf Hitler told the world that he
was going to exterminate the Jewish population of Germany, he used the Armenian
genocide as an example and as a pattern for that genocide.
And as a matter of fact, it is said that the German officers that were in
Turkey in 1915 were the same German officers that were advising Mr. Hitler in 1936.
Accidental? I don't think so. Not according to the history books.
But we are preaching to the choir here. I urge to commission to take what
has been said here very seriously, and to not cajole Turkey with words of, or
promises of entering into the European Union, but to very firmly state, it's time to
fess up, fellows.
Thanks for your indulgence.
PRYOR: Any comments?
Who else has a question? A few in the back?
COSMAN: Cathy Cosman, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
Thank you so much for holding this very valuable event, and the previous one.
I did have a question about the situation of the syncretic religious group
known as the Alawites, who consider themselves to be Muslims. And I believe they
are up to 20 percent of the Turkish, the ethnic Turkish population.
I was wondering if one of the speakers could address their situation. I
imagine that their legal situation may be rather similar to that described by Mr.
King, but I don't know. And if someone could describe that, I'd be very grateful.
Thank you.
PRYOR: Anybody want to tackle this? No?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Only that they did appear before the same commission, it
seems to me, several months ago.
PRYOR: I'm being told by the experts here that they were invited, but nobody
was able to appear.
Yes?
KALAYJIAN: The only thought that I can offer, is the fact that any reference
to the word minority, Turkish government considers that as a threat to their
national security. Take it from there.
HASTINGS: I'd ask that you do one thing, and that's leave your name and
number, and we'll make an effort here in the commission to get you more finite
information.
KRIKORIAN: And just anecdotally I could say that when I was in Istanbul a
while ago, I was talking to an Armenian friend who said that Alawites were
persecuted and had problems. They're not a minority as was understood under the
Treaty of Lausanne.
But it really came home, because on one occasion, a family of that faith came
to Istanbul and asked to be converted to Armenian. And they were asked why. And
they said, well, we just found out that we were Armenians, but they told us not to
identify ourselves as Armenians, because we would have been persecuted because of
that.
And we're persecuted because we're Alawites, so we might as well be
persecuted for what we are instead of something for what we're not.
PRYOR: Questions?
The young woman (inaudible)?
FENDERSON (ph): Rebecca Fenderson (ph). Howard University, Department of
International Relations.
My question is for Ms. Kavakci. You mentioned the social ramifications of
the ban on the headscarf. Can you please elaborate?
KAVAKCI: The social ramifications of the ban includes emergence of what we
consider as a step (ph), a social class of women who identify themselves with the
victims -- as the victims -- of the headscarf ban.
Most -- some of the very privileged women or girls who had the opportunity to
leave the country, continue their education and their lives in other countries,
including the United States. Canada has been very welcoming. Some of them live
there through receiving Canadian citizenship and political asylum for such matters.
Some well-to-do ones are in the United States. But the large population of
those women who have been banned from wearing their headscarves are in Europe. Some
of them do go to school in Austria. Especially medical school students, the
Austrian government has been very receptive.
The rest, the underprivileged ones go, have either succumbed to the system
for a variety of reasons, from family pressures to economic concerns, decided to
take their headscarves off and continue.
The rest basically, they emerged as these women who identified themselves as
former teachers, former attorneys, former medical doctors or academics. But yet,
simply homemakers. These women established this, a social stratum, if you will, of
the victimized women with headscarves.
PRYOR: Yes. I see one in the front row here.
MANDEL: Thank you. My name is Ruth Mandel. I'm an anthropologist working
at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington. I'm a
visiting fellow.
This is in response to two questions ago about Alevis, just for the record.
I've been doing research on the Alevi communities for about 20 years. And just very
briefly, they -- the situation has improved there. There was a 1998 court case
forbidding the building of what's called a "cemevi," an Alevi's place of worship.
And so, that has been overturned.
In addition, there has been what's called by many scholars a renaissance and
a revival of Alevilik, of Alevism and expressions. Twenty years ago it was very
underground and covert. Today it's very open, much more open. There's hundreds of
Web sites and publications and all kinds of things.
This is not to say that there's not enduring public prejudice. There's a
great deal of animosity on a colloquial, vernacular level, if you will, throughout
the Sunni Muslim community. And there is not a great deal of intermarriage between
Sunnis and Alevis.
There's no direct population figures, because people are not -- there's no
census data about that, but the estimates range anywhere from 10 to 25 percent of
the population being Alevi. And within the Alevi community there are many different
types and languages spoken.
And lastly, about the Armenian Alevi connection, I've just done some research
on that. And there's very interesting connections, even that go back to Apolic (ph)
period. And there's been a lot of mutual influence among the Alevis in the eastern
Anatolia Dersen region in particular.
And many Armenians were actually, during the massacres, sheltered and taken
in by Alevis, and eventually now have become Alevis. Don't speak Armenian anymore,
but still have some Armenian identification. They have ritual kinship relations
with each other.
Thank you.
PRYOR: Thank you very much for filling in that information for us. It's
good that you were here.
Are there other questions or comments?
KALAYJIAN: May ...
PRYOR: I have one comment.
KALAYJIAN: May I ...
PRYOR: Yes.
KALAYJIAN: In the light of the presentation by Mr. Jacobs, it occurred to me
that probably we sounded a little bit limited in the scope of our presentation -- or
may presentation, at least -- vis-à-vis Turkish-Armenian relationship.
If we want to go as far back as history, as Mr. Jacobs did, one should
acknowledge the fact that the Armenian Church is the beneficiary of the Ottoman
Empire's policy, in that it guaranteed or secured the Armenian legal presence in
Jerusalem, in the holy places, and all over the Palestine and Israel landscape where
the Armenian Church owns and operates many sanctuaries related to Christian
tradition.
And also, the fact that Armenian arts and literature flourished in Istanbul.
And we consider the 19th century as the awakening, or the great activities of
Armenian literature and arts, and et cetera.
We're not talking about past history to give accolades on the Ottoman Empire
in the past. And there are many reasons to probably go over that in the appropriate
environment.
But we are talking about what happened after 1890s or 1860s. Maybe even we
can go and say 1800s.
Something very drastic thing happened. And that was the disintegration of
the Ottoman Empire. And with that, unfortunately, the paranoid attitude of the
leaders, both sultans and the successive, the Tihad (ph) and Teraki (ph) Party, and
their successor, Kemal, which now is being imagined as a hero, it was another
butcher, if you ask me.
And these people, to guarantee the ethnic survival of the Turkish nation, on
the same land where the Armenians were there for thousands and thousands of years,
one of them had to go, and the Turks prevailed. That's the bottom line of this
history.
Now, however, we are dealing with a real situation on the ground. And I
respect the hospitality that Mr. Hastings has received in Turkey, and they're very
good at it. But that doesn't change that their mistreatment of their own citizens,
Mr. Hastings. And that's the issue here. Not how good they were for the Jews
fleeing from Spain, or how good they were for the Armenians in Jerusalem.
What's happening today? And that's the important.
And I didn't even mention as a request or as a demand, as a case, the
Armenian genocide. It was only passing. And we didn't mention that with Mr. Tajun
(ph), when we met to discuss some of his issues, to create a more positive and more
hopeful environment. We never received a goodwill gesture, a confidence building
something that you can latch on and go on from that point.
This is what we are looking for. An extended hand that will say, let's start
solving today's problems. And that's what we are asking.
PRYOR: We'll take this one question, and then we'll go back with you. You
had a question, madam?
CHILTON: Hi. I'm Elizabeth Chilton. I'm with the Armenian National
Committee of America. And I really, really do appreciate the CSCE for opening up
the forum today to be focusing on this very important topic, because the issue of
religious repression within Turkey is certainly something that Armenian Americans,
Amik (ph) Americans, and (ph) not (ph) Christian minorities know about.
I'd like to kind of extend that and follow in Father Kalayjian's kind of
vein. The repression, of course, is not just religious. It also focuses on
Armenian genocide denial. And while we do see positives, perhaps, in civil society,
we see a constant, constant dual message of repression from the Turkish government,
specifically with criminalizing the mention of the Armenian genocide within their
laws -- Turkish Penal Code Number 306.
And then forcing students within Turkey to learn genocide denial, according
to the Turkish education minister's decree just a couple of years ago.
And so, my question is, for all those who talk about progress in terms of
civil society, isn't this, in fact, really just a subterfuge? And the reality of
what we're seeing is the Turkish government following the same policy of denial,
policy of repression that it's had, unfortunately, for 90 years on the genocide.
And can we hear some comments from our speakers with respect to that? Thank you.
PRYOR: Comments from the panelists?
HASTINGS: If no one wants to comment, I would urge that while we are
speaking, genocide is occurring in Darfur. I'm curious if many of us who are
concerned about past genocides are prepared to let them become lessons learned and
move forward, or to try and avert the occurrences that take place and have taken
place very recently. Not meant to detract from the awesomeness of your concern,
which I full well understand.
But I come again to the past and what took place in Rwanda. And I happened
to be in this very same room with an African American named George Moose, seated in
chairs assemble. And he held the African desk for the United States State
Department.
Congressman Donald Payne and I asked him repeatedly whether or not what was
transpiring in genocide, and they were upwards of 360 -- there were upwards of
360,000 people at that point, Don and I having been there and seen some of it. And
they kept talking all sorts of fancy words all the way throughout that process. And
it wasn't until three years later that Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright said that
it was genocide.
Now, I don't mean to put down anybody's notion about what they consider to be
right with reference to their own set of circumstances. But I leave you, because I
have to go to another meeting with a thought, just to show you how it's pervasive.
And not only can Turkey, according to some, have an accusing finger pointed at them.
I don't recall anywhere in the United States of America that anybody that has
led this country has apologized for slavery. And I'll leave it at that.
PRYOR: Mr. Hastings, thank you for being with us.
And for those comments, Mr. Yildiz (ph), I believe you had some comments.
YILDIZ (ph): Sorry for taking the floor once more.
That was exactly what I meant when Father Kalayjian referred to us
(inaudible) as butchers.
As long as you cannot condone calling George Washington a butcher in this,
under this group, you cannot condone calling the founder of the nation, the founder
of a state, being called that, as butcher. Because Ataturk in his personality
represents the dignity of this nation.
And the insult that has just been made was an insult to my country and my
nation, I should say. And this should be taken note of by the commission, bearing
in mind for the future events that you will organize, that you should be
scrutinizing the background of the persons that you are inviting to this forum, or
you should maybe set a code of conduct, which the speakers would refrain from making
general insults to the dignity of the nation.
Thank you.
PRYOR: Thank you for your comments.
I'm going to close the briefing at this point. We want to thank all of our
distinguished panelists, who gave us most stimulating presentations this morning.
Thank you for your time in being with us.
Thank everybody who came. The hearing is closed.
Whereupon the briefing ended at 11:50 a.m.
END
|